Unfair dismissal on 457 visa after only three weeks, can anyone help?

[Que Sera Sera]

I cannot understand why companies do this, why sack someone after only a few weeks when it has cost you a few thousand bringing them over?

I use to warn people about student visas many years ago, people would bring their family out on them then end up going back home as they couldn't afford it, now the 457 is just as bad.

This is why in situations like this we have to remember we only have one side of the story, indeed why would an employer pay all that money just to dismiss someone for no reason after just two weeks? Odd

[Guest littlesarah]

The trouble with the 457, from what I can see, is that the employee is to some extent at the mercy of their employer. So, for colleagues of mine who were employed on 457s (being the fastest way to get or keep them out here and doing the work for which there is a massive shortage of suitable local applicants), the visa works well. The company helps workers to change to other visa types if they wish to, and seems to actively want to get staff into the position where they have PR. But, I think that's because it's a large institution and because they need to recruit and retain staff in a competitive market (especially in disciplines like mine, where academics have to get pretty high up the food chain to earn more than they would working in practice). For smaller companies with perhaps less of a skills shortage, it may be that other motives come into play, and that's where things can get a bit difficult for the worker.

[Kapri]

I find these stories about treatment of 457 visa holders a bit bizarre. In my company there just is no focus on visa status, nobody cares and the majority would not even know. I joined as a manager and inherited a team, there was a 457 visa holder in it but nobody pointed her out to me or made any issue out of it, I didn't even know until more than a year later when she asked for the afternoon off to go for her medicals for a PR visa application. I work for a big organisation, maybe the bad treatment is more prevalent in a smaller company?

 

I suspect it is smaller companies. I'm on a 457 with NSW health and get treated exactly the same as everyone else.

My OH works or a small company but he was not brought over by them so nobody knows.

[VERYSTORMY]

I suspect it is smaller companies. I'm on a 457 with NSW health and get treated exactly the same as everyone else.

My OH works or a small company but he was not brought over by them so nobody knows.

 

It is not so much the company, but the visa. People come to Oz on a 457 and think they have emigrated. They havent. They have taken a 4 year contract in another country. During which time, if they lose their job then they may have to leave earlier. It can happen to any one on a 457 regardless of size of organisation. The organisation budgets cuts and makes people redundant. The 457's then have a scramble to find another sponsor or leave.

[Rupert]

It is not so much the company, but the visa. People come to Oz on a 457 and think they have emigrated. They havent. They have taken a 4 year contract in another country. During which time, if they lose their job then they may have to leave earlier. It can happen to any one on a 457 regardless of size of organisation. The organisation budgets cuts and makes people redundant. The 457's then have a scramble to find another sponsor or leave.

 

We were actually discussing the treatment of employees on 457 visas and some of us observed that in our organisations, they re treated the same way as every other employee.

[starlight7]

You'd have to wonder why any company would fly someone out and do all the paperwork only to sack them a couple of weeks later. Maybe a bit of a cultural clash ?

[dodgy]

You'd have to wonder why any company would fly someone out and do all the paperwork only to sack them a couple of weeks later. Maybe a bit of a cultural clash ?

 

Only the lucky ones get everything payed for by the big companies, the majority have to pay their own visa and travel.

[dodgy]

Imagine getting layed off after paying for all the costs of travel,immigration agent and visa costs.

[KIRK AND CO]

 

Imagine getting layed off after paying for all the costs of travel,immigration agent and visa costs.

Thats the risk you take with a 457

[Rupert]

Only the lucky ones get everything payed for by the big companies, the majority have to pay their own visa and travel.

 

In my four years around immigration forums, the most common reason I see people opt for the 457 is not because they are not eligible for PR, but that they don't want to pay for it and the 457 is cheaper.

[KIRK AND CO]

 

In my four years around immigration forums, the most common reason I see people opt for the 457 is not because they are not eligible for PR, but that they don't want to pay for it and the 457 is cheaper.

do it cheap but pay more in the long run.

[Sapphire]

I cannot understand why companies do this, why sack someone after only a few weeks when it has cost you a few thousand bringing them over?

I use to warn people about student visas many years ago, people would bring their family out on them then end up going back home as they couldn't afford it, now the 457 is just as bad.

 

It costs the employer nothing, as its all tax deductable.

So they have nothing to loose, but unfortunatatly the employee stands to loose everything.

So many see it as a easy way to get to Aus, and just do nt understand the implications of this visa, and alot have the "it wouldent happen to me " attitude.

We are reading so many posts like this now,you would think people would take notice.

[Johndoe]

In my four years around immigration forums, the most common reason I see people opt for the 457 is not because they are not eligible for PR, but that they don't want to pay for it and the 457 is cheaper.

 

And faster.......................I want it and I want it now syndrome

[Johndoe]

It costs the employer nothing, as its all tax deductable.

 

 

It still costs 'em. They only save the tax they would have paid had the expenditure been profit, not the expenditure.

[Xenon4017]

We are reading so many posts like this now,you would think people would take notice.

 

The thing is there's a latency between the decision to move and actually moving. Anyone who arrives now has taken the decision based upon the news from last year, or maybe earlier. Their plans are already in motion, so to speak. They've given notice on jobs, sold assets etc. This applies to any visa type. The bad news now will dampen arrivals in 12 months time, which will lead to a skill shortage which will lead to better offers to migrants which will lead to over supply etc. Then we can all just copy paste our posts from 18 months ago.

 

The OPs situation is extreme. It might well be that the employer has taken a turn for the worse and is laying off more staff. It's hard to say without any details.

[Sapphire]

It still costs 'em. They only save the tax they would have paid had the expenditure been profit, not the expenditure.

 

All the costs involved for bringing someone over will be deductable, as its a business expense which they offset.

[Xenon4017]

All the costs involved for bringing someone over will be deductable, as its a business expense which they offset.

 

I think what JohnDoe means is that although you can deduct the 457 expenses from your taxable gross, most companies would've been better off not going through the 457 dance.

 

For example assume 25% corporation tax. Company A employs no 457 and makes 100k gross profit. Net profit = 100k - (25% of 100k) = 75k.

Company B employs a 457 at a cost of 10k in visas, flights etc. These are expenses incurred as a cost of doing business, so are deducted from gross profit before taxation. Net profit = (100k - 10k) - (25% of 90k) = 67.5k. So the 457 has subtracted 7.5k from the bottom line net profit, although the true cost was 10k.

 

"Tax deductable" doesn't really mean the taxman pays all of it, it means the taxman pays about 1/4 of it.

[Johndoe]

All the costs involved for bringing someone over will be deductable, as its a business expense which they offset.

 

What Xenon says..................it's a misconception that any expense is wholly deductible. All the expense does is reduce the profit by the amount of the expense...............the expense isn't deductible, the tax payable if it had been profit is the deduction. Have known loads of Uk migrants who, when they get here, think that everything allowable against tax will be deducted from their tax bill and go out and buy heaps of new tools/computers/stethoscopes etc thinking the cost will be knocked off their tax bill.................the only thing deductible is the tax that they would have paid, had those expenses not been incurred.

[AJ]

Well since its been 5 days and 5 pages and the OP hasn't bothered to respond to anything they cant be that desperate for help!

[Xenon4017]

Just to add to the above, the time when tax deductible becomes attractive is when you're on a high tax rate, _and_ you're buying things that you anyway need. Prime example would be a car, which you use for both business and domestic. In that case the taxman might end up (effectively) contributing up to 40% of the cost. So the 50k silver Prado now only sets you back 30k. The other 20k was the tax you didn't pay to the govt.

 

The downside to that is that if you ever go to IKEA, you'll never be able to find your car again amongst the sea of silver Prados that are also there.

[Johndoe]

 

The downside to that is that if you ever go to IKEA, you'll never be able to find your car again amongst the sea of silver Prados that are also there.

 

:biglaugh::biglaugh:.............................wait a minute ! I've got a sliver prado........................hope it's mine as I went to Ikea last week :wacko:

[wrussell]

do it cheap but pay more in the long run.

 

When you count paying for medical insurance and school fees (if applicable) and various other 457 costs (sponsorship, nomination and so on) PR is not always more expensive.

[Rupert]

All the costs involved for bringing someone over will be deductable, as its a business expense which they offset.

 

Accounting 101. Being tax deductible does not mean the employer pays nothing!

 

If the cost is $1000 and they can claim it as a tax deductible expense then they save probably $300 on tax so it still cost them $700.

[dodgy]

Well since its been 5 days and 5 pages and the OP hasn't bothered to respond to anything they cant be that desperate for help!

 

It might have something to do with the fact that their thread has turned into allot of negative comments like "Thats the risk you take with a 457" / "And faster.......................I want it and I want it now syndrome" too name 2, Along with tax implications etc.

[Rupert]

It might have something to do with the fact that their thread has turned into allot of negative comments like "Thats the risk you take with a 457" / "And faster.......................I want it and I want it now syndrome" too name 2, Along with tax implications etc.

 

Well only the last page or so, the poster did not come back even after the first few posts days ago.