BTW, Leinad, I'm not a Representative at the moment. 
You were when you sponsored this 
Was it that long ago!?
For Section 1- Does this bill regulate the amount of hours one can work for just one job? Or does this apply to multiple jobs? If the latter is true, how can employers enforce this? If an individual wishes to work the maximum allowable hours at 2 jobs (90 hours per week) does that individual get charged with a crime for breaking this law? Also, for high school students and those under the age of 18, 30 hours per week is still far too high a ceiling. 20-25 is more realistic, given that students need to focus on their schoolwork as well.
The bill includes an opt out to allow for people to work longer than the 45 hour limit proposed should the individual choose to. This prevents people from working more than 45 hours per week against their will. It's a system that's in place in the United Kingdom.
For people under the age of eighteen, the thirty hour limit allows for people to work without being able to replace adult workers full time. There may be situations where the student would be able to work thirty hours without impacting on their education, such as during school holidays.
For Section 2.2 - Is this a mandate, or can employers still choose to pay their employees a holiday pay right, which is usually time and a half (the total amount of money earned in a regular shift, with half of that sum added on)?
It should've been worded as a minimum mandate. Employers would be able to pay their employees more than the specified amount should they wish to. I'll propose an amendment to make that clearer.
Section 6 - There are major privacy issues involved with this. Working at a job that allows constant monitoring of employees via CCTV creates a tense and untrustworthy scenario. Having worked at a job like this myself, I often feared that I would be "caught doing something", even if I wasn't doing anything wrong. There is a difference between having CCTV to detract theft from customers, but treating employees like cattle that need to stay in line violates not only personal privacy, but the whole premise of this legislation. As for bag searches, this is also a huge privacy violation. If an employee is believed to be shoplifting, most businesses have a security guard on duty who can be brought in to execute a search with reasonable cause. I would NEVER allow my employer to search my personal belongings, even though I would also never steal from my employer. Also, allowing monitoring of employees "under investigation" only furthers the "police state" vibe I get from this section. This is about protecting workers' rights, not trying to find evidence to arrest them. Employers may collect evidence without monitoring employees, and still have enough of it to fire and/or prosecute an employee.
As mentioned by Siren, CCTV is used in retail to monitor customers. They will record employees working and they cannot be prevented from doing this. Additionally, bag searches already happen in retail where theft would be quite simple otherwise. All this bill does is make clear in legislation how far the employer can go with the monitoring of their employees.
Section 6, Clause 2 states "Employers shall tell all employees about the monitoring process that take place in their workplace.", Clause 3 states "Monitoring of employees shall not be excessive and should be justifiable" and Clause 6 states "Employees shall be made aware of the locations of every CCTV camera in their premise." This would reduce concerns that people are being monitored excessively and without a reason.
If an employee is believed to be shoplifting, most businesses have a security guard on duty who can be brought in to execute a search with reasonable cause.
Surely that would include a bag search, if they have one?
Section 8 - Allowing businesses to opt out of this act only seems like a "slippery slope", where employers will just be allowed to overwork employees without consequence. If we're going to pass legislation to protect workers' rights (which I sure hope it isn't this bill) then there cannot be an opt out option for any business. Those workers should not be denied the same legal protections as everyone else because their employer doesn't believe they're entitled to them.
As per Section 8, Clause 2: "These groups shall be approved by the Atlasian Department of Labor."
This would reduce this to be used by the emergency services, hospital staff, and other companies that the Department of Labor deems should be allowed to opt out of this. Companies would have to have a good reason to opt out and wouldn't be able to be done on a whim as you're suggesting.
