Industrial relations worker legislation (end of an era) your thoughts

KEV EB XR8 · 11-10-2005, 07:37 AM

albeit i am not affected directly by the legislation that their trying to bring in but non union for all , enterprise bargaining , . i dont pretent to know all of what they are putting in place for the worker but it dosent sound promising , anybody here shed some light on this subject .

bindi · 11-10-2005, 08:00 AM

People on here are very pro liberal mate, so you will find that alot will agree with it because little Johnny says it's good for us so it must be. I, on the other hand, am pro nobody in particular and hate the lot of them equally lol. :P

It's a bit of a farce really. I don't think he and the gov't really understand how us workers live... I mean, if you and your boss come to an arrangement (in nearly all cases the business/boss will tell you what the agreement is), and if you say "No I don't agree, I'm not going to sign it" then you will no longer have a job, because then there is always someone else WHO WILL sign it. Business knows this. So they can bend you over backwards and apply the vaseline.

NAK302 · 11-10-2005, 08:28 AM

i'm thinking folks here may not be in a position to reply because they most probably have not seen the legislation. others will offer their opinion on what they heard down the pub.

bindi · 11-10-2005, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nak351

i'm thinking folks here may not be in a position to reply because they most probably have not seen the legislation. others will offer their opinion on what they heard down the pub.

But not necessarily (and you think so little of your fellow Ford friends?!), as everyone is entitled to opinion (whether it be the party line or union rhetoric) and can make up their own minds from what has been published and advertised so far.

The thing is, the govt as always tries to push things through without most of the country quite understanding how it works. Like the GST.

Some people DO read you know.

KEV EB XR8 · 11-10-2005, 08:48 AM

sorry guys , it wasnt suppose to be hardcore debate , just a general feeling of the legislation, all opinions are worthy.

11-10-2005, 08:51 AM

well im not too fussed about it one way or the other...since the govt has been in power...it has done as it has deemed fit(which is its right), and not really cared about public opinion or concerns. I know like the GST...there are claims and counter claims...and then the govt runs a mostly useless and expensive campaign to convert ppl to its vision. What i find funny is that 90% of the ppl dont change their mind..most ppl will stick to old allegiences, so maybe this advertising money; $60-70mil not the $100mil for this issue that the opposition claim; could be better ulitized somewhere else.

bindi · 11-10-2005, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KEV EB XR8

sorry guys , it wasnt suppose to be hardcore debate , just a general feeling of the legislation, all opinions are worthy.

Agreed, I was giving you my opinion... :evil3:

This is the government website: www.workplace.gov.au

Meanwhile I am getting in my car and going for a drive - I just read the latest news!

"A TRUCK loaded with cartons of boxed chocolates has overturned on a highway in southern New South Wales, causing traffic delays."

KEV EB XR8 · 11-10-2005, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bindi

Agreed, I was giving you my opinion... :evil3:

This is the government website: www.workplace.gov.au

geez louise , ya burnt a hole in my computer screen bindi ,

:

bindi · 11-10-2005, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KEV EB XR8

geez louise , ya burnt a hole in my computer screen bindi ,

:

LOL! Sorry darlin... I suppose I just don't like being told that I got my opinion from a mate down the pub (not by you though) and the redhead in me gets fired up!

:

KEV EB XR8 · 11-10-2005, 09:01 AM

so we still in luv then . feel much better now .

MustangNicko · 11-10-2005, 09:24 AM

Im not too fussed at all. Im a private contracting Photographer so it doesnt really effect me.

The MaDDeSTMaN · 11-10-2005, 10:56 AM

I don't like them from what I've read about them, but the sad thing is that none of us can do anything, it's up to those in canberra to do something on our behalf.

Now, I wonder how long before someone points out the TOC of this site and locks or deletes this thread... :(

**ebxr8240** · 11-10-2005, 11:01 AM

I know of people that work in club industry..
Keep in mind they have several work agreements..Like permanent casual, casual, and AWA workers..The permanent casuals get something like $22[approx] an hour..Casual get $18 an hour [approx] but may not have guarantee of working hours as AWA workers will be used first...AWA workers are on $14.50 an hour, they have a roster, but can be called in anytime at same pay..Now that same pay could be from 6 p.m to midnight through week ends at $15.50 an hour..No sick leave or holliday pay...No guarantee of hours a week....
Just do bloody good at school or you'll end up working like a slave to pay rent and food alone... Most I guess on here are fairly well educated, but I feel for the people who are dislexic, slow learners [but good workers] etc..

Perana · 11-10-2005, 11:02 AM

I haven't made up my mind about these yet since i dont know the FACTS about it, but being in an industry with no award it seems that it won't effect me too much.

The unions have done a good job at scare mungering with little or no facts about it so far though...

pauljh74 · 11-10-2005, 11:09 AM

Howard's comment that people who don't agree to conditions in an agreement can find another job. That just shows how far out of touch he is from reality. I have a good work history and it took me a dozen or more job applications before I got a job over 3 months. I did pretty well. A kid just finishing year 12 will have less chances and will have 2 choices - take the conditions that are less than the relevant award, or remain unemployed. An example showed in today's paper shows that in the case of a shop assistant not getting penalty rates and other award conditions could be 40% worse off.
Another actual case showed that workers at a fruit and veg supermarket in Queensland had already surrendered public holidays, penalties and loadings and got a mere 16 cents an hour extra over the award. I'm sure they were in fear of losing their jobs if they didn't agree to the AWA.

mcflux · 11-10-2005, 11:14 AM

The way I see it, if you're crap at your job, you'll get the ****. If you're competant, you stay!

That's my oversimplistic monocolour view of this topic.

**ebxr8240** · 11-10-2005, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

The way I see it, if you're crap at your job, you'll get the ****. If you're competant, you stay!

That's my oversimplistic monocolour view of this topic.

Its NOT like that!! So your saying all those workers at the fruit shop are bad workers...Its the conditions that they work under...

Its all o/k till this sort of thing effects you personally, then the hits the fan...Too late...

RED_EL_XR8 · 11-10-2005, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bindi

People on here are very pro liberal mate.

No! people on here are very pro common sense! We don't have party political debate on AFF see T&C. That said there are lots of small business people here who have worked very hard to get to where they are and are looking forward to an end of some laws that allow employees to jeopardise their business.

Check the facts not the daily telegraph propaganda with some minor exceptions its win-win.
IE: why shouldn't wage and salary earners not be able to turn some of their annual leave into cash those without 6 kids and having a monster mortgage will appreciate the options.

bindi · 11-10-2005, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

No! people on here are very pro common sense! We don't have party political debate on AFF see T&C. That said there are lots of small business people here who have worked very hard to get to where they are and are looking forward to an end of some laws that allow employees to jeopardise their business.

Check the facts not the daily telegraph propaganda with some minor exceptions its win-win.
IE: why shouldn't wage and salary earners not be able to turn some of their annual leave into cash those without 6 kids and having a monster mortgage will appreciate the options.

This is true... but the turning of annual leave into cash is not necessarily going to work like that. It could mean that someone who's single with no time constraints is willing to work 60hpw for $15,000 less than the parent of 6 kids with a mortgage, who needs extra time off and extra cash for the raising of children. As an employer, which one are you going to choose???

This is the thing - we can't guarantee anything anymore. It makes job security a thing of the past.

PS: who says I got my information from the daily telegraph? It was really from Today Tonight, because they are my heroes!

:

KELDO_XR8 · 11-10-2005, 11:55 AM

Im just annoyed that this wasnt presented at election time. not that liberal has control over both houses, it can go through anyway. The way i see it, if it wasnt presented at election time, it shouldnt come up, without a public vote.

The majority of workers who will be forced onto agreements with their boss wont be able to stand on their own two feet because of the drastic power imbalance. take my work for example, i work at a coles supermaket part time, if i disagreed to a new contract, there's a line of 15year olds out the front who'l work for less.

I work my bloody *** of at work and if johnny says i have to do the same job for less, then he can stick it.

Keldo.

4.9 EF Futura · 11-10-2005, 12:00 PM

Personally im indifferent to the changes but obviously we all take a keen interest in the well being of the country. Ive been on an AWA for some time now and will be for as long as i can see so not affected personally.

Quote:

example showed in today's paper shows that in the case of a shop assistant not getting penalty rates and other award conditions could be 40% worse off.
Another actual case showed that workers at a fruit and veg supermarket in Queensland had already surrendered public holidays, penalties and loadings and got a mere 16 cents an hour extra over the award. I'm sure they were in fear of losing their jobs if they didn't agree to the AWA.

There's horror stories out there (perpetuated by the ACTU but obviously some merit in what they are saying) but no one sees the other side of the coin. Mate of mine crunching the numbers with his boss as they are preparing for the AWA... for the 38 hour week + saturday that he does now, ends up with 13% more cash in his mits at the end of the week. He's looking forward to it, 13% is a big deal to someone my age (24-25).

I hate the smear campaigns from the Government and from the ACTU. They are obviously polarised views and the truth will reside somewhere in the grey middle. I just hope people go out and look at the facts instead of believing one side of the story.

One thing i do support is the need for change. The current system will ruin us if we contiunue under the status quo. Without having a crystal ball its hard to see if the new system will get it right. But failure is guaranteed if we continue as is.

RED_EL_XR8 · 11-10-2005, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bindi

It could mean that someone who's single with no time constraints is willing to work 60hpw for $15,000 less than the parent of 6 kids with a mortgage, who needs extra time off and extra cash for the raising of children. As an employer, which one are you going to choose???

A struggling business owner will choose the most cost effective option. I've managed projects in the past that were estimated well under budget. Given the choice of Indian software labour at $7.50/hr and local costing me nearly $40/hr its not a hard decision to make. Although I did use a mix of both labour sources. It's commercial reality.

Your choice of concurrent mortgage and dependants is yours, it was not any employers. From your previous example why should the employer be forced to subsidise your lifestyle? Why should the single worker who is prepared to work odd hours etc not achieve reward for his sacrifice?

I'm not suggesting a pure marketplace employment policy, but the cruel reality is, an overly protected uncompetitive workforce will do nothing but force our industry dollars overseas.

There are parents in china and idea working to feed kids and just survive too!! The answer lies somewhere between regressive over-protection of wages & conditions and regressive over-exploitation of workers.

If we had in this country actual unions rather than the political bodies that act under the guise of unionism we would have a much fairer situation all round.

The MaDDeSTMaN · 11-10-2005, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

If we had in this country actual unions rather than the political bodies that act under the guise of unionism we would have a much fairer situation all round.

Too true, and this is part of the problem IMO.

KEV EB XR8 · 11-10-2005, 12:26 PM

the union movement was formed to protect people in large organizations down to small , these were original blue collar workers (union delegates) standing for the many and protecting the weak from being abused . over time they have lost sight of what they represent and self indulgence has seen them close many businesses over time.
but many people cannot speak up for themselves and will lose , therefore we must have a representative to act for most . in saying this , i am self employed and find the biggest imposing monetry drain is , insurance , admin costs (accountantcy) compliance with all the beurocratic red tape

Hardtopxb · 11-10-2005, 12:43 PM

GEE Red how idealistic you are.. i have a couple of yank acquaintances who have moved to oz to get away from this sort of thing..i agree it MAY help some sectors of industry but i doubt if in long run it will help to general worker, its like deregulating the banking and fuel industries and look what has happened there..g help us....

RED_EL_XR8 · 11-10-2005, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardtopxb

GEE Red how idealistic you are.. i have a couple of yank acquaintances who have moved to oz to get away from this sort of thing..i agree it MAY help some sectors of industry but i doubt if in long run it will help to general worker, its like deregulating the banking and fuel industries and look what has happened there..g help us....

If Idealistic means I cop a fairer deal not subsidising <=40hr/wk dreamers, then hell yeah mark me as an idealist.

But the realist in me see's container loads of Korean cars and Chinese power tools being purchased by choice, so a few simple equations will tell you what happens if we consume voraciously and produce inefficiently. Simple really! No problem was ever solved by ignoring it.

phoon · 11-10-2005, 01:23 PM

the trouble is, if liberal says its white, labour says its black and visa versa. Both sides want to be in power and that is all they exist for. It matters not whether you agree with what the current gov't is doing, cause as soon as the other side gets in, it will all change again anyway. The best advice is to roll with the punches, whoever is in power and do what you need to get by until the next gov't gets in. REMEMBER, power is all they are interested in.

flappist · 11-10-2005, 01:41 PM

As someone who does not particularaly like Howard I have to admit that I am in favour of the reforms.
I have been employing people for over 20 years and have been stung several times by professional parasites who lie on their resume, can't do the job, disrupt work, hide their stuffups and upset clients.
They are always the first to scream unfair dismissal and cause as much grief as possible.

It is my business, my money, my risk....
If I treat my staff badly they will leave and I will have to replace them costing me lots in lost productivity and training.
If I treat my staff well they (usually) are loyal, work hard and make life easy.
I have (probably unfairly) not employed many people because I was not game to take a chance on them because if they turned out to be duds I would be stuck with them so I took the cowards way out.

With this new system I would be much happier to give someone a chance and if they rise to the challenge then it was a good choice but if they have tried to bite of more than they can chew then a resolution is not difficult.

It has always irked me that a group of bureaucratic pricks who have never actually employed anyone have exerted pressure over what I do with MY money that I WORKED for.

Des · 11-10-2005, 04:20 PM

I employ 60 odd people who are already under an AWA. They have the same leave entitlements, have a higher hourly rate, a higher company super contribution and an open work enviroment. They also have the right to have a third party negotiate on their behalf (as everyone has and will continue to do so). No problem here.
Everyone has a choice as to where and how they work, as employers have a choice as to who and how they treat their employee's. If you treat your employee's like crap they'll move on and you'll be stuck with employee's who don't care. Treat them well and you'll keep the good ones, encourage the "maybe's" to be better and your own people will filter out the bludgers.

11-10-2005, 04:50 PM

I too, employ a great bunch of people and it is in my best interests to look after them well.

It would be good to promote some flexibility for all concerned.
I dont employ enough people to make an AWA worthwhile so i am tied to the state award.
Try dealing with a guy who walks off the job, believe it or not it is up to the employer to chase down the worker and ensure they are ok.The employee doesnt have to do a thing, he didnt quit, he can come back to work at his leisure.There is no abandonment of employment any more, so i cant sack him for doing so without providing the requisite 3 warnings. IT is a JOKE!!!!
My hands are tied and he knows it.....

Hopefully this new system will introduce more aspects of mutual obligation, but it does concern me that if/when labor gain power it will all end up with the lopsided again.