Legal Studies and Industrial Relations - Essay Example

AAP (2006, 20 Sept WA driven to drink on Sundays. Daily Telegraph. Liquor laws have, until recently, prohibited the sale of liquor by licensed shops on Sundays. This meant that the purchase of liquor and drinking in public was generally confined to hotels. Needless to say, this legislature drove a significant amount of business in the direction of the city's hotels and pubs. Legislative changes, however, largely instigated by the fact that the described legislature was deemed outmoded and archaic, have removed the stated prohibition. Licensed stores can now sell liquor on Sunday. The hospitality industry's reaction to the described changed has been mixed. On the one hand, hoteliers appear sympathetic to, and understanding of, the rationale behind the change. On the other hand, hospitality industry stakeholders are concerned that the legislative change may drive business away from the hotels and more importantly, the small pubs. In other words, there is concern over the economic effect of the legislative change. As evidenced in the preceding, the legislature under question here is liquor laws. This is the major legal issue here. The secondary legal issue relates to policies regarding economic compensation for small pub owners as a consequence of the said legislative reform. AAP (2007, 6 Nov.) Property Council backs small bar change. Sydney Morning Herald. Current liquor licensing legislature is a source of debate and controversy in NSW. Proponents of the status quo maintain that existent laws are an integral way of maintaining control over drinking and, accordingly, for avoiding the social problems which arise from binge drinking. Opponents contend that current legislature is unfair, on the one hand, and ensures that the hospitality industry remain under the control of the larger players on the other. Politicians are increasingly realising the veracity of the aforementioned and conceding to the imperatives of removing restrictive licensing. The Property Council of Australia has publicised its support for amendment, cutting the economic advantages of supporting small bars. Under the proposed amendment, licensing fees will drop from $15,000 to $500 for small bars and $2000 for hotels. The Council's announced supports pits it against the Australian Hospitality Association which is opposed to this amendment. The aforementioned stakeholder has a very different perception of the situation than the other. The AHA maintains that legislative reform and support for small bars will effectively led to an alcohol problem. The APC, on the other hand, disputes this and maintains that it will economically invigorate the city. Despite the opposition of the AHA and its vocalised reservations, the most likely outcome is the passage of the amendment. AAP (2007, 6 Nov.) AHA fears standards drop with new laws. Sydney Morning Herald. The Australian Hotel Association has formally announced its reservation regarding the proposed amendment to the NSW liquor licensing laws. While conceding that these laws are both very tough and highly restrictive, the AHA says that they are reflective of the seriousness of the responsibility inherent in serving alcohol to the public. A license to serve alcohol is conditioned on the licensee's adhering to a certain standard, amongst which are the exercise of discretion when serving alcohol in an effort to mitigate against binge drinking and alcoholism, on the one hand, and to prevent minors from being served alcohol, on the other. The implication here is that the restrictive nature of the legislature is justified through a consideration of societal welfare. As indicated in the preceding paragraph, the two stakeholders are the proponents of the amendment and its opponents, as in the AHA. Needless to say, the very nature of the legal issue further defines society itself, or members of the public, as an important stakeholder. The legal issue, which is the relaxation of the restrictions on licensing bars, is a thorny one for two reasons. In the first place, current restrictions ensure that the hospitality industry remain controlled by the big players. In the second place, the relaxation of restrictions can pose as a risk to society. Even while bearing that risk in mind, the outcome is likely to be amendment and the maintenance of the conditions upon which licenses are issued to ensure that standards do not deteriorate. AAP (2007, 12 Nov.) Hospitals to reduce junk food availability. Sydney Morning Herald. Hospitals are incontrovertibly part of the healthcare industry but they are related to the hospitality industry in the sense that apart from the provision of medical treatment, in patient care standards now vie with the treatment which hotels offer their guests. Indeed, the article in question does establish a relationship between hospitals and the hospitality industry. The issue of concern raised here is the duty of care which hospitals owe their patients. Healthcare laws maintain that hospitals are obliged to offer their parents the best possible care pending, of course, informed consent. Current hospital policies in NSW are tending towards the imposition of a more health conscious regiment upon patients and are doing so through the elimination of junk food from hospital menus, irrespective of the patient's condition. That is to say even if the patient's health condition does not necessitate the removal of junk food from his/her diet, hospitals have done so. The primary stakeholders here, hospitals and patients, are not in dispute over this decision. Indeed, the decision, it can be argued, is compliant with laws pertaining to the duty of care which hospitals owe their patients. Anon (2007, 24 Oct.) Barmaid fined for crushing beer cans between breasts. Sydney Morning Herald. Bars in the country and the behaviour of employees therein are governed by the Liquor Control Act. Upon the issuance of a license, the premise in question is bound to adhere to the License Conditions. These conditions, among other things, impose certain behaviours and responsibilities upon barmaids and bar managers. Transgressions constitute a violation of the conditions upon which the license was issued and could culminate, if repeated or of serious enough, in the revocation of the license. A bar was recently cited for the violation of the said conditions. A barmaid publicly exposed her breasts to patrons and for their entertainment, hung spoons from her nipples and crushed bear cans between her breasts. The barmaid who had performed these acts, another which had assisted her and the manager, were all heavily fined. The legal issue here is self-explanatory. It directly goes to the standards which licensed premises are expected to adhere to and which they implicitly agreed to upon application for a license. The stakeholders in question, the bar and its patrons, quite effectively violated the said conditions. The patrons, however, are not liable as they were not party to the conditions and did not commit the acts themselves. The liable party is the bar and its employees. The outcome of this case has already been settled in the form of fines to those involved. Clennell, A. (2007, 24 Oct.) MP warns against propping up big bars. Sydney Morning Herald. The primary problem with current liquor licensing laws lies in the exorbitant fees which applicants are expected to pay. These fees function as an obstacle to the ability of small investors to apply for a license and, quite effectively, determines that the hospitality industry remain controlled by a handful of large investors. According to the MP for Sydney, the failure of the government to reform liquor licensing legislature is an obstacle to the establishment of small bars in the city and, according, communicates the impression that the legislature in question directly caters to the big hoteliers. As indicated in the preceding, the primary legal issue is liquor licensing legislature and direction of reforms. The secondary legal issue is the monopolization of the industry by the larger financiers and investors. Needless to say, the stakeholders in question are the public and the industry, more specifically minor investors versus the major investors. Liquor licensing legislature is on the brink of reform and the stakeholders have different conceptions regarding the direction for reform. While the outcome is not clear at this point, it is likely that reform will take the shape of a compromise between the two viewpoints. Clennell, A. (2007, 7 Nov.) Secret lobbyists have the premier's ear. Sydney Morning Herald. The hospitality industry may be vast but because of its status as one of the premier money-making industries, tends to be controlled by a few top investors, or hoteliers. These investors are quite efficiently organized and tend to use the services of lobbyists for the support of specific legislatures/bills and the opposition of others. Changes to the laws governing gambling licenses, naturally, attracted the interest of the said group and, in so doing, pitted the larger concerns against the smaller business ones. Opposing online gambling consequent to its being a direct threat to the profits generated by the hospitality industry's licensed gambling concerns, lobbyists were hired to communicate the said opposition to MPs. While this is an indication of the mismatch in power between the two primary stakeholders in this affair, it must be stressed that the actions of the larger hoteliers was consistent with legislature. The use of lobbyists is consistent with the law despite the fact that it creates inequalities between stakeholders. As noted above, one group opposes online gambling and the other supports it. The legal issue here is the prohibition of online gambling versus the issuance of licenses. In either case, legal amendments are required and these amendment will impact the hospitality industry, either by maintaining the status quo or changing it. The outcome, although uncertain, is likely to run against online gambling. Clennell, A. (2007, 7 Nov.) Pubs filthy over Labour rebuff on small bars. Sydney Morning Herald. The Australian Labour Party has amended the legislature on liquor licensing and, in so doing, has opened the way for small bars to operate throughout the city. The highly restrictive licensing laws which excluded small bars from operation through exorbitant licensing fees have been revised and amended. This move has aroused the anger of the Australian Hotel Association which said that after having donated millions to the ALP, it had expected it to protect the interest of the industry. By licensing small bars, the AHA claims that it is acting contrary to the interests of the industry. There are three stakeholders here. These are the ALP, the AHA and the small bars and their proponents. The legal issue is alcohol licensing legislature and its amendment. A secondary legal issue is gambling licenses. The AHA fears that the ALP might consider a revision of the current gambling legislature, thereby allowing small bars to operate gambling machines. To date, this does not appear possible in the near future but in the long-term, an amendment could be very well considered. The rationale here is the expansion of Sydney's nightlife and the injection of variety into it. In other words, legislative reforms pertaining to the hospitality industry are based on economic considerations and not just political ones. Creagh, S. (2007, 24 Oct.) Council wants power to curb pokies. Sydney Morning Herald. Gambling may be a source of significant profits for the hospitality industry but it is a source of tremendous social problems for countless people, not to mention society at large. At the present moment, council do not have the authority to discriminate against gambling establishments or hotels which have a gambling license. The implication here is that they do not have the legal right to deny a request for the extension of opening hours to gambling establishments. Council members argue that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act should be amended to give them this power. Their argument is that 24 hour access to poker machines will have tremendously negative social effects. As may be inferred from the preceding, the two stakeholders are the Council and the gambling establishments. The legal issue here is the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the extension of wider authorities to the Council in order to control the rising gambling craze. Even though the outcome is, as yet, undetermined it may be surmised that the Council's powers will be widened through an amendment to the said act in consideration of the social effects of gambling. Cronin, S. (2007, 20 Oct.) AHA stating to loose battle against small bars. Larvatus Prodeo. NSW's liquor licensing laws have been deemed archaic by countless in the hospitality industry, members of the public and, currently, by politicians. The primary problem with the current law is that it only leaves the door open for the larger investors and, accordingly, only supports the establishment of sizeable bars. The public, as well as several in the hospitality industry are increasingly realising the need for small bars and argue that it will be a significant and positive contribution to the city's nightlife. The MP for Sydney has introduced a Small Bar bill into parliament and several MPs have warned that if the bill is defeated, parliament will be viewed as the executors of the interest of the larger investors in the hospitality industry. The defeat of the bill will not make sense, either from the economic or the legislative point of view. Accordingly, it will be interpreted as parliament's favouring the more powerful of the two stakeholders against the other. That is the large hoteliers and establishments over the smaller ones. Noting the rationale for the bill, as outlined in the preceding, and the way in which its defeat will be interpreted, their chances for its passage are high. Consequently, it is possible to say that the outcome will likely be in favour of the proposed bill, culminating in the amendment of the current liquor licensing laws. Horin, A. (2007, 12 Nov.) Laws must change to help mentally ill find work. Sydney Morning Herald. Welfare to work laws in Australia need to be overhauled as rising unemployment rates for those who have suffered mental illnesses have reached critical proportions. Employees, especially those in particular industries such as the hospitality one, are vulnerable to mental stress, possibly culminating in their having to seek mental treatment. In instances where employees discover this, they prefer to pay employees out rather than support their return to work. Current employment laws support the ability of employees to do so. Indeed, a review of the nation's unemployment laws indicates that there is no strong support, if at all, for the employment of those who suffer from, or who have suffered from, mental illness. The two stakeholders here are the hospitality industry in particular, and employees across the country in general, and mentally ill members of the workforce. The legal issue is work laws pertaining to employment policies and practices. A consideration of the status of the mentally ill will definitely impact current employment practices insofar as the legislature could very well be amended in order to decrease the said unemployment rates. As the economics of the situation become more pressing, the likelihood of the law in question being amended is high. Therefore, the outcome will probably favour employment for the mentally ill. Moses, A. (2007, 10 Nov.) Investigation into DJ piracy amid claims newcomers are stealing the show. Sydney Morning Herald. Consequent to the impact of the practice on the music and entertainment industry, Australia has strict anti-piracy laws. These laws, which are compliant with international laws pertaining to copyright and piracy, are strictly enforced and suspected violations are investigated and, if cause is found, prosecuted. The hospitality industry, by its very nature, is concerned with these laws. Nightclubs, wherein entertainment often revolves around music, have an obligation to ensure that the DJ's they hire do not play pirated music. Recently, nightclubs across Sydney have come under investigation because the DJs they hire are suspected of playing pirated music. It needs to be noted here that the intellectual property laws hold both the DJs and the nightclubs in question liable if the charge is established. With the findings of the investigation supporting the said suspicion, with it further being established that the nightclubs in question had purposely hired cheaper DJs without delving into their background and without checking whether their music is pirated or legal. This has made several nightclubs in Sydney vulnerable to being sued by the music industry and, indeed, places the hospitality industry at odds with the music one. As may have been inferred from the above critique, the two stakeholders are the music industry and the hospitality industry and more specifically, DJs, nightclubs and copyright owners. The legal issue here is intellectual property laws and legislature. Pandaram, J. (2007, 20 Oct.) Cleaners beat police to room. Sydney Morning Herald. The article brings to light a very interesting question regarding the laws and the hospitality industry in instances where a crime has, supposedly been committed on the premises. Hotels are legally bound to maintain certain levels of hygiene and cleanliness. This is an incontrovertible legal requirement and the maintenance of license is predicated on their adhering to the defined health standards. The stakeholders, as in the clientele, expect hotels to adhere to these standards. At the same time, when there is a suspicion that a crime has been carried out in a part of the premise, as in a hotel room, cleaning constitutes the destruction of evidence. There are two legal perspectives on the issue of hotel cleaning and destruction of evidence. In the first instance, if the hotel room is cleaned prior to there having been an official report of a possible crime, the hotel is not liable. Conversely, in the second instance, if it is cleaned after a report is made, cleaning is deliberate destruction of evidence. Proceeding on the basis of the above stated, it is amply evident that the legal issue here is one that cannot be resolved. The hospitality industry should take precautions against their premises being used for criminal purposes and if they are should preserve the crime scene. If, however, they have no knowledge of the crime, then they are bound to clean the rooms. Read More