Ok so this is my view… but how dare a company employ people and not cover their entitlements when the whole thing goes belly up…
Here’s an example from our local newspaper, on Melba Industries.
The company does not have the funds to cover their staff entitlements now they are being liquidated. As business go along they find the money (put it away earlier) to cover tax requirements, and allegedly the same with Superannuation payments etc… so why not put away an amount to cover entitlements.
Or at worst I guess it could come out of a DRF (Debt Reserve Fund) of some kind. How about some form of insurance they have to pay into, or a compulsory savings plan for employee entitlements, that way the real profits could show through and the issue could not be so big.
Hey folks don’t hold your breath waiting for the government to do something about it, do the right thing from the start, take the whole duty of care situation more seriously and cover those entitlements.
#1 by Svend on December 4, 2009 - 10:36 pm
Quote
Gee I don’t know Steve. Another insurance levy = tax on business = tax on employment.
If you work for a company with less than 15 employees you get your holiday pay and see ya later.
Maybe employees should pay unemployment insurance premiums to provide you a period of income in the event of job loss. How many would?
People should stop expecting Nanny to wipe their bum for them. Looks like in this case even the company was hoping for a government hand out from Nanny.
Businesses don’t put aside money for when they go bust. The put money aside to stay in business. It’s kind of like planning to go broke.
When my business runs close to the wind I keep an eye on the employee entitlements along with a raft of other liabilities. That’s called covering my arse.
If this company cannot pay it’s dues then I think it was probably insolvent before they laid off the staff, in which case some of the directors were not covering their arses and should duely have them kicked.