Feminism's workplace gulags

Note that there's also talk of removing "barriers to reporting", promoting "victim-centred and gender-responsive reporting of sexual harassment" and "trauma-informed support" for those making allegations. Then there are increased sanctions on those accused and increased Workers Compensation payouts for those making allegations.

It's amazing how blatantly these operators spell out where this is all heading. Jenkins and her mob make it clear they believe employers currently investigate allegations too carefully "taking an overly legalistic approach". They propose that "criminal standards of proof are not appropriate". Instead, they encourage a "speedy investigation process" and "adopting a victim-centred approach", recommending company investigations to use a "trauma-informed approach and have a high level of understanding of the gendered drivers of sexual harassment, the way it manifests and its impacts on different groups of workers". The report doesn't mention fairness as a priority but instead calls for "prioritising the rights, needs and wants of victims".

Here's their summary of the problem: "Current unfair dismissal provisions unduly favour procedural technicalities over the welfare of victims and safe workplaces".

Hmmm, now what do you suppose they are really promoting here? Walks like a kangaroo court, talks like a kangaroo court….

Here's a nice job for the HR ladies: making up their own rules, conducting secretive investigations and determining their chosen outcomes, which can include dismissal of the accused. In fact, to make dismissal easier, the report recommends changes to the Fair Work Act. And they suggest increased protection for those who make allegations and are then hauled into court for defamation or similar.

Don't forget – every single one of Respect@Work's recommendations has now been accepted by the Federal government.

Hi ho, hi ho. It's off to court we go.

Normally, if an employee and their employer go to court, then the loser pays the legal bills. Feminism's lapdog, Dreyfus, has now surpassed himself by coming up with a bill proposing that if an accusation is false or doesn't succeed in court, the accuser will not have to pay the employer's costs - Normal 0 false false false EN-AU X-NONE X-NONE save in rare circumstances. And if only one small part of an accusation is upheld, the employer will have to pay all of the accuser's costs (excepting costs cause by unreasonable behaviour by the accuser).

Dreyfus has justified the change on the grounds that it will remove a barrier for those making accusations. Naturally employer groups are up in arms, rightly complaining this removes a disincentive to false accusations and speculative proceedings. Janet Albrechtsen, writing in The Australian fears it will intensify "the cult of disgruntled employees demanding 'go away' money".

She writes that this will guarantee that more disgruntled employees will try their luck at "litigation lotto". And she puts her finger on Labor's broader agenda: "Worse, the proposal to protect complainants against costs orders is evidence of something more – an increased desire by the Labor government to place a finger on the scales of justice to tilt them against unpopular defendants." Like men.

Opposition legal affairs spokeswoman Michaelia Cash said the bill effectively "strapped a 'rocket booster' to the litigation industry". And the stakes are huge - payouts for sexual harassment are currently up to $268k but have been rising constantly.

Having Dreyfus in power has certainly proved to be a lawyer's picnic – first the new Family Law Bill is pushing fathers into court to try to see their children, and now this. A nice little earner which may help cushion the legal sector from the troubled financial times impacting on so many.