Should cafés be able to ban kids?

Posted to Body+Soul at (30/9/2011) on 1/10/2011 at 10:27 PM
Commenting on “Should cafés be able to ban kids?”
http://blogs.bodyandsoul.com.au/what-body-soul-thinks/article/should-cafes-be-able-to-ban-kids/

Some kids’ behaviour is no difference from any drunkards who scream and mess up the place for relaxation and enjoyment. In accordance to EPA, even a siren or burglar alarm cannot be continuously sounded for more than 7 minutes. So, why should kids be tolerated and allowed to scream on top of their voice for over 7 minutes?

Food premises are governed by Food Acts, and mess made by some kids is unacceptable and unsightly. The owner has the obligation and responsibility to keep the premises clean and hygienic in according to the Acts.

The owners can be fined for lacking a duty of care. If owners do not stop kids running around and jumping on furniture, they are in breached of OHS laws. Any incident resulting in injury can be fined substantially or may even end up with big compensation. So cafe owners, laws are on your side to ban screaming, misbehaving kids who may cost your cancellation of licence and insurance pay out.

Cafes / restaurants are neither child care centres nor kindergartens. It is not unreasonable to ban the kids from the premises for peace of mind on owners’ part and their clients’. If the parents insist, ban them, too. For goodness sake cafe / restaurant owners, don’t be bullied by irresponsible and uncivilised humans if they tell you that you are discriminating them.

Young mums get more job perks

Posted to Herald Sun (27/5/2011) on 27/5/2011 at 12:32 AM
Commenting on “Young mums get more job perks”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/young-mums-get-more-job-perks/story-e6frf7jo-1226063736896

It seems that female office workers are more demanding that the blue-collar female workers. Just a word of warning, China is the factory of the world today, but with advancement of technology, borderless and virtual workplace will soon make China the office of the world. If labour cost continues to rise to cover additional benefits, who will be employing all these young mothers if they are asking for more and more? Does not this sound like the unionists' demand in the 60's to early 90's? Remember, besides Fair Work Act, there are other acts in place, such as Equal Opportunity Act (childless mother, men), OHS Act (breastfeeding, taking babies to workplace), etc.

Plankers tell of being sacked or suspended

Posted to Herald Sun (20/5/2011) at 20/5/2011 at 11:54 AM
Commenting on "Plankers tell of being sacked, suspended"
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/woolworths-employees-sacked-for-planking/story-e6frf7jo-1226059246084

For those bleeding hearts, if you mates, children or parents are the injured or death victims of planking, you will change your mind that planking is more than just fun. There are idiots that plank on railway tracks and busy roads. Not only the idiots will get injured, they can cause immense casualty to the occupants in the trains or cars.
Part 1 of 3

Posted to Herald Sun (20/5/2011) at 20/5/2011 at 11:55 AM
There is every reason why employees planking at workplace should be sacked. Under the OHS Acts, "all workers have a duty of care to ensure that they work in a manner that is not harmful to their own health and safety and the health and safety of others". If plankers are not sacked, and got injured during planking at workplace, I can bet my bottom dollars that they will sue the company for unsafe workplace for staff recreation. One must also note that a workplace can be an aircraft cockpit. Will you accept to let the pilot to plank while flying the plane, or the air hostess to do it for fun?
Part 2 of 3

Posted to Herald Sun (20/5/2011) at 20/5/2011 at 11:55 AM
The most disgusting thing that have been happening is that well-known radio and television presenters have somehow join the bandwagon, intentionally or unintentionally, promoting such socially irresponsible, idiotic pastime. They should be ashamed of what they have done, and make a public apology for their less than mindless "endorsement".
Part 3 of 3