Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Money

Is it work experience, or exploitation?

Published

on

Unpaid work placements and internships can serve as a legitimate avenue for ambitious young individuals to gain a foothold in their desired fields.

However, it is crucial to acknowledge that they can also exploit economically vulnerable young workers. Wage theft is illegal and can result in severe penalties for employers who engage in such practices.

To distinguish between legitimate and exploitative unpaid work placements, both employers and workers need to be well-informed.

Caution must be exercised by both parties when offering or accepting unpaid work placements.

Employment guidelines

The Fair Work Act establishes minimum wages, conditions, and awards for different types of employment. The central question regarding unpaid work placements revolves around whether the tasks assigned to the worker qualify as “employment.” This determination depends on two sub-issues:

1. Intentions of the parties: Determining intentions can be challenging as they are often mixed and not fully expressed. What matters is the nature of the relationship, rather than how either party labels it.

The factors

– Purpose of the arrangement: If the primary focus is on productive work rather than meaningful learning, training, and skill development, it is likely an employment relationship.
– Duration of the arrangement: Longer durations increase the likelihood of an employment relationship.
– Nature of the work: If the tasks performed are typically done by paid employees and are necessary for the business or organization, the arrangement should likely be considered paid employment.
– Role of learning: If the worker’s role is primarily observational and does not primarily benefit the organization, it is less likely to be seen as an employment relationship.
– Benefit distribution: A legitimate unpaid work placement should primarily benefit the intern or trainee. If the business derives significant economic benefit from the work, an employment relationship is more likely.

The difference

In practice, illustrating the difference is often easier than providing a precise definition. For instance, if someone voluntarily works for a charitable organization without any expectation of payment, it is unlikely to violate the Fair Work Act.

If an unpaid job placement is part of an educational or vocational training course and aims to equip students with essential skills for transitioning from study to work, it is likely to meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act. Similarly, if an internship or training period, not connected to a formal educational program, is brief and involves extensive mentoring and training, it may also qualify.

On the other hand, if an applicant is interviewed for a paid job and then asked to undergo an unpaid “work trial” for an indefinite period to assess suitability, it would likely contravene the Fair Work Act. An unpaid internship that lacks adequate training and instruction presents similar issues.

Exercise caution

If you have been offered an unpaid work placement with hopes of it leading to a paid job, be extremely cautious. Many workers are enticed into such arrangements under false promises, appealing to their goodwill and willingness to work.

Likewise, if you are an employer considering offering unpaid work placements, be aware that many of these arrangements may not meet the requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act. The potential penalties far outweigh any short-term cost-saving benefits. Even well-intentioned organizations seeking to provide opportunities for underserved individuals can find themselves in trouble if they operate outside the legal guidelines.

More information here.

Continue Reading

Money

Markets ignore Israeli-Iranian conflict but risks remain high

Markets remain optimistic despite the escalating Israel-Iran conflict, raising concerns of potential complacency among investors.

Published

on

Markets remain optimistic despite the escalating Israel-Iran conflict, raising concerns of potential complacency among investors.

In Short:
Market analysts warn that global investors are underestimating the conflict between Israel and Iran, despite resilient stock market gains. Analysts highlight the potential for prolonged conflict and significant impacts on energy markets, cautioning against complacency.

Global investors are currently underestimating the potential impact of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran, according to market analysts.

Despite four days of escalating fighting, which has resulted in significant casualties, global stock markets have shown resilience. Stocks in Europe, Asia-Pacific, and the U.S. have all seen gains, indicating a disconnect between market performance and geopolitical developments.

Investment director Russ Mould highlighted the risk of a broader conflict affecting energy markets. He noted that the situation is complex and the ramifications could extend beyond financial concerns.

Heightened risks

Strategist David Roche suggested the conflict may last longer than typical Israeli responses, posing heightened risks. Torbjorn Soltvedt from Verisk Maplecroft expressed that the current situation resembles an open-ended war, with severe implications for the region and global energy markets.

Energy prices have already reacted to the unrest, with crude oil experiencing significant price fluctuations. Analysts caution that a period of calm might lead markets to mistakenly believe in lasting peace, potentially creating buying opportunities in energy assets.

Conversely, some analysts, like Deutsche Bank’s Jim Reid, maintain a more cautious outlook, noting that retaliatory actions between Iran and Israel have yet to escalate dramatically. He indicated that historical patterns suggest a typical market recovery from such shocks.

Continue Reading

Money

Australia’s stalled economy forces businesses to innovate or die

Australia’s economy is slowing with 0.2% GDP growth; experts suggest interest rate cuts, prompting businesses to adapt for growth.

Published

on

Australia’s economy is slowing with 0.2% GDP growth; experts suggest interest rate cuts, prompting businesses to adapt for growth.


Australia’s economy is slowing fast, with GDP growth at just 0.2% and output per person in decline. Experts are now predicting steep interest rate cuts to avoid recession.

What can businesses do to adapt and grow in this climate? Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#AustralianEconomy #RBA #InterestRates #BusinessStrategy #EconomicNews #GDP #TickerNews #AustraliaFinance

Continue Reading

Money

World Bank predicts U.S. growth cut by tariffs

World Bank forecasts U.S. growth halving due to tariffs; global economy also faces significant slowdown, especially in exports.

Published

on

World Bank forecasts U.S. growth halving due to tariffs; global economy also faces significant slowdown, especially in exports.

In Short:
The World Bank has downgraded U.S. growth projections to 1.4% for 2025 due to President Trump’s tariff policies, warning that increased tariffs could worsen the global economic slowdown. The report highlights a decline in growth for multiple economies, with a particular emphasis on the negative impact on living standards and the need for negotiated trade barriers.

The World Bank has downgraded its growth projections for the U.S. economy, forecasting an increase of just 1.4% in 2025, down from the previous year’s 2.8%. This reduction is attributed to President Trump’s tariff policies, which are anticipated to hamper both U.S. and global growth.

The World Bank’s latest report highlights an expected slowdown in multiple economies, including the eurozone, Japan, and India. Mexico is projected to experience the most significant impact, with growth dropping to 0.2% from 1.5%.

Exacerbate the slowdown

Amid these forecasts, the World Bank warned that a further rise in tariffs could exacerbate the slowdown. If tariffs were raised by an additional 10 percentage points, global growth could plummet to 1.8% this year and 2% in 2026. Such an escalation would lead to reduced trade, declining confidence, and increased market turmoil.

Indermit Gill, the World Bank’s chief economist, noted that if a course correction is not made, the negative effects on living standards could be severe. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has also voiced concerns about the implications of tariffs, predicting a U.S. growth rate of 1.6% with inflation approaching 4%.

Continue Reading

Trending Now