"Hours-based accrual has the potential to achieve a much greater focus on simplicity. “While shifting to hours-based accrual may require drafting a fundamentally different Bill, I believe investing the time and effort to do this will deliver superior improvements to both employers and employees."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

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

Not sure if you linked the right thing, I just watched a nice announcement on toll roads, but yeah the holidays act is so complicated there are many government organisations (and private) that have had to pay millions in back pay for screwing it up.

There's also this weird accrual system where if you leave you get paid accrued leave but officially you can't use that leave if you stay employed until it ticks over to a new year and you get all of it at once. Of course many employers let you use accrued leave, but also many don't.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

IIRC* the biggest problem with the holidays act and accruing leave is that the legislation refers to days and some people would work a 10, or 12 hour shift on a normal day, but when leave was accrued and/or paid out it was only on the basis of an 8 hour day which obviously screwed some people out of pay.

And then people who worked over time made things even more complicated especially if it was highly variable (like my work) where it was even harder to figure out what a normal day of work was and thus how many hours of pay to provide when taking a day of leave.

Almost all of that confusion has been resolved now though, so I'd imagine given the government legislating this its underlying motivation is to screw things back in favour of the employer and deprive workers of pay.

*I may be mis-remembering and aren't looking this up.

[–] deadbeef79000 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

given the government legislating this its underlying motivation is to screw things back in favour of the employer and...

... Reduce costs. Nothing about this is to make it fairer for employees with tricky calculations, it's to make compliance ~~easier~~ cheaper and avoid having to back pay for mistakes.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 4 points 1 month ago

Yes, and in an employer-employee relationship where almost all the power is held by one party to the relationship one parties' "mistake" is another's deliberate obfuscation & hiding of entitlements.

[–] Dave 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I think that moving to do it by time and not days is a smarter system, but I would prefer if a government trying to stop workers being screwed over was the one making the change, rather than one that wants to disadvantage the workers.

[–] GGNZ 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It was the live announcement url, Looks like they use the same url for other live broadcasts, I have updated it now.

[–] Dave 2 points 1 month ago

Cool, thanks. Interesting that feedback on their new simplified changes had feedback from some that it was more complex and had higher compliance costs than the current bill.

I guess one challenge is that as bad as the current bill is now, all the current payroll software handles it OK, so any change will cause short term compliance costs. So minor changes aren't enough, they need to find enough benefit in changing to bill to justify the nationwide software update costs.