8 ms·

Fire your Australian employees. This isnt about “Jobs for the sake of Jobs” this is about a secure product. But you already knew that.

aplummer 8y ago
Consider than any employee could be threatened physically and capitulate to a demand, and this is just another, not necessarily greater application of force.
- mirimir 8y ago
  True. But then they go to the police about it. Except that doesn't work for this. Even if you're overseas, I doubt that authorities will come between you and your lawful government. And OK, maybe they would, if it were North Korea, or even China. But Australia? That seems unlikely. Especially with the 5/13/whatever Eyes aspect.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
And in particular: State so clearly, in written form, so that the people you fire have something to show their representatives. Those idiots obviously can't think in hypotheticals, but they might well understand "I got fired because of this law".
diebeforei485 8y ago
Or, help them relocate to another country.
- TomK32 8y ago
  But it's Christmas, best time to fire someone.
  - gammateam 8y ago
    This will be a timeless expression of sanity, far longer than the holiday season
- saati 8y ago
  They will be still subject to Australian laws, so that's not enough.
sqldba 8y ago
Fire any possible UK, US, and Chinese nationality employees seeing as they're all subject to similar laws.
- TimMurnaghan 8y ago
  Don't forget the Americans with the Patriot act
cyphar 8y ago
Please note, if you're an employer, you will need to consider Australian labour laws and whether firing Australian employees is allowed. If I was fired because of a legislation change I'd sue my employer for unfair dismissal. But of course, that assumes your (Australian) subsidiary continues running. I would expect that you'd want to shut that down too, since it could be given a TCN as well -- and the fines for noncompliance are in the millions.
- gammateam 8y ago
  > If I was fired because of a legislation change I'd sue my employer for unfair dismissal It would be because you showed up to work late, or your performance suffered. There is plenty of discretion for normal practices to become scrutinized when convenient in an employer-employee relationship. This always leaves the former employee to spend time and resources trying to make some impossible correlation that could only be proven if the employer said the most amateurish thing possible.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    > There is plenty of discretion for normal practices to become scrutinized when convenient in an employer-employee relationship. As someone who has had family members go through the unfair dismissal process (where an employer tried to pull exactly this tactic), employers cannot just lie about the reasons for a dismissal. Doing so can actually result in larger compensation, as a punitive measure. There needs to be sufficient evidence for the lay-off, as well as evidence that it was a long-term issue. Courts often favour employees in such cases (in one case a friend was unfairly dismissed from CSIRO, a government body, and they received the maximum possible compensation as well as assistance from CSIRO to help him update his resume for his next job). But this is besides the point. The topic in question is whether employers should lay off their employees in protest of the new law -- it would hardly be an effective protest if you didn't state why you were laying this people off. It'd also be ridiculously suspicious if the entire Australian office was fired because they "consistently showed up to work late". Don't get me wrong, I really hope companies retaliate by killing Australia's tech industry so the government realises how much they just shot themselves in the feet (if you can't buy an iPhone from Apple in Australia I guarantee there will be riots -- that's just what it takes unfortunately). But if you're an employer you should make your employees whole -- because doing otherwise will result in lawsuits.

aplummer 8y ago

Consider than any employee could be threatened physically and capitulate to a demand, and this is just another, not necessarily greater application of force.

mirimir 8y ago
True. But then they go to the police about it. Except that doesn't work for this. Even if you're overseas, I doubt that authorities will come between you and your lawful government. And OK, maybe they would, if it were North Korea, or even China. But Australia? That seems unlikely. Especially with the 5/13/whatever Eyes aspect.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

And in particular: State so clearly, in written form, so that the people you fire have something to show their representatives. Those idiots obviously can't think in hypotheticals, but they might well understand "I got fired because of this law".

diebeforei485 8y ago

Or, help them relocate to another country.

TomK32 8y ago
But it's Christmas, best time to fire someone.
- gammateam 8y ago
  This will be a timeless expression of sanity, far longer than the holiday season
saati 8y ago
They will be still subject to Australian laws, so that's not enough.

sqldba 8y ago

Fire any possible UK, US, and Chinese nationality employees seeing as they're all subject to similar laws.

TimMurnaghan 8y ago
Don't forget the Americans with the Patriot act

cyphar 8y ago

Please note, if you're an employer, you will need to consider Australian labour laws and whether firing Australian employees is allowed. If I was fired because of a legislation change I'd sue my employer for unfair dismissal. But of course, that assumes your (Australian) subsidiary continues running. I would expect that you'd want to shut that down too, since it could be given a TCN as well -- and the fines for noncompliance are in the millions.

gammateam 8y ago
> If I was fired because of a legislation change I'd sue my employer for unfair dismissal It would be because you showed up to work late, or your performance suffered. There is plenty of discretion for normal practices to become scrutinized when convenient in an employer-employee relationship. This always leaves the former employee to spend time and resources trying to make some impossible correlation that could only be proven if the employer said the most amateurish thing possible.
- cyphar 8y ago
  > There is plenty of discretion for normal practices to become scrutinized when convenient in an employer-employee relationship. As someone who has had family members go through the unfair dismissal process (where an employer tried to pull exactly this tactic), employers cannot just lie about the reasons for a dismissal. Doing so can actually result in larger compensation, as a punitive measure. There needs to be sufficient evidence for the lay-off, as well as evidence that it was a long-term issue. Courts often favour employees in such cases (in one case a friend was unfairly dismissed from CSIRO, a government body, and they received the maximum possible compensation as well as assistance from CSIRO to help him update his resume for his next job). But this is besides the point. The topic in question is whether employers should lay off their employees in protest of the new law -- it would hardly be an effective protest if you didn't state why you were laying this people off. It'd also be ridiculously suspicious if the entire Australian office was fired because they "consistently showed up to work late". Don't get me wrong, I really hope companies retaliate by killing Australia's tech industry so the government realises how much they just shot themselves in the feet (if you can't buy an iPhone from Apple in Australia I guarantee there will be riots -- that's just what it takes unfortunately). But if you're an employer you should make your employees whole -- because doing otherwise will result in lawsuits.