Surprise!
Many years ago, in 1960s USA there was a telephone technician strike. The technicians predicted that within a month, there would be so many faults that had occurred in the telephone exchanges and not been repaired, that most calls would fail to get through. The employers also nervously awaited the expected degradation of the quality of service, but for financial reasons were determined not to give in to their staff for higher wages.
After two weeks, there certainly was a reduction in calls getting through, but not as bad as expected. The technicians could see this by calling between their houses and friends too. Some individual customers had completely lost service, but generally it wasn’t as bad as expected.
After a month, it was becoming obvious that the degradation of service wasn’t at all as bad as had been expected. You see, as technicians repaired faults, they accidentally interfered with nearby circuits, setting them up to fail. Without workers in the exchanges, fewer faults were occurring!
The technicians found that they had to accept a much lower pay rise than they had been hoping to get!
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Calls for Family Court charges to be reversed
NewstalkZB | 10:45am Sun 01 Jul 2012
There are strong calls for Family Court charges to be reversed.
From today it’ll cost $220 to get a parenting order, $700 for a relationship property application, and more than $900 for a relationship property hearing.
Labour’s justice spokesman Charles Chauvel says the cost will deter people from using the Family Court.
He says it’s children who’ll be impacted the most.
“Putting this big fee in place means that a lot of them won’t go to court and their miserable domestic situations, where the kids are the ones who are suffering emotionally, will just be prolonged. So it’s actually really cruel from that point of view.”
Mr Chauvel says fee announcements should have waited until after a review of the Family Court.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
MurrayBacon:
Maybe the increases in charges will motivate parents to negotiate sensibly and constructively and to finalise their negotiations without resorting to the suited mafia?
Maybe the mechanism of the familycaught will quietly decay away to nothing?
I hope that they don’t go out in a crescendo of bleating and squealing, like pigs having their throats cut?
The increase in Government caught charges will end up having a strong depressing effect on legal-worker’s charges. We might have a bit of entertainment, even more than kindly given by Barry Hart QC.
I am guessing that lawyers will be affected the most.
It might actually be very positive for children, if it motivates honest negotiation between parents!
I thought I heard a call last week that these costs should be scrapped, as it’ll prevent women from taking family court action.
That attitude, I can’t remember where it came from, but quite probably from a feminist lobby group, possibly the woman’s refuge, sums up the overall attitude: That we must bend over backwards to support woman, and stuff the men. Men can afford to pay. Men are bottomless pockets, cash cows etc.
We should scrap the fees because they penalise women! Charging a man $700 to settle a property case is fair, but charging a woman $700 is manifestly unfair. Charging a man $200 to try to see his kids is fair, but charging a woman $200 to stop the man seeing her kids, is manifestly unfair!
Stop the world! I want to get off.
Comment by Empty Pocket — Sun 1st July 2012 @ 6:40 pm
#1,,the govt also says that women who fraudulently claim a benefit whilst in a relationship is manifestly unfair to women and the man in her life will have to foot the recovery of the said amount
Comment by Ford — Sun 1st July 2012 @ 7:53 pm
Beautiful analogy Murray 😉
Comment by Pete — Thu 5th July 2012 @ 9:18 pm
#1..a woman wouldnt have to pay $200 to stop a man seeing his kids..she can get a protection order ,free of charge, so it will be the man that pays if he wants to see them..and with a protection order comes accusations of abuse which more than likely will get him removed from the house and if he wants some of the property back it will be he that pays the $700 and $900..that is manifestly unfair to men
Comment by Ford — Fri 6th July 2012 @ 10:18 am
In my experience a very typical picture of a family in a bitter breakup is that he earns too much to get Legal Aid but not enough to get a lawyer while she is on some benefit and gets legal aid.
While theoretically legal aid needs to be paid back, this is unlikely going to happen where the debtor is a beneficiary. The effect is that many disgruntled women use Legal Aid as a means for revenge on their exes.
I go along with Murray and hold hopes that the fees will lead to more out of court settlements and more people to abide by court orderes instead of filing new applications a few days after they are made.
Of course, if Legal Aid starts funding application fees we made the situation worse than it is today.
Comment by Pete — Fri 6th July 2012 @ 11:01 am
Dear Pete, it is more common than most people realise, for beneficiaries to have to pay back a legal-worker’s-aid loan to Government. (Not common enough, as it still costs taxpayers very very dearly, for a truly dismal improvement to society, more harm than good I suspect.)
The main reason that beneficiaries have no fear of paying back, is that they don’t (can’t?) read the paperwork. It is clearly spelled out on the signup form, under what circumstances it would have to be repaid.
The legal-worker receiving the aid, is under an obligation to explain the terms of the loan agreement, including the paragraph about repayment. This is an ethical obligation!!!!!!
I have asked several beneficiaries why they were so legally adventurous, given the repayment clause? They expressed surprise and confidence that I had got it wrong. When I showed them a blank form, of the type that they must have signed, they expressed confidence that the legal-worker being aided hadn’t told them about that clause and they hadn’t read the form either. They were beneficiaries, so why would they ever have to pay something back?
Several were perhaps misled, because in earlier years, there was no requirement for repayment. When the change was quietly slipped in, they hadn’t picked up on the change, even though it is there in black and white fine print.
The common scenarios leading to repayment are getting a job, relationship property settlement and inheritance.
I have heard plenty of hissing and spitting, I wouldn’t have taken the legal action, if I knew it was going to cost me that much! Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 6th July 2012 @ 12:37 pm
as i understand it the legal aid board can decide if they will enforce repayment or not..some i have paid back and some i havent..also initally when applying for legal aid cash outlay is $50 and a beneficiary would more than likely pay no more than $10 a week
Comment by Ford — Fri 6th July 2012 @ 12:51 pm
Ford, as well as what you said, I have heard complaints (I don’t know if it is true or not) that they chase repayment harder from men. MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 6th July 2012 @ 12:54 pm
sounds about right mr bacon…i know my x used legal aid the same times i did and never paid a cent back yet of the 3-4 times ive used it ive paid back all but the first time and the last time i applied for legal aid wouldnt you know..my female lawyer didnt get the forms in lodged in time so i had to find the money myself..bit difficult when your a beneficiary..i lost my job about the same time so that took all my holiday pay and some
Comment by Ford — Fri 6th July 2012 @ 1:34 pm