Why not a Thousand?

Perusing the newspapers (as one does) the eye was caught by yet another of those articles expounding on the evils of the restaurant industry, and how restaurants/cafes are underpaying staff, blah blah blah.

The article was accompanied by the usual photo of an indignant looking former employee standing with arms folded in front of an allegedly offending premises.

Knowing the complexity of the industrial awards, and that most restaurant operators have a choice:...

• Run the restaurant, or
• Devote themself full time to interpreting and applying the award.

..Mine Host is of the belief that were the industrial awards simplified, there would be much less confusion.

Try this one for size:

The payscale section of the industrial award  or instrument (not my terminology) that applies to the Wayside Tavern has 962 pay rates, yes Nine-Hundred-and-Sixty-Two.


(First published by Mine Host in comments at Prick With a Fork.)

Visa Breach (part 3)

Wong Gomez Singh is an employer sponsored overseas worker at the Wayside Tavern.

Wong Gomez Singh has been issed their visa on the condition that:

• They remain in the employ of the Wayside Tavern for two years,
• Do not perform a type of job other than that for which they are employed, and
• All work they perform is to be in a specified geographic area (say "Nth Qld).

Six months into the job Wong Gomez Singh gives notice:  "I won't be here Monday."

You are obliged to report it to the dept if the sponsored employee leave the job, for any reason whatsoever.

So Mine Host contacts the Immigration Dept to report that Wong Gomez Singh has quit their job.

The immigration officer taking the call stifles a yawn and tersely reminds Mine Host that in this and any future cases Mine Host is legally required to report the matter.  ("Thankyou" would have sufficed.)

Mine Host phones the Immigration Dept again with details of Wong Gomez Singh's new job, seething that the new employer has not had to meet any of the pre-conditions, or gone to any cost.

The immigration officer stifles a yawn and makes note of the "additional information".

A few months later, Mine Host phone the department again, to find out why Wong Gomez Singh has not had their visa cancelled?

This is when things start to happen!

The very first thing to happen is the Immigration Officer tersely informs Mine Host that they aren't just going to cancel a visa, not without fully investigating to see if there has in fact been a breach.
(Payroll records would do it, from both my place and the new empoyer)

Mine Host is informed (pretty roughly) that this sort of thing is "playing with people's residency".
Er... no... they don't get residency until they fulfil all conditions of their visa.  (So says the brochure, so says the immigration dept's website.)

So Mine Host places a phone call to the "Visa Cancellation Team", and it feels like things are under way at last.  Oh boy, are they interested in this.  No, there is no record in the dept of Wong Gomez Singh ever being investigated or anything.  Yes, there will now be an investigation.

This Visa Cancellation Team really likes to hear from the sponsoring employer, and will take testimony of the employer into consideration when making a decision, blah blah blah....

Mine Host never again hears from either the Visa Cancellation Team, or anybody else in the department.

In the subsequent months Wong Gomez Singh starts working in a totally different field to that prescribed on the visa, then with a move to the metropolis of Melbourne Wong Gomez Singh breaches the final condition of their visa, which is no matter what, to remain in a "regional" area for the full two years.

Wong Gomez Singh is subsquently granted permenant residency, citizenship to automatically follow.
Wong Gomez Singh has not adhered to even one condition of their visa.

This has happened to Mine Host three times.  To the neighboring employer, four times.

You may think that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship does nothing to enforce, or even investigate, breaches of visa conditions by visa holders.

You may be right.

You may think that it is a regular event for an employer sponsored worker to breach every condition of their visa, yet be granted Australian citizenship.

You may well be right.

Whining (or the customer is always Wrong).

Newly delivered wine in the Wayside Tavern cellar.
This wine will not be retailed.
It is exclusively sold uncorked to diners-at-the-table in the Wayside Tavern restaurant.

Recently Australian wine producer Yalumba discovered that some of their wines were being offered in the USA by a wine club run by the National Rifle Association.

Yalumba must be selling more wine than they can produce or something, as they immediately took action to have their wines removed from sale.

This was the (cough) brainstorm of current Yalumba boss Robert Hill Smith (he is the 5th generation of the family in the business, not the "founder" - as was erronously reported in much of the US media).

Robert Hill Smith would seem to have a brown thumb in marketing:

The money quote:

 “Philosophically, I’m not disposed towards the NRA, which runs counter to my family’s, and I would think all my employees’, positions on gun laws,” Yalumba founder (sic) Robert Hill Smith said. “We will act to withdraw our stock or at least not service the account any longer.”

 

Just as well he owns the company.  An employed executive would be fired in seconds, or just however long it took for his boss to learn of that quote.

 

Mine Host's heart bleeds for the marketing people who have put in years of effort lifting the profile of Australian wine in North America, efforts that have likely just been set back by years.

 

Yalumba want to "act to withdraw" their stock from gun owners?  Mine Host, a long standing and very bitter opponent of gun laws, stands ready to assist.

 

The wine list at the Wayside Tavern (one of the better wine lists in Qld) will no longer include anything from Yalumba.  (Just as soon as current stocks are cleared that is, hehe).

 

Those who know their plonk will recognise the quantities and quality of the wines in the picture above, and know the subtle damage this decision will do to Yalumba.

 

Parked beside the (last ever) order of Yalumba Octavius, is an equal quantity of Jim Barry Armagh.

 

Jim Barry wines boss Peter Barry, had this to say about his wine being offered by the NRA:
 



 "No matter religion, colour or creed, I’m just happy people are drinking and enjoying Australian wine.”

 

You can't argue with that sentiment!  What a fun fellow he must be to those lucky enough to know him.
Jim Barry Armagh, a far superior drop than the Yalumba Octavius, will be promoted heavily by Mine Host.  (Update:  This is not true.  The Armagh is too hard to come by, supplies are too limited, and it is too good, I'm already able to sell 10 times the allocation Jim Barry gives me.  But I'll do what I can for a winery that produces such first class wine.  For quality, Jim Barry is in the top Five of Australian wines.)

 

Mine Host urges all who enjoy their wines to help these two wine companies:

Yalumba want less customers, (you all know what to do)

 

Jim Barry are happy to know you are enjoying Australian wine!

 

Lets all do our best to help Jim Barry Wines have their wish granted!



Update:  For some reason this story received very little coverage in Australia.  Therefore  Hat tip to Paco for bringing this piece of treason to Mine Host's attention.



Visa Breach (part 2)

If a visa sponsor breaches a visa condition, the dept responds with a pile driver.  Even if the breach is so technical that only those with the mentality of an over-the-top traffic cop would consider it to be even that (technical breach).

Visa holders, on the other hand, breach the conditions of their visa all the time.

How does the dept. respond?

The dept. won't even look into the matter.

The only way anything will happen is if the sponsoring employer makes lots of waves with the dept.
The dept. then will make a (fake) promise to look into the matter.

That will be the last anyone will hear of the matter.

There are a plethora of employer-sponsored visa subclasses.  Typical conditions are:

• To remain in employment with the sponsoring employer.
• To work only at a specified location or geographical area.
• To not go into business or otherwise self-employ.

A breach of any of these conditions is sufficient for the visa to be cancelled.

Mine Host knows of countless such breaches being reported to the dept.
Mine Host knows not one of those breaches resulted in a visa cancellation.

This the double standard the dept. applies to visas.
This is the degree of incompetence of the federal government.
This is the disdain with which the dept. treats Australians, and the blind eye the dept. turns to lawbreakers.

Coming up, some real life examples of visa breaches, and the (lack of) response by the dept.

Visa Breach (part 1)

As raised in comments of the previous post, there is a serious & chronic problem with employer-sponsored visa holders intentionally breaching the conditions of their visa, and the Immigration Dept refusing the police the matter.

A plethora of different employer-sponsored visa subclasses exist.  Some of them have very different conditions imposed on both the employer and the visa holder.

Sponsoring employers are held very tightly to their obligations.  Many employers are stripped of their licence to sponsor for the slightest mere technical breach of their conditions.

Example:  The sponsor is (say) Herb McDonald, of "Wattle Flats" station via Black Stumpville.  Herb applies to sponsor skilled farm workers, and is issued a licence to employ overseas staff under subclass 457, for farming work, on "Wattle Flats" station.

It subsequently comes to the attention of the Immigration Dept that Herb McDonald and his 457 visa holders went through the fence into neighboring "Shady Plains" to recover some sheep that had strayed.

The licence to employ very clearly states that any 457 visa holders employed by Herb McDonald can only do work on "Wattle Flats" station.  Thus the Immigration Dept writes to Herb McDonald informing him that:  As on a certain date he had used his 457 visa holders not on "Wattle Flats", but on "Shady Plains" there has been a clear breach of his conditions as an employer, and his licence to employ sponsored workers is hereby cancelled.


**********

Employers actually have lost their licence to employ for this very thing, and sometimes for much less.

Okay! We have now established just how seriously the Immigration Dept views employer obligations, and just how strictly these obligations are enforced. 

Stand by to see how seriously the dept views it when visa conditions are breached by an ... actual visa holder....

Merry Christmas (to all our valued clients!)

On the phone Friday afternoon, for a spot of last minute off-the-cuff legal advice before the world shuts down for the next two weeks, the lawyer wishes Mine Host a "Merry Christmas" before engaging in a brief 45 seconds or so of chitter-chatter about what our respective Christmas plans are.

Thus the phone call extends into an extra 6-minute chargeable block.  This really puts to the test Mine Host's seasonal "goodwill to all mankind" resolve.

Call rate is charged at $48 per 6-minute block.

Twit Twitters a Tweet

Copied below is a brief twitter exchange from earlier this week.  It is between two well known people and has attracted a minor amount of attention from the news media.

One quick read of it and the phrase "we've a couple of anti-gun crazies here" leaps into the head.
Several people have taken umbrage at Mine Host's assessment.  Some of them quite a deal of umbrage.
This has been somewhat puzzling.

Clearly both of these pundus are in the anti-firearm camp. But that is a side issue.
I've made inane banter with all who've brought it to my attention, believing they can see what I see.  However many remain cold, or even somewhat cross.  Perhaps some people are far more laymen when it comes to firearms that you'd imagine.

A thought popped into the head just now;
Am I the only one who can see the glaring error in the tweet?   (It is glaring to me).

Serious Breach

Any venue with a liquor licence must maintain a "Manager's Register."

This register must be available at all times for inspection by an officer of the Liquor Licencing Division (all police officers hold the office of "Liquor Inspector").

The register must show that at all times there is a licenced manager on duty.  (i.e. someone who holds a "Licenced Venue Manager's Licence" - sort of like a driver's licence).

For each manager the register shows:
Time started
Time finished
Licence no.
Name of manager
Signature.

The Wayside Tavern downloaded the register from the website of the Liquor Licencing Division.

On a certain evening a police officer from the (cough) specialist Liquor Enforcement section of Qld police called to inspect the register.

As a result of his inspection he issued a citation to the Wayside Tavern, reason: The register incorrectly formatted.

The specific breach:  The columns for print name and signature were separated by a single vertical line.

The citation stated that these columns must be demarcated by a double vertical line.

In case anyone missed it above:  The Wayside Tavern was using the Manager's Register downloaded from the website of the Liquor Licencing Division.

It should be noted here that nowhere in the Queensland Liquor Act is there any mention of what such a register should look like, or what information it must contain, the act merely mandates that a manager's register must be kept.

You couldn't make it up!

Premier Campbell Newman:  Keep-on-firing-them.

Clueless Partisanship

When Mine Host was a nipper in school, one dictionary that we were not allowed to use was the "Macquarie Dictionary".

The teachers would not allow it, for exactly the same reason we kids loved it:  It contained all the swearwords, obscenities, foul language plus any & all "rude" words.

Oxford was the only dictionary allowed, though Cambridge was not actively discouraged.  Webster was prohibited on the grounds of being being the anti-christ (as it should be - Mine Host is a John Quincy Adams supporter, and thus of the belief that Noah Webster should have been thrown down a well or something.)

But Noah Webster, even if incredibly misguided, was at least fair dinkum about language.  The teachers at school recognised his (misguided) efforts, but regarded the Macquarie Dictionary as nothing more than a sick joke.

Credible dictionaries are collaborative efforts by a large group of scholars.
The Macquarie dictionary has only ever had input from pretty much one person.  Ever.

This fact was not known when we were at school.  It became obvious several years later when the person who writes it made a series of television appearances, salaciously using foul language, right there on TV, without a thought for decorum or decency.

Mine Host, watching this, thought: that ain't a bad way to get out of being arrested for using foul language, or being hauled before some commission for swearing on TV; write yourself a dictionary, put all the obscenities into it, then strut around in public using those same words.

When the public was shocked by the language used, the author of this dictionary feigned ignorance, and cluelessly stated (paraphrased): "I didn't realise words such as Faaahk, Can't, & others were considered bad"

Being too clueless to realise some words are too foul for television, or decent society, is not what one should profess, not when one aspires to being an arbiter of the English language.

There are also significant differences between the Macquarie definition of many words, and the Oxford/Cambridge definition of those same words.  One can imagine Mine Host's distress upon arriving at a courthouse for a hearing, to discover that the Australian courts use the (choke) Macquarie dictionary as the final arbiter of a definition.  Oh-My-God!

Given the above mentioned public demonstrations of cluelessness by the author of that dictionary, Mine Host knew how reliable the Macquarie was going to be.

This brings us to the recent incident that brought reputational fallout to the Macquarie dictionary such that it likely will never recover any of the former gravitas it may once have held:


The Prime Minister used a word wrongly in parliament.  (Yep, the same Prime Minister who is a qualified lawyer, a profession that owes its very existence to the fact that words have meanings, didn't know the correct definition of a word!)

This caused the Prime Minister some embarrassment.

The author of the Macquarie Dictionary sprang into action, announced that the meaning of this word had "changed", thus the Prime Minister had been "correct".

This event had an air of rushing in to protect an ideological comrade, rather than an authentic attempt to codify our language.

So the committee (cough) of the Macquarie Dictionary had an extraordinary meeting to change the definition of this word, thus making the Prime Minister "right".

This sort of stuff used to happen in the Soviet Union.

It does not happen in free countries.

The pages of the Macquarie Dictionary are too small to use for dunny paper, but they are of just the right size to use for rolling cigarettes.

Do I look like a walking calculator?

One of the drinks in the bar at the Wayside Tavern is priced at $10 (Ten Dollars).

On a quiet afternoon, one of the regulars is in a school of four, and orders 4 (four) of this drink.

When the barmaid serves up the 4 (four) drinks [@$10 each] the customer asks what the total price will be.

The barmaid smiles sweetly and announces that she'll just have to "...go back to the cash register and check".

.... Back at the cash register she reads the total, looks up and cheerfully announces that "Four of those will cost...er.. $40".


So continues life behind the bar!

No Lifting....!

The Occupational Health and Safety officer mentioned in the previous post was a tad over-zealous when he mandated "4 points of contact" for anyone climbing a stair/ladder, but once he'd made the blunder he wasn't going to back off from it.

His aim was to make it impossible for anything to be carried up the ladder.

In his excitement at being able to make life hard for a business, he failed to notice his directive was actually impossible.

The purpose of the Wayside Tavern's ladder access to the loft was to carry stuff up, or to carry stuff down.

Combine this with the fact that the carrying/storage was for commercial purposes and he couldn't resist issuing a directive that would prevent use of the loft.....

.... For despite the his job title his main interest is not to improve safety, but to hamstring businesses.

Being too lazy/incompetent to write such a manual himself, he issued a directive that the Wayside Tavern was to write a procedure manual for climbing a ladder.

You couldn't make it up!

To Premier Campbell Newman:  Keep-on-firing-them!

Safer Workplace

A government inspector, from the "Office of Occupational Health & Safety" made a visit to the Wayside Tavern.

He was there to inspect an area in the back of house that had "been reported" as having an "unsafe" method of climbing into a loft.

The inspector assessed the ladder used to get to the loft and as it was simply a common step-ladder, declared it "unsafe".

The inspector issued a requisition that a new ladder be installed, this one to have "bannister rails" (would you believe?), and that the employer was to write up a formal "ladder climbing procedure" (to be signed by any/all staff before they climed this ladder).

Included in the procedure was to be the requirement that any person climbing this ladder must at all times maintain 4 (four) points of contact with the ladder.

.... Anyone wondering why the new state government is going to fire 20,000 public servants, will have part of the answer by reading the above.

Customer Confidentiality

One of the staff from the Wayside Tavern struts into the bank.
This person is often entrusted to carry a deposit to the bank and deposit it over the counter, and that is the full extent of their involvement with banking matters.
They are not a signatory or in any way authorised on any bank account belonging to the Wayside Tavern.

Upon fronting the counter this staff member enquires of the teller:

"Does my boss have any bank accounts that I don't know about?"

The teller gazes at their screen and taps some keys on their console.
"Yes, here's an account which you probably don't know about"

"I didn't know that particular account existed" says the staff member, looking at the screen, "I'd like to know what activity there has been on that account."

"There's actually a fair bit of activity" responds the teller, "in fact too much to tell you about.  The account also maintains a significant cash balance!"

The teller then prints statements for the year to date (nine months worth), and hands them over the counter.


***************

Clarification:  The major sin in this tale is by the bank.
The staff member's sin is most minor alongside that committed by the bank officer.

Did he really want the job?

An application for an executive level job progresses through the following stages:

• Emailed application from the applicant, including resume & cover letter.
• Return email & brief email exchange.
• A few telephone calls from Mine Host to applicant.
• Skype call.
• Face-to-face interview.

For an interview with a particular candidate, Mine Host travelled 1700km.  A not particularly long distance in the scheme of selecting key staff.

The candidate was bordering on 60 years of age. An ideal age for executive level applicants.

The candidate brought his sister into the interview.

Oh boy!

You want me to serve THAT?

This happens from time to time, happened again today:

 

Fresh bar staff on the payroll.

Is either new to bar work, or new to the sharp end of the bar trade.

 

Induction goes well, lots of enthusiasm, doesn't have to be told anything twice, actually understands why we do some things (as opposed to doing it "because the boss says so")

 

Then when presented with a real live blue collar customer, in a public bar, she spins around and barks indignantly:

 

"You want me to serve that....?"


 Crikey we lose some promising staff that way.

Union Air

Air France!
With a particularly unhappy dose of the flu, I boarded a flight that was to be of 15 hours duration.
My throat felt like razor blades.  I looked forward to a drink of water, which would have been a lifesaver!

It was 10 hours into the flight before a cabin crew came near to me, and grudgingly provided a drink of water.

I saw the cabin crew for the second time just before landing, when they distributed a "feedback on our cabin service" card, then whisked it away before I could fill it in.

Thus Air France will forever hold a special place on Mine Host's list of unhappy memories.

The only people to arrive rested were the cabin crew.  Their union is retarding that airline, & their national reputation (such as it may be, cough).

Bayonet Charge!

Overheard by one of the candidates during a presidential election debate:

"...we've... got less horses & bayonets nowdays..."   and:
"... submarines.... you know, those ships that go under the sea..."

There are many differences between the US Navy and ours (eg, the US Navy does not have a swimming test - if you can't do two laps of an olympic pool while fully clothed, it is no impediment to enlistment) however, if the informal rules on misuse of teminology are anything like the same, there are a whole lot of sailors right now seething that when they used the wrong word, they had to buy a 24-pack of beer for every man on the boat, while the clueless commander-in-chief gets off scot free!

And... is any reader with a source inside the US armed forces able to confirm the commander-in-chief's statement that bayonets are no longer issued at the ratio of one per grunt?

ABC hubris

Favourite moment of the ABC's tally room coverage of the recent Northern Territory election:

When it became clear that the ALP government had been voted out, a distraught Kerry O'Brien instructed (yep, instructed) a member of the new government, to not change any of the policies of the [defeated] ALP, because the voting pattern had indicated an affirmation of ALP policy.

You couldn't make it up!

Cash Burning Hole in Pocket!

In an undisclosed overseas country, Mine Host props up the bar, his only accompaniment a glass of champagne.

In the almost empty bar the late night conversation is between two foreign (western) women and the bartender (a local).

Mine Host cannot help but overhear the bartender talk to the two women of the sad tale of a proposal for a resort development by a foreign entrepreneuer.  A development that had been scotched from afar, by the national government acting under pressure from various groups.

The bartender's meaning:  A great opportunity lost for the people of his district, in the form of jobs, brand naming of the district on the international tourist scene, and ancillary development, jobs businesses, etc.  Perhaps his kids wouldn't have needed to have moved away, or overseas, to find a life.

The response of the only of the two of the vapid western women still able to string a sentence together:
(She'd completely missed the bartender's meaning.....)
"Haha, the [overseas developer] will just have to go & spend all his money at home on fancy cars, luxury holidays & new villas, ha ha ha ha....."

The bartender, bland faced, said nothing....

Mine Host near choked on his champagne.  Yes, people really are this stupid.  Seeing a resort development only in terms of how much money it will make for the developer (making money is baaad).... and being stupid enough to think that 100% of the cost of constructing the resort was discretionary disposable cash burning a hole in the developer's pocket.

One supposes that there are, somewhere, developments that are not done with borrowed money, but such circumstance would be very rare.

Even less likely would be a developer, who when stymied by vapid western green groups, just spends an equal amount of money on lifestyle.

******

Have either of the two women mentioned above ever heard of the phrase "raising capital", or thought about the meaning behind that phrase?

Have either of them thought of how they seem, laughing to a resident of a district with limited economic propects, at how the district, on the whim of already affluent pressure groups, being arbitrarily denied a life-changing chance at some of the properity enjoyed by those same two women?

They walk among us........

Stupid. Got a degree, but still stupid.

It is of constant amazement to Mine Host how many people consider themselves to be "worldly-wise" and "broad-minded" whilst actually being as dumb as a box of rocks.

The gurus behind Blogger.com security have just been added to that list.

Doubtless these code writers have a tertiary education, likely a swish degree in something difficult.

Since the date of the previous post, Mine Host has been at a geographic location he's never before been to.  Attempts to log in to blogger are met with:

[Looks like you are attempting to log in from an unusual location]
[Please type in the name of the city where you usually log in]

Fine.  A security measure, in case some russian hacker in vlottastock or somewhere has obtained username & password.

So Mine Host types in the name of the town where he usually logs in.

However the really excellent blogger software stated that Mine Host had entered the wrong town.

Mine Host is many things, but he is aware enough to know which town he is in.  However to satisfy the gods of blogger he enters every town where he has logged in to this blog.

Nothing worked, all were the wrong town.

To cut a long story short, login attempts were refused until just now Mine Host typed in the name of a distant city, the same distance from him as Cairns is from Melbourne.

Bingo!  Blogger recognised it as the usual location.

No it isn't you university educated morons.  It is merely the city where his ISP stores many of their servers.  There is no reason for any person to imagine that this place is being logged as the "city where you usually log in".

To repeat:  These blogger security people not only went to university, they passed their exams!