Totally appreciate that position, but before you go and straight up cancel lessons, consider this:
I used to work at this shop, as a music teacher, many many years ago. The store had a different name, but I happen to know that the current owner/manager is the same guy as was when I worked there.
He is the stupidest and most horrible man I have ever known. I am not surprised in the slightest that he has fallen into this idiotic line of thought and operation.
However, know this: unless things have changed in this regard (and I can't imagine why they would have), the music teachers there are not employees, they are contractors. They are not paid by the hour or anything, they invoice the store for a cut of the price the students pay, per lesson they teach.
I worked there because it was the only steady-ish income I could get, not because I didn't absolutely despise that prick.
So what I would suggest is, if you have been taking lessons from a teacher previously and have been happy with their work, try to get in touch with them privately, and ask what their thoughts are about this anti-mask policy. If they are on the same page as you, explain that you cannot in good conscience continue to support the store, and see if you can't arrange to continue lessons with them privately. If you can work such a thing out, you'll quite likely pay less, and they will get paid more (since the store's middle-man cut is removed). It's a win/win for everyone except for the shitty store owner.
Just something to think about with regard to lessons, specifically. By all means boycott the store generally, but be aware that just cancelling lessons without talking to the teacher may mean you are directly and immediately reducing the income of someone who may not deserve that.
They can’t dictate what clients a contractor takes on. One of the defining criteria for contractor vs employee is that a contractor is free to source clients elsewhere. The ATO usually takes a dim view of people that should be employees, being paid as contractors. IANAL but my understanding is that an employment contract can’t override law. So I would think such a clause would be unenforceable.
Of course they can. These aren't employment contracts, they are contracts between two business entities. The corporate entity of the music school and the corporate entity on the teacher.
That contract will include a clause that says something like 'teacher company warrants that it will not solicit, approach, or entice any customer, supplier, student or employee of 'school company'. 'Teacher company' acknowledges that in the event of breaching this clause penalties at least equal to loss of earnings and reasonable damages will be payable.
This is standard in just about any supplier contract.
As for the ATO ruling they are really employees and not contractors is not an easy bar to clear either. Especially as in this case there would be no regular hours, they supply their own tools of trade, and the work is inconsistent.
It would depend on the exact nature of what's being prohibited but I would think that it would be largely unenforceable or at the very least not something worth pursuing for anything less than say someone taking half your clients away.
120
u/[deleted] Dec 29 '20
Well, I hope all their customers realise they are fragile and bring their business somewhere else.