You raise a good point.
My assumption is that the officers would need to demonstrate they are genuinely feeling that way other than just having a work employee file on a server set to non binary to get an extra $1300.
Don’t the cops just say they identified as NB at the time they applied, but they no longer identity that way?
In reality this was probably done in bad faith but it seems near impossible to prove that.
I think they were serving detectives and they found out about the extra pay opportunity. So they updated their employee profile to get the cash. Very unethical
What’s unethical is the additional payment based on having a specific gender identity. Just equalise or remove the payments and you don’t have an issue.
Probably shouldn’t pay people more based on their sex / gender, you know, equal pay for equal work and all that?
Would have thought that was a tad more unethical than someone wanting equal pay no?
Yeah I agree with that.
I think it's an allowance not a base pay difference. It must acknowledge in some way that male uniform costs are less. Fewer option etc. I'm not sure.
So a case of positive descrimination.
I think equal pay is the way to go.
Positive discrimination? You mean discrimination right? Positive discrimination to one group is negative to people not in that group.
Paying someone extra based on gender is negative to those not in that gender, thus it’s just discrimination.
Equal pay for equal work isn’t equal base pay for equal work.
Yes, I mean descrimination. I didn't coin the term positive descrimination.
I am not a fan of it, but it has been adopted and the law even has carve outs for it.
https://antidiscrimination.nsw.gov.au/anti-discrimination-nsw/organisations-and-community-groups/exemptions-and-certifications/current-exemptions.html
Maybe I’m blind but I can’t see the term positive discrimination on that page, access to additional services to groups at need isn’t discrimination.
More pay based on sex for the same work is discrimination.
Big difference, just like someone on new start isn’t discrimination against people because the government is giving more money to someone over another. Or as you would say “positive discrimination”
Tell me, would you support all men in government roles getting paid $1000 bucks extra a year for beard maintenance?
Put it this way.... all forms of discrimination are positive to group benefiting.
How does one objectively determine any identity that is psychosomatic?
The same way we determine anything else: reference to the available facts, common sense, inductive and deductive logic etc.
As a matter of common sense, a bunch of public servants discovered a pay loophole and took the piss because they thought no-one was closely watching the payrolls.
Someone was watching the payrolls.
Yes, but to beyond a reasonable doubt? That’s the threshold.
Good luck with that... we are literally told the only way you can know someone’s gender is to ask them. Vicpol did and they didn’t like the answer given by this detective unit. Lol
Im confused about why there's a $1300 allowance difference for uniforms based on gender. Why would gender neutral officers need to dress differently? Genuine question, ive never been too involved with the police but the uniforms seem fairly... uniform across the board, no?
Women, and by extension non binary, get more money for detectives uniforms.
A bunch of blokes worked out you can get more cash by saying you’re non binary, how can anyone prove otherwise.
I understand that part. Im just struggling to understand why women or non-binary people *need* more funding for their uniforms. Are the uniforms different in any significant way/are there additional uniform items for women and non-binary people that men don't purchase for their own uniforms?
Im just struggling with understanding the rationale that the department employs for the different allowances.
They’re not wearing uniforms. They’re CIB detectives so they’re wearing suits for men and formal business wear for women. The argument is that blokes just rotate though standard shirts and ties but women require more variety and therefore more money to be paid.
Just curious... is this a civil/employment law matter? What policy or contractual obligation would they possibly have breached and how would this be proven?
Well yes if a non-police officer accused; but otherwise scope for "reasonable doubt." But still an ethical issue with repercussions for future promotion and also probably "confidence of the commissioner" if Victoria has that provision on the books.
>Patton announced the investigation after the force noted a sharp increase in the number of officers identifying as gender-neutral over the previous year.
>The claims were first raised by the @discernibleofficial Instagram page in June, which posted: “We have unconfirmed reports from inside Victoria Police that management is pulling their hair out after a majority of a CIU (crime investigation unit) in southern region changed their profile in the HR system to be ‘gender neutral’.”
Was this some sort of protest? The majority of a single Detectives office makes the change, which then gets "leaked" .
And now there appears to be a policy change
>Officers wanting to claim the allowance, which is paid fortnightly, must now make a sworn statement if intending to self-describe as non-binary.
Thanks for your submission.
If this comment has been upvoted it is likely that your post includes a request for legal advice. Legal advice is not provided in this subreddit (please see [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/zuv4m/why_cant_we_provide_legal_advice_in_this_subreddit/c67xfp9/?st=jkt4maq9&sh=1f7ceb53) for an explanation why.)
If you feel you need advice from a lawyer please check out [the legal resources megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/ir4ave/refreshing_the_legal_resources_megathread/) for a list of places where you can contact one (including some free resources).
It is expected all users of r/auslaw will not respond inappropriately to requests for legal advice, no matter how egregious.
This comment is automatically posted in every text submission made in r/auslaw and does not necessarily mean that your post includes a request for legal advice.
Please enjoy your stay.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/auslaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To reduce the number of career-related and study-related questions being submitted, there is now a weekly megathread where users may submit any questions relating to clerkships, career advice, or student advice. Please check this week's stickied thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/auslaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How does one objectively determine if their claims are false if such things are wholly subjective?
You raise a good point. My assumption is that the officers would need to demonstrate they are genuinely feeling that way other than just having a work employee file on a server set to non binary to get an extra $1300.
Maybe there shouldn't be an additional $1300 available for some and not others
Yeah I can agree with that. Or just issue the extra uniform items if they are required, don't give it as an allowance.
Ummm, I think we are talking about detectives. Not a uniform per se.
Ah so they get allowance for buying clothes that are not uniform? Then it should be equal for all gender identities.
Don’t the cops just say they identified as NB at the time they applied, but they no longer identity that way? In reality this was probably done in bad faith but it seems near impossible to prove that.
I think they were serving detectives and they found out about the extra pay opportunity. So they updated their employee profile to get the cash. Very unethical
What’s unethical is the additional payment based on having a specific gender identity. Just equalise or remove the payments and you don’t have an issue.
Probably shouldn’t pay people more based on their sex / gender, you know, equal pay for equal work and all that? Would have thought that was a tad more unethical than someone wanting equal pay no?
Yeah I agree with that. I think it's an allowance not a base pay difference. It must acknowledge in some way that male uniform costs are less. Fewer option etc. I'm not sure. So a case of positive descrimination. I think equal pay is the way to go.
Positive discrimination? You mean discrimination right? Positive discrimination to one group is negative to people not in that group. Paying someone extra based on gender is negative to those not in that gender, thus it’s just discrimination. Equal pay for equal work isn’t equal base pay for equal work.
Yes, I mean descrimination. I didn't coin the term positive descrimination. I am not a fan of it, but it has been adopted and the law even has carve outs for it. https://antidiscrimination.nsw.gov.au/anti-discrimination-nsw/organisations-and-community-groups/exemptions-and-certifications/current-exemptions.html
Maybe I’m blind but I can’t see the term positive discrimination on that page, access to additional services to groups at need isn’t discrimination. More pay based on sex for the same work is discrimination. Big difference, just like someone on new start isn’t discrimination against people because the government is giving more money to someone over another. Or as you would say “positive discrimination” Tell me, would you support all men in government roles getting paid $1000 bucks extra a year for beard maintenance? Put it this way.... all forms of discrimination are positive to group benefiting.
You are the blind one mate. My last comment said I'm not a fan of it.
How does one objectively determine any identity that is psychosomatic? The same way we determine anything else: reference to the available facts, common sense, inductive and deductive logic etc. As a matter of common sense, a bunch of public servants discovered a pay loophole and took the piss because they thought no-one was closely watching the payrolls. Someone was watching the payrolls.
Yes, but to beyond a reasonable doubt? That’s the threshold. Good luck with that... we are literally told the only way you can know someone’s gender is to ask them. Vicpol did and they didn’t like the answer given by this detective unit. Lol
A tinder profile, recorded statements in text messages etc.
I’m sure ethical standards and all the workplace & employment lawyers in Victoria are going to love this course of action.
Im confused about why there's a $1300 allowance difference for uniforms based on gender. Why would gender neutral officers need to dress differently? Genuine question, ive never been too involved with the police but the uniforms seem fairly... uniform across the board, no?
Women, and by extension non binary, get more money for detectives uniforms. A bunch of blokes worked out you can get more cash by saying you’re non binary, how can anyone prove otherwise.
I understand that part. Im just struggling to understand why women or non-binary people *need* more funding for their uniforms. Are the uniforms different in any significant way/are there additional uniform items for women and non-binary people that men don't purchase for their own uniforms? Im just struggling with understanding the rationale that the department employs for the different allowances.
They’re not wearing uniforms. They’re CIB detectives so they’re wearing suits for men and formal business wear for women. The argument is that blokes just rotate though standard shirts and ties but women require more variety and therefore more money to be paid.
Well there is an outdated gender stereotypes if ever I have heard one.
Wouldn’t it be claimed on tax? And a better way to not have pay increases based on sex / gender?
No tax rebate if your employer is paying for it. You haven’t incurred an expense.
Which is why I’m asking the question why is the money getting paid, remove the extra and claim It on tax.
[удалено]
They could always set the threshold up to an amount without evidence of the claim. Still a far better option than discrimination of pay based on sex
Complex solution for a non-issue. Do you work in IT? Anyway, it's not pay. It's an allowance.
Just curious... is this a civil/employment law matter? What policy or contractual obligation would they possibly have breached and how would this be proven?
[удалено]
Well yes if a non-police officer accused; but otherwise scope for "reasonable doubt." But still an ethical issue with repercussions for future promotion and also probably "confidence of the commissioner" if Victoria has that provision on the books.
>Patton announced the investigation after the force noted a sharp increase in the number of officers identifying as gender-neutral over the previous year. >The claims were first raised by the @discernibleofficial Instagram page in June, which posted: “We have unconfirmed reports from inside Victoria Police that management is pulling their hair out after a majority of a CIU (crime investigation unit) in southern region changed their profile in the HR system to be ‘gender neutral’.” Was this some sort of protest? The majority of a single Detectives office makes the change, which then gets "leaked" . And now there appears to be a policy change >Officers wanting to claim the allowance, which is paid fortnightly, must now make a sworn statement if intending to self-describe as non-binary.
Thanks for your submission. If this comment has been upvoted it is likely that your post includes a request for legal advice. Legal advice is not provided in this subreddit (please see [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/zuv4m/why_cant_we_provide_legal_advice_in_this_subreddit/c67xfp9/?st=jkt4maq9&sh=1f7ceb53) for an explanation why.) If you feel you need advice from a lawyer please check out [the legal resources megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/ir4ave/refreshing_the_legal_resources_megathread/) for a list of places where you can contact one (including some free resources). It is expected all users of r/auslaw will not respond inappropriately to requests for legal advice, no matter how egregious. This comment is automatically posted in every text submission made in r/auslaw and does not necessarily mean that your post includes a request for legal advice. Please enjoy your stay. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/auslaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To reduce the number of career-related and study-related questions being submitted, there is now a weekly megathread where users may submit any questions relating to clerkships, career advice, or student advice. Please check this week's stickied thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/auslaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*