My head exploded after reading this.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1225831970896
Basically, an idiot worker was told four times in one morning to wear safety goggles while working in a hazardous environment. He told the management to fuck off and worry about something else.
He was sacked.
A tribunal ruled that because
- He was poorly educated
- He had poor job prospects
- He had a dependent family
- He had a mortgage
then he should get his job back.
I can't get my head around this. Because the person you sack for safety violations can't get a job elsewhere, you are obliged to give him back his job and pay him compensation.
Perhaps this (or at least some part of the discussion) will belong in fratching, but I simply can't understand the thought processes involved in this decision.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1225831970896
Basically, an idiot worker was told four times in one morning to wear safety goggles while working in a hazardous environment. He told the management to fuck off and worry about something else.
He was sacked.
A tribunal ruled that because
- He was poorly educated
- He had poor job prospects
- He had a dependent family
- He had a mortgage
then he should get his job back.
I can't get my head around this. Because the person you sack for safety violations can't get a job elsewhere, you are obliged to give him back his job and pay him compensation.
Perhaps this (or at least some part of the discussion) will belong in fratching, but I simply can't understand the thought processes involved in this decision.
Comment