Big Deal by Angus Kidman

Industry veteran Angus Kidman casts his cynical eye over what passes for news in the world of ICT. He exposes the deep disconnect between what vendors claim is the next big thing and what IT managers are really looking for to help them do their job. This often bitter and twisted rant comes to you courtesy of ZDNet Australia and any venue game enough to host Kidman during his extensive travels.

What's so bad about keeping records?

Posted by @ 13:40 1 comments

Minimising red tape and administrative processes has always been a key goal for most enterprises, but occasionally you get the suspicion that such tasks are not always being undertaken from the purest of motives.

There's been a certain amount of squabbling in corporate circles recently over new rule-keeping requirements imposed by the federal government's WorkChoices legislation.

Safeguards under WorkChoices aren't exactly thick on the ground, but one of the more important ones is that detailed records of work hours must be kept for anyone on an hourly wage being paid less than AU$55,000 a year. That regulation is designed to ensure that companies don't breach laws concerning working hours and overtime (which are defined as roughly 38 hours a week, but can be subject to averaging over a longer period of time).

The record-keeping requirement had already been deferred once after complaints that businesses had not been given enough notice to implement appropriate systems, but becomes a requirement as of September 27. Yet some business heads are arguing that this is still unreasonable.

One sector complaining long and hard is the cash-rich mining and resources industry. A national newspaper recently quoted from a letter written by Christopher Platt of the Australian Mines and Metals Association to Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews which argued that many industry participants were not able to maintain the required records.

Platt made a fairly astonishing assertion, worth quoting in full: "If the failure to keep records has not resulted in an underpayment of wages and has not been motivated by a desire to mask an underpayment of wages, then the breach is purely administrative in nature and should not result in the prosecution of the employer.

This gives rise to one immediate question: how on earth do the businesses in question know that their failure to keep records hasn't resulted in someone being underpaid? If they don't have any records, then it would seem that wages are being paid more or less at random.

That in turn suggests two unpleasant scenarios: either everyone is in fact being underpaid (bad for the workers), or everyone is being overpaid because the record-keeping system is sloppy (bad for the shareholders).

Advertisement

Talkback 1 comments

    just good business Marilee Veniegas, Essential Security Software -- 29/09/06

    There are a myriad of reasons why good record-keeping especially as it pertains to pay is just good business. It sounds like Mr. Platt is covering for some companies who are members of the Australian Mines and Metals Association.

    Is there a compliance timeframe for companies to be compliant? In the U.S. when SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley Act) was initiated there are a number of data storage compliance factors for public companies http://www.essentialsecurity.com/admin/App_upload/FinancialWPfinal.pdf

    Platt's probably covering for someone.

Angus Kidman

Angus Kidman

 

[+] Read bio

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Tags

Back to top

Featured