What a winner.

  • Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    8 months ago

    Wait. Does he think this is a popular idea? Is there a majority of people out there who want worse working conditions???

    I don’t understand

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s not aimed at people like you or me, but at the corporate class and their media backers. The idea being, get them on board, and they’ll run a propaganda campaign for you.

      Not that they need to really, as Murdoch will almost always side with the conservatives.

      • Geobloke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 months ago

        Not even them, it’s for all the tradies out there who are worried that they mightn’t be able to call their workers in for a bit of extra cash.

        Not sure if there is a carve out for that situation, but doesn’t mean he won’t exploit the fear

        • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          There could be a carve out, just like our trading laws: make it based on number of employees.

          Running a small business that requires less than 5 or 6 people to operate? You can call someone after hours for help if you’re desperate.

          Running a major corporate with hundreds on the payroll? GGF.

          You get my drift…

    • flathead@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      I don’t get it either. Why announce it like he’s proud of it as a policy position when he could just push it through if they manage to win a majority? Who sent him out in front of the cameras to talk about it? The only thing I can think of is that maybe he’s being deliberately set up for a spill because he’s so obviously out of touch and un-electable.

  • PetulantBandicoot@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    8 months ago

    Even if the law gets repealed, I still will not answer phone calls and emails from work outside of work. I don’t work from home, nor do I get paid for it, so…

    • moistclump@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      But I also understand that not everyone is in a position to be able to turn this off and I would like the right to disconnect to be codified for them. Did I use codify correctly?

      • PetulantBandicoot@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I agree, it should stay in place (as in, not repealed by subsequent government). Employees shouldn’t feel pressured to pick up the phone outside of work.

        I always thought not answering the phone was always an unwritten rule of employment unless it’s in your contact, so that’s the way I have always acted.

        Codify: “to arrange something, such as laws or rules, into a system”, so I believe that’s correct.

  • Tristaniopsis@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    8 months ago

    Dutton is one of those people who is clearly so nasty it has seeped out and taken over his physical appearance.

    What a goon. I mean the Liberals are the party of evil greedy lying shits anyway but he’s like an exaggerated cartoon mascot for them.