João Ximenes Braga se dedica um longo metragem sobre o Brasil entre 1960 e 1980

Resultado de imagem para joão ximenes braga

 

João Ximenes Braga, ex-Globo, desenvolveu apenas a sinopse da próxima temporada da série “Bruna Surfistinha” para a Fox…
… Ele não vai escrever os episódios…
…Ximenes, na verdade, agora vai se dedicar inteiramente a um longa-metragem, passado entre os anos de 1960 e 1980, que lida com questões sobre a História do Brasil…
…O trabalho inclusive foi aprovado no edital do Fundo Setorial do Audiovisual.

 

Flávio Ricco com colaboração de José Carlos Nery

Human Rights Commission ACT inquiries increase

JANUARY 9 2017 – 12:15AM

Emily Baker

Flag of Australia.svg

A gay man is told by his doctor he should “consider changing his ways” to avoid disease.

The neighbour of an Aboriginal woman seems to take her photo without her consent and leaves offensive notes on the windscreen of her car.

The same sex marriage debate has contributed to an increase in human rights inquiries.

A woman’s supervisor implies she is mentally unwell and makes her take leave, leaving her feeling pressured to resign from her job.

These are just some of the examples of the increased number of inquiries the ACT Human Rights Commission received during the last financial year.

The body dealt with 345 discrimination inquiries in 2015-16, up from 191 the year before. Human rights inquiries rose from 53 to 214.

Discrimination, Health Services, Disability and Community Services Commissioner Karen Toohey attributed the increase in queries to a growing awareness of discrimination and human rights issues.

The bulk of inquiries related to disability discrimination, she said, followed by race, sex and gender and age inquiries, most often relating services and employment.

Human rights issues often linked with hot-button topics in the media, such as the Mr Fluffy program, detainee rights and family violence. The commission also received inquiries outside its jurisdiction, including on refugees, asylum seekers and same-sex marriage.

Not all inquiries resulted in complaints, though complaint allegations increased from 120 to 169.

“People do not always want to lodge a complaint with us but want to know what their rights are so they can try and resolve the matter locally, hence the number of formal complaints we get is a small proportion of the number of inquiries we receive,” Ms Toohey said.

Other examples included:

  • A man’s son with Down syndrome was afraid to go to school. He was unsatisfied with how the school handled his complaints;
  • A woman’s employer refused to change her roster to accommodate school holidays and told her to find another job if she could not work the required hours;
  • A woman who believed a team sports coach was being bullying and aggressive towards young people in the club.

Source : The Canberra Times

1,000 days on, ‘Sewol’ is still there

Flag of South Korea.svg

“One thousand days or 900 days, it’s all the same to me. I am a grieving mother who is still living that day, begging for the life of my child,” said Lee Geum-hee.

A new year has arrived, but Lee is still stuck on the disaster that took place on April 16, 2014.

As of Monday, 1,000 days have passed since the ferry Sewol sank with 304 people on board. However, Lee has still not left Paengmok port, the area close to the sea that claimed the life of her daughter, Cho Eun-hwa.

Cho is among nine victims whose bodies remain missing, along with fellow Danwon High School students Nam Hyeon-cheol, Park Young-in and Heo Da-yun; teachers Yang Seung-jin and Go Chang-seok; and citizens Lee Young-suk, Kwon Jae-geun and his then 6-year-old son Hyeok-gyu.

Out of the 304 victims, 250 were Danwon students who were told by the ship’s crew to stay put while they fled the vessel. A civilian-government special committee on the irregularities surrounding the incident was launched, but the Park Geun-hye administration pulled the plug on it in September without making much progress.

A sea of yellow ribbons and flags, a “postbox to heaven” for the victims, and pictures of those who remain underwater serve as a reminder that the feelings of loss and pain caused by the accident continues.

“People say they’ll remember, but what I want is to find her (Cho), I want the ship to be salvaged. I’ll be here until Eun-hwa comes out of the water,” Lee said, adding that she will stay at the port with families of others who remain missing.

Citizens on Friday visit Paengmok port, the area close to the sea where Sewol ferry sank to claim the lives of 304 passengers en route to southern island of Jeju on April 16, 2014. (Yonhap)

Their wait was prolonged again in November, as the government flip-flopped on its decision to salvage the ship last July, saying the operation could only commence in April at the earliest.

“The president and the government said they will find every last person and send them back to their families. It’s now been 1,000 days,” Lee said.

There is ongoing dispute over the method of recovering the ship, with the installation of 33 lifting beams to eventually bring its hull to the surface with wires having ended in late December. The Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries said that the preparation process of bring the ship to the surface is about 75 percent completed, but more time is likely to be needed due to weather conditions.

Never forget

Kim Yeon-sil, whose son Jeong Cha-woong died when the ship sank, said the bereaved families are “holding on” to ensure that one of the worst maritime accidents in Korean history is not forgotten.

“Moms and dads (of students) are doing all they can, some holding press meetings and others working on finding out the truth (about the accident) and on having the ship salvaged,” said Kim.

“I have felt that the accident is fading away in people’s memories, but President Park’s impeachment and the people’s protest (against the government) shed some hope,” she said.

Park is currently undergoing an impeachment trial for a corruption scandal involving herself and her confidante Choi Soon-sil. Among other charges, she is being accused of acting inappropriately during the Sewol tragedy.

“She just wasn’t working (on that day). The essence (of the suspicion) is why she didn’t give instructions (as state chief) to save the kids, not whether or not she received cosmetic treatment,” said Kim.

Pictures of the 250 student victims of Danwon High School hang on the staircase inside the relocated Memorial Classroom. (Jo He-rim/The Korea Herald)

But with Park adamantly in denial of any wrongdoings on the day of the accident, and the investigative processes halted, fatigue is starting to set in.

The parents have decided to change their method of fighting. After suffering from months of sorrow and missing their children, mothers and fathers have now gathered the strength to do various activities, such as acting out a play and singing in chorus.

“In order to sustain our struggles, we should break out of our sadness and depression,” Kim said.

Danwon High school’s Classroom 4 of second grade at Ansan Office of Education in Ansan, Gyeonggi Province on Dec. 30. (Jo He-rim/The Korea Herald)

Memory classrooms

One of the measures to ensure awareness about the Sewol disaster was the “Memory Classrooms,” originally set up in Danwon School in Ansan, Gyeonggi Province. These were later relocated to the Ansan Office of Education. The rooms have been preserved in the state when they were being used by their now-deceased youthful occupants.

With playful words scribbled on the desks, and memos on calendars and whiteboards, the classrooms have an almost a merry atmosphere of teenagers — before one realizes it is a memorial.

“I could not help my eyes welling up in tears. All of us were utterly shocked on that day (of the ferry sinking),” said 30-year-old Jeong Gyeo-wun about her visit to the Memory Classrooms in December. “I think it is important to preserve these classrooms.”

Post-its and letters are left on the desks of the then 17-year-olds, congratulating them on their adulthood which they would have reached by turning 19 in 2016.

“I feel emotions which cannot be put into words as I walk through these traces,” said Park Jeong-min.

According to officials at Ansan City Hall and the education office, over 642,025 visitors have paid their respects to the students at a district memorial altar in Danwon since the tragedy. More than 2,300 citizens visited the classrooms after they were moved, since Nov. 21 when they opened to the public.

But many claimed that the preserved area is but a remnant of the real classrooms.

Bereaved families and education authorities at Gyeonggi had been at loggerheads last August over the relocation, as the former insisted that the classrooms stay in Danwon. The families eventually caved in, but the complaints remain.

“(The relocated memory classrooms) are just a pretense, not the actual environment where the (deceased) students had actually spent their daily hours,” said Kim Yeon-sil. “It just feels like a soulless place.”

A visitor looks at the wall of the Memorial Classrooms relocated to Ansan Office of Education, Gyeonggi Province on Dec. 30. (Jo He-rim/The Korea Herald)

These mock classrooms lack one crucial sentiment — the feeling that the late students were actually there, according to Kim.

Some of the bereaved families have cleared out their children’s desk, which was used to hold gifts and messages from well-wishers across the country.

“I’m truly thankful to the people for remembering the children and for raising candles (in candlelight vigils), but I urge them to think about what should be the priority. Because nine people are still in Sewol,” said Lee, the mother of Cho.

By Yoon Min-sik, Jo He-rim
(minsikyoon@heraldcorp.com) (herim@heraldcorp.com)

Photos of Memorial Classrooms:

A sign reads “4.16 Memorial Class. Flower withers but will never forget you,” on the Ansan Office of Education building where classes of Danwon High School victims are relocated to in Ansan, Gyeonggi Province. (Jo He-rim/The Korea Herald)
A pile of gifts from visitors and letters on the desk of Kim Ho-yeon. (Jo He-rim/The Korea Herald)
Portraits of the victims hang on a tree inside the relocated Memorial Classroom. (Jo He-rim/The Korea Herald)
A pile of gifts from visitors and letters are laid on the desk of teacher Kim Cho-won. (Jo He-rim/The Korea Herald)
A calendar remains unflipped since April 2014 when the Sewol Ferry accident occurred. The week of April 16 is marked “Field trip.”(Jo He-rim/The Korea Herald)
Yellow post-its containing messages from visitors stick on a board inside the relocated Memorial Class. (Jo He-rim/The Korea Herald)

 

 

Source : The Korea Herald

Employees to be paid 150% of salary for working on holidays

It is also prescribed in the Employment Law that the daily hours of work are to be designed by the concerned employer in a manner that employees are not required to work for more than five hours at a stretch

I am working as a saleswoman in a laundry shop on a limited contract since May 2015. Recently the company transferred me to their shop in a mall.

The company is forcing me to work during public holidays without compensation. When I objected to it, the company threatened me with termination. I told the management that they can terminate me for not working on public holidays and I will seek assistance from the Ministry of Labour.

To add to it, my working time is from 9am to 9pm. Although the actual timing is 9am to 1pm and 4pm to 9pm, as it is a shopping mall, I cannot take a break because I am alone at the shop and customers continue stepping in. I informed my management that I am not getting time even for my lunch and they assured me that I would be paid extra. However, that never happened and I was never paid for the overtime.

Now, the management has asked me to hand over the shop inventories, cash and key of the shop to the company driver, which I refused and informed them that I would hand over all those to any company officials, not the driver.

I need your advice.

It is presumed that your employment is subject to the provisions of the Federal Law No 8 of 1980 on the Regulation of Labour Relations (the “Employment Law”).

In respect of the national holidays, the Employment Law prescribes that the employees shall be entitled to get leave with full pay for the said holidays. And where, owing to circumstances of work, employees are required to work on such days, they shall be entitled to receive compensatory leave on some other day and also receive additional compensation. You shall therefore be entitled to get the compensatory leave and additional benefits as such. We cite Article 81 of the Employment Law for your reference.

“Where the circumstances of the work make it necessary for a worker to work on public holidays or rest day in respect of which he is entitled to full or partial pay, he shall be granted compensatory leave in respect of such days, together with a bonus equal to 50 per cent of his remuneration. If he is not compensated for such days by leave, his employer shall pay him a bonus equal to 150 per cent of his basic remuneration in respect of the days worked.”

The Employment Law contains specific provisions whereby the daily period of work has been prescribed. The maximum working hours for employees normally working in general establishments shall be eight hours a day. And in case of establishments involved in trading, hospitality/hotels, cafeterias, security etc., the hours of work may be increased to nine hours a day. We cite Article 65 of the Employment Law for your reference in this regard.

“The maximum number of ordinary working hours for adult workers shall be eight hours per day, or forty-eight hours per week. The number of hours may be increased to nine hours per day for people employed in trade, hotels, cafeterias, security and other jobs whose addition may be made by virtue of a decision from the Minister of Labour. Furthermore, the daily number of working hours may be reduced for strenuous or harmful works and such by virtue of a decision from the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs. The ordinary working hours shall be reduced by two hours during Ramadan. The commutation periods spent by the worker from the place of residence to the work site thereof shall not be calculated within the working hours.”

It is also prescribed in the Employment Law that the daily hours of work are to be designed by the concerned employer in a manner that employees are not required to work for more than five hours at a stretch and there are adequate breaks for rest, meals and prayer. This is in accordance with the provisions of the Article 66 of the Employment Law which reads as follows.

“The daily working hours shall be so regulated that no worker shall work for more than five successive hours without breaks – for rest, meals and prayer – amounting in aggregate to not less than one hour. Such breaks shall not be included as part of the working hours.

However, in factories and workshops where work is organised in the form of successive day and night shifts, and in processes where work has to continue uninterrupted for technical and economic reasons, the manner in which breaks for rest, meals and prayer are to be granted shall be specified in a resolution by the Minister.”

The Employment Law however prescribes, that where the condition of work require an employee to work beyond the normal working hours, the employee shall be entitled to receive overtime remuneration in addition to his/her regular remuneration. This is in accordance with the provisions of Article 69 of the Employment Law which reads as follows:

“Where the work circumstances require a worker to work more than the normal number of hours, any period worked in excess shall be treated as overtime, for which the worker shall receive the wage stipulated for his normal working hours, plus a supplement of at least 25 per cent of that wage.”

The Employment Law also prescribes that the maximum overtime work hours shall not exceed two hours in a day. This is in accordance with the provisions of Article 69 of the Employment Law which reads thus.

“The number of actual hours of overtime shall not exceed two a day, unless work is necessary to prevent the occurrence of substantial loss or a serious accident or to eliminate or alleviate its consequences.”

In view of the foregoing provisions cited from the Employment Law, and in view of the nature of your work, it may be noted that you may be liable to work for not more than nine hours in a day. Nevertheless, you shall not be liable to work for more than five hours at a stretch and that you shall be entitled to have necessary breaks from work for meals, rest and prayer. And, for the additional hours that you may work at the establishment, you shall be entitled to receive overtime salary.

It is also noted that your superiors have asked you to hand over the establishment keys and other assets of the entity to the ‘company-driver’, whereas you have insisted on handing over such things to ‘company officials’ only. In this regard, it may be noted that there are no prescribed means for handing over of responsibility vis-à-vis the Employment Law. Although, in general perspective, the handing over must be done to your immediate supervisor or the officer to whom you are liable to report. However, if that is not feasible, you may also hand over the assets to a person designated by your superior for the purpose. However, for good order, you may insist that at the time of handing over of the assets, the concerned person i.e., the driver must hold an authorisation letter from your superior. Such letter must contain a list of all the assets required to be handed over to him. In pursuance, you may make also an inventory of all the items for handing over, and take an acknowledgement from the concerned person regarding due receipt of such items.

You may contact the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (previously, the Ministry of Labour) in the event of a dispute with your employer or should you face any infringements/violations in respect of your rights as an employee.

KNOW THE LAW

Where the circumstances of the work make it necessary for a worker to work on public holidays or rest day in respect of which he is entitled to full or partial pay, he shall be granted compensatory leave in respect of such days, together with a bonus equal to 50 per cent of his remuneration. If he is not compensated for such days by leave, his employer shall pay him a bonus equal to 150 per cent of his basic remuneration in respect of the days worked.

Employer should bear recruitment expenses

I am currently in India and I got a job offer from Abu Dhabi. My employer/sponsor has stated before the Ministry of Labour in signing that my visa expenses will be borne by him and I have to pay only the flight charges. But, during the process he told me that as per new regulations, visa process has been shifted to the employee’s country and hence I will have to bear the cost including that for the medical tests.

Since I completed all the process by spending from my pocket his version is that he never offered to reimburse visa and medical expenses.

As I already spent the money and the visa is stamped on my passport, I am confused whether to take up the job or leave it since I still have options in my home country.

Please advise what will be the consequence if I don’t take up the job after the visa is stamped on my passport. What will happen if I get another job in the UAE later?

In pursuance of your queries, it may be noted that the procedures for your visa processing which commenced in India, has been done in accordance with the new measures taken up by the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation of the UAE, with a view to outsource the visa processing procedures to the country of a prospective employee. And, it is presumed that your employment visa was also stamped into your passport following this process.

However, it may be noted that in the UAE, in accordance with the prevailing laws, the employer is liable to bear the recruitment and sponsorship expenses for recruitment of its employees. This is in accordance with Article 6(a) of Ministerial Resolution No. 52 for 1980 regarding ‘The Rules and Procedures to be adopted at the Labour permits sections with respect to the recruitment of non-national labours for the employment in UAE’ which states,

“The employer or its legal representative shall sign the recruitment application form prepared by the ministry for this purpose, such form shall include an undertaking from the employer to the effect that he shall sponsor and be responsible for the recruited labourer, the bearing of his recruitment expenses and his employment in accordance with the employment contract in a way not prejudicing the provision of the Federal Law No. 8/1980 referred to herein.”

In view of the foregoing, it may be noted that your employer is liable to pay you for the costs involved in respect of issuance of the employment visa and as such, he may not refuse to reimburse the expenses incurred by you.

If however, your employer altogether refuses to pay you for the costs of visa, you may choose not to commence employment with the concerned employer. And for good order, you may also contact the centre where your employment visa was processed, or the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation of the UAE, or the UAE Diplomatic Mission in India, stating that your reasons for non-commencement of work.

KNOW THE LAW

In accordance with the prevailing laws, the employer is liable to bear the recruitment and sponsorship expenses for recruitment of its employees

Ashish Mehta is the founder and Managing Partner of Ashish Mehta & Associates. He is qualified to practise law in Dubai, the United Kingdom, Singapore and India. Full details of his firm on: www.amalawyers.com. Readers may e-mail their questions to: news@khaleejtimes.com or send them to Legal View, Khaleej Times, PO Box 11243, Dubai.

 

Source : Khaleej Times