I haven't read the text of the legislation change, but that sounds like an awesome loophole. Someone earning minimum wage, gets pay rise to $181k then immediately fired.

I'm assuming, or at least hoping, that there will be some sort of protection against that. The article seems to imply that the intention is that dismissal claims are negotiated conditions of contracts at high income levels, rather than a fixed legal requirement. So I guess the $180k+ salary needs to be in a signed contract.

[–] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I can also see this spectacularly backfiring thought if a court decides that by doing that you broke the "good faith" requirements of the ERA, and so owe back pay.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'd love to hear of any employee-employer negotiation that started from a position of no redundancy provision, no unjustified dismissal that ended up with those in the contract.

[–] Dave 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I guess if you're in the $180k+ range the the employee has some power as they are hard to find. This law is intended to shift power back to the employer.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 3 points 1 month ago

Oh absolutely that's the intent - Act are all about employers doing whatever they want, whenever despite the clear power differential. My point is more that $180k isn't actually that high level anymore, its pretty close to middle management in a lot of white collar companies.

That also illustrates how there's bigger gaps between the bottom and middle, as well as an even larger gap from the middle to the top.