3 ms·
dammit, i thought aussies were more freedom loving than even usians. i have met and interacted with some of them, and have read a good amount about them, too.
by fuzztester 2y ago
dammit, i thought aussies were more freedom loving than even usians. i have met and interacted with some of them, and have read a good amount about them, too.
did aussies not have this right, earlier?
I don't know if it should even be called a right, because it seems obvious.
to me, it sound more like an attack by employers on employees, to say they cannot do such a thing - before this so-called "right" was ”given".
thoughts?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- strken 2y agoEmployment contracts here usually state that you work X hours a week, likely 38 or less unless your union did a bad job, and can only work more if the hours are "reasonable" according to a bunch of criteria. This was previously enough to cut down on most of this kind of nonsense, but has not proven sufficient in the age of smartphones.
- fuzztester 2y agowow. just the existence of smartphones seems to be not enough of a reason to drop these contracts or criteria. in fact one would think it should be the opposite, because smartphones are so disruptive and distracting. maybe the unions need to understand that and incorporate that understanding while negotiating.
- fuzztester 2y ago>This was previously enough to cut down on most of this kind of nonsense, but has not proven sufficient in the age of smartphones. the kind of technology that is available in the world should have nothing to do with the laws regarding freedom of the people.
- fuzztester 2y agodepending upon fuzzily worded employment contracts and the non-deterministic enforcement of them, and depending upon whether your union did a good job or not, are not the characteristics of freedom.