New IR laws... [Archive] - Renovate Forums

Exador

29th May 2006, 09:53 AM

I've set out all the stuff on "less income" (including references as I recall) in the original thread, so won't do it again, BUT the "no disadvantage" test STILL stands.

That is, ANY agreement that replaces an award HAS to provide AT LEAST the same level of income. That's not really what the legislation is about.

If you want to really know what it's about, as an example have a look at Qantas, Jetstar and Virgin. By "look" I mean go and actually read the award conditions of employment for each. Each has a different agreement in place, and while you can guess from the fare structure which is the most flexible... well go and read.

Why for instance should one company be required to use machinery, or for tht matter a minimum number of people, for certain tasks when another in the same industry can do it differently?

Why not? If the award is out of date, the company has always had the option of renegotiating with the union and having the resultant conditions enshrined by the commission. That was always the process and it had the admirable advantage of slowing the process down and allowing for arguments to be put forward by both sides. the current legislation, as far as I can see, allows for ambit conditions to be set and enforced by an employer who may be told by the new commissioner down the track that his award is not right, yet in the meantime people have suffered significant financial hardship. The old system rcognised that employers generally have greater resources than employees and are hence disdvantaged less by any delay incurring costs or by paying wages that are excessive. It always seemed a reasonable approach to me.

Oh, and Exador, I agree with your comments on the US economy, but as I have said on many occasions, if one wants to preserve wage levels, one has to start spending MORE. Stop buying the best value, most economical product, and start spending more on the same thing so that our "workers" and businesses can enjoy a false level of income.

It's the only way we're going to put China out of business I'm afraid!;)

Cheers,

P

Absolutely!! As a small business that is determinedly Australian, I'm struck by the number of people who are happy to spend MORE for an inferior product at Bunnings than they would with me. It's not just timber, either. I was at Bunnings the other day and saw a fella about to buy a 10l can of Intergrain Dimension 4, which I use extensively. I happen to know the Bunnings price is $204 for that can and that the same product can be bought at the local independent paint shop (only about 100m away) for $126.95. I told the bloke and his response was to simply shrug, say "yeah, they're a pack of thieving b@st@rds" and proffer his plastic to pay for it. I was flabbergasted. Now, admittedly, Dim 4 is an Aussie product (made by Orica, hardly an Aussie company though), but the willingness to accept being ripped off is incredible.

keith53

29th May 2006, 10:44 AM

I think most are seeing the same as me. But I'm giving johnny the benefit of doubt. I want to know what the intended benefits are. I for one haven't heard anything that lays out how these reforms are to achieve a better future. I've heard, directly from the pollies, that they are waging a multi-pronged attack to kill wage increases and in-fact to reduce them to New Zealand levels. I don't understand the reasoning behind it. So I'm looking for opinions that would shed some light on the governments reasoning - what I'm I missing.

I would have thought its all pretty self evident. New World Order/One World Economy, call it what you like the idea is to get to a common wage level so the kanacka's in Aus are paid the same as those in Timbuctu. Our wage levels are a result of years of industrial development which Mr Howard seems to want to sweep aside in one fell swoop. One of the components of the price of stuff generally, includes wage levels as they now stand. It's part of the cost of being in business and is factored into the price the market pays. I agree that the idea of reducing wages to put more $$$ in the boss's pocket is very shortsighted as in the Spotlight example. I tend to think that the practical application of the old saying 'what goes around, comes around' has a way of evening things out over time.

Exador

29th May 2006, 10:52 AM

I agree that the idea of reducing wages to put more $$$ in the boss's pocket is very shortsighted as in the Spotlight example. I tend to think that the practical application of the old saying 'what goes around, comes around' has a way of evening things out over time.

Well, I know where I won't be going to get my next set of sheets, anyway. I'll hand my discount card back as well - I won't need it any more. Hopefully lots of other people will do the same.:mad:

bitingmidge

29th May 2006, 10:52 AM

Why not? If the award is out of date, the company has always had the option of renegotiating with the union and having the resultant conditions enshrined by the commission.
Well, that's not quite the case. The unions actually make a lot of milage out of the "easybeat" small companies (and other unions), and while I don't want to spend the time here, I'll happily give you a few very real examples of how the unions assist big business to screw small business using the methods you rely on!

Yet in the meantime people have suffered significant financial hardship. The old system recognised that employers generally have greater resources than employees and are hence disdvantaged less by any delay incurring costs or by paying wages that are excessive.
The new system recognises that the bulk of employers don't actually have those significant resources, and that's the difference.

I had a claim for unfair dismissal (she was only caught stealing after all) which actually cost me one and a half year's profit to defend, (successfully) but as a well-resourced employer I'm not entitled to aid, nor costs, while the employee was fully funded by the union.

I'm not sure what "significant" financial hardship is in this case, (I imagine something more than a dollar or two per hour), but if an employer is found to be in the wrong, he'll have to make good any shortfall retrospectively.

On the other hand, it is unlikely that the reverse would occur.

As I said, if you really want to be entertained, I'll happily spend a day telling you of my adventures in IR!

No, I don't believe all employers are nice honest people, but then neither are employees. If the system has to favour anyone (and it shouldn't), then isn't it best to favour the place where the cash flow actually
originates rather than strangling it?

cheers,

P:cool:

bitingmidge

29th May 2006, 11:04 AM

I agree that the idea of reducing wages to put more $$$ in the boss's pocket is very shortsighted
How about the idea of reducing wages to enable more people to be employed? Where wage costs are a significant part of the overhead, this can in fact be the case, and interestingly more staff can improve productivity.

as in the Spotlight example.
More information please, facts if possible, not what's been reported!

I tend to think that the practical application of the old saying 'what goes around, comes around' has a way of evening things out over time.
Yep, and I think we're starting to see some of that!

cheers,

P

Exador

29th May 2006, 11:15 AM

Well, that's not quite the case. The unions actually make a lot of milage out of the "easybeat" small companies (and other unions), and while I don't want to spend the time here, I'll happily give you a few very real examples of how the unions assist big business to screw small business using the methods you rely on!

having been on both sides of that at different times, I have to agree with that, but on the other hand, an employee without a union is indisputedly going to end up a victim sooner or later unless they are fortunate to have one of the exceptional employers.

I had a claim for unfair dismissal (she was only caught stealing after all) which actually cost me one and a half year's profit to defend, (successfully) but as a well-resourced employer I'm not entitled to aid, nor costs, while the employee was fully funded by the union.

But you ARE able to claim the legal costs against tax. Yes, the ability to claim is significantly deferred, but it is still partially defrayed. I don't say that the case was correct, but one of the benefits of union membership is legal representation in industrial matters. If your professional body offered such a service, I'm sure you'd avail yourself if the need arose.

I'm not sure what "significant" financial hardship is in this case, (I imagine something more than a dollar or two per hour), but if an employer is found to be in the wrong, he'll have to make good any shortfall retrospectively.

Yes, but losing $90 out of your anticipated weekly earnings, as in the Spotlight example, could leave people right in the poo, especially in these days of consumption funded on the never-never. A business is presumed to have the capacity to fund its liabilities from continuing cashflow, whereas a person who has had a pay cut may immediately lose the ability to raise money to cover the shortfall. It's going to be very bloody in the worklplace for a couple of years, I suspect. As a self-employed person who doesn't have the need for employees, I'm happy that I can sit and watch fairly dispassionately, because I reckon I'd be really stressed right now if I was in the firing line.

No, I don't believe all employers are nice honest people, but then neither are employees. If the system has to favour anyone (and it shouldn't), then isn't it best to favour the place where the cash flow actually
originates rather than strangling it?

cheers,

P:cool:

I think the most important test is whether either party will be caused significant financial distress if changes are implemented whilst waiting for the matter to proceed. If so, the status quo should be preserved. the previous arbitration system did just that, whereas the new one takes the brakes off to the unfair detriment of the employee in my opinion. I don't see too many businesses except those that are borderline basket cases being significantly disadvantaged by having to keep paying the same wages whilst a determination is made.

Unfair dismissal, as in your case, is a different kettle of fish altogether and I don't have too much disagreement with the right of employers to fire people on reasonable grounds.

Greg Ward

29th May 2006, 11:38 AM

In the real world, really small businesses are fearful of hiring employees, which limits employment.

So, really small businesses work 7 days a week and as many hours as necessary to produce or sell whatever they have to offer. They use family members as unpaid labour for as long as they can, but their growth is stifled by their (not unwarranted) fear of the hidden costs in hiring a poor employee and their fear of the legal professsion is also not unwarranted. These changes may encourage some to actually hire staff to enable them to grow their business. Is this a bad thing?

Unfair dismissal laws have been a disaster for many really small and medium sized businesses and a huge disincentive to employment. They must never come back again. If my house is on the line, I should be entitled to employ whomsoever I wish. I shouldn't have to pay go-away money to get rid of someone who I don't want to work for me.

Larger businesses will use the law to seek to become more profitable, but if that means that some of these businesses actually remain in Australia rather than move their source of supply to China, is that really a bad thing?
Employees still have award protection, so wages will never reach Chinese levels and those who state this is the aim of these changes are really very foolish.

There are entrenched work practises that are not productive. If these changes mean that they can be removed and that an abattoir (for example) can therefore become profitable and remain open, is that really a bad thing?

If I wish to open my business at the weekend or after hours, there is a huge disincentive for me to do so as I have to pay penalty rates. I don't get double the cost for my goods on Sunday, but if the the cost of doing business on weekends is too high, I won't open.
If I can reduce my operating costs on the weekend, I may employ someone who otherwise may not have a job. Is this a bad thing?

Regards
Greg

bitingmidge

29th May 2006, 12:00 PM

But you ARE able to claim the legal costs against tax.

Wooo hooo!!

Make no mistake, IF you are making a profit, claiming "against tax" means a 30% discount, the other 70% comes out of your pocket. Actually it all comes out of your pocket.

In my case, no profit for 18 months, so didn't have to pay tax! Trying buying Christmas presents with what was left "against tax"!!

Cheers,

P

Exador

29th May 2006, 12:23 PM

Wooo hooo!!

Make no mistake, IF you are making a profit, claiming "against tax" means a 30% discount, the other 70% comes out of your pocket. Actually it all comes out of your pocket.

In my case, no profit for 18 months, so didn't have to pay tax! Trying buying Christmas presents with what was left "against tax"!!

Cheers,

P

I didn't say it was right, merely that some of it is defrayed. If the employee doesn't have the union, none of it is defrayed for them. Anyway, I reckon that unfair dismissal is a small part of the package that I can somewhat agree with. I think it's a bit too sweeping, but the previous effort went too far the other way. Time will tell, I guess.

Daddles

29th May 2006, 06:18 PM

I shouldn't have to pay go-away money to get rid of someone who I don't want to work for me.

That's really nice for you Greg. However, I've been on the other end, small businessmen like who believe they are gods, treat their workers like #### and dump them when they feel like it. Yes, it has happened to me, twice from small 'family' businesses and once by a giant who had a management change and decided to change the staff by stealth.

Conversely, I've also worked for similar businesses, small and large, who looked after and valued their workers. Strangely, they never had a problem with bad employees and had workers stay there for many years (myself included).

Look after your workers and they'll look after you. For the scumbags, there needs to be protection - for BOTH sides. I'm not saying the balance has always been perfect, it hasn't, but to remove protection for one side, whoever it may be, stinks.

Richard

bitingmidge

29th May 2006, 06:26 PM

To remove protection for one side, whoever it may be, stinks
Hear hear!!

So who (apart from the press and the histeria mongering union advertising campaign) says protection is being removed?

I would have thought it was more like, providing a modicum for the other side? As mentioned earlier in the thread, the "protection" is still there.

P
;)

echnidna

29th May 2006, 08:47 PM

Agree with Midge.
The laws should be fair and reasonable to employers & workers.

Toolin Around

29th May 2006, 10:25 PM

I've set out all the stuff on "less income" (including references as I recall) in the original thread, so won't do it again, BUT the "no disadvantage" test STILL stands.
P

Having just tried a search for IR laws on the forum and getting a squizillion pages could you point me to the thread you were reffering to...

bitingmidge

29th May 2006, 10:41 PM

Hmmm I see what you mean...

Might need a long chat one evening!

Feel like a coffee??

P
:D :D :D

Toolin Around

29th May 2006, 10:48 PM

Hmmm I see what you mean...

Might need a long chat one evening!

Feel like a coffee??

P
:D :D :D

Starbucks - my treat

Daddles

29th May 2006, 10:53 PM

Fly me up there and I'll drink your coffee Midge. Hell, I'll even sand your latest boat :D

Richard

Exador

30th May 2006, 07:19 AM

Hear hear!!

So who (apart from the press and the histeria mongering union advertising campaign) says protection is being removed?

I would have thought it was more like, providing a modicum for the other side? As mentioned earlier in the thread, the "protection" is still there.

P
;)

The right to take your employer to court if you don't like being ripped off is certainly still there, but the right to go to the commission and ask for a (relatively) cheap and quick hearing is gone. How many employees do you reckon have the desire or even the wherewithal to take on their boss in court? How many bosses want to be tied up in court instead of earning a living? How many people want to remain working for someone they have had to take to court to get a fair shake out of? I reckon the whole thing's a dog's breakfast.

As to Union scaremongering, I've heard very little. What I've heard is employers trying it on to reduce employees wages and conditions, quite egregiously in a couple of cases and I suspect there will be many more. I've also heard a lot from employer groups telling us the unions would use scare tactics.... Who do I believe? Neither, but I have a deep and abiding distrust of this Government that tells me that anything John Howard wants is probably something that's going to hurt the little man. I hope I'm wrong.

bitingmidge

30th May 2006, 07:27 AM

As to Union scaremongering, I've heard very little.
Surely you jest? Before the legislation was passed, one couldn't turn on a television without seeing an advertisement, and one of the things that really got up my nose was that not one of the ones I saw actually related to the legislation.

Who do I believe? Neither.

Well we agree on that entirely!

BTW I have a deep and abiding distrust of both sides of parliament.

Cheers,

P:cool:

Exador

30th May 2006, 08:18 AM

Surely you jest? Before the legislation was passed, one couldn't turn on a television without seeing an advertisement, and one of the things that really got up my nose was that not one of the ones I saw actually related to the legislation.

Yep, before the legislation was passed there was a lot of posturing on both sides. I think the union movement, however, has woken up to the fact that whatever they say will be characterised as scaremongering, so they're now pretty much letting greedy employers (a la Spotlight) show off the flaws themselves. There'll be many more. This legislation is a gift to those employers who want to rip off their employees, make no mistake.

BTW I have a deep and abiding distrust of both sides of parliament.

Cheers,

P:cool:
Actually, so do I, but some are worse than others and John Howard sets the benchmark as the least trustworthy politician in the last 20 years in my view, especially on anything to do with workers' rights.

outback

30th May 2006, 08:42 AM

I like Greg Wards take on things. As a really small business, I WON'T employ anyone. It simply costs too bloody much. Start with wages, add workers comp, then super, lack of sleep because if you hire the wrong person you are stuck with them.
I am afarid I can't see where Daddles is coming from, if you got "dumped" from two small family businesses, so what. They didn't want you to work for them, for whatever reason, and I don't give a damn what it was, sure as an employer it is their right to decide who works for them and who doesn't.
I think at this stage large scale companies are testing the waters, a bit like a gambit claim, just start out silly, and see where it all settles down.
The facts are, if you are being employed, if the company goes broke because of poor employees and too higher wages, you are out of a job. Perhaps half of something is better than all of nothing.

Exador

30th May 2006, 08:56 AM

I like Greg Wards take on things. As a really small business, I WON'T employ anyone. It simply costs too bloody much. Start with wages, add workers comp, then super, lack of sleep because if you hire the wrong person you are stuck with them.

I'm not worried about being "stuck" with them, just about finding enough for them to do. My business is small enough that I can handle it on my own with some help from my partner. If I needed another person, I'd hire them, laws or no laws.

I am afarid I can't see where Daddles is coming from, if you got "dumped" from two small family businesses, so what. They didn't want you to work for them, for whatever reason, and I don't give a damn what it was, sure as an employer it is their right to decide who works for them and who doesn't.
Quite so, but there are ways and means, wouldn't you agree? Simply saying "you're sacked cause I don't like you" is going to get anyone's nose out of joint, I would have thought?

I think at this stage large scale companies are testing the waters, a bit like a gambit claim, just start out silly, and see where it all settles down.

The problem is that there is nothing to protect those workers who are screwed down while the situation "settles down". I know that when I was an employee, losing $90 a week would have put a massive hole in my budget and that's a hole some won't dig themselves out of if the situation goes on too long. On top of that, there is the whole sense of how much you are valued by your employer. I know I wouldn't want to work for a business that all of a sudden decided I was worth 20% less to them.

The facts are, if you are being employed, if the company goes broke because of poor employees and too higher wages, you are out of a job. Perhaps half of something is better than all of nothing.

A company doesn't go broke because of those things, it goes broke because of poor management. Even under the old laws, if a business could demonstrate that it was downsizing, there was no penalty applicable or claim possible. As both Midge and I have said, there is a great deal of misinformation being peddled by both sides.

outback

30th May 2006, 09:02 AM

A company doesn't go broke because of those things, it goes broke because of poor management. Even under the old laws, if a business could demonstrate that it was downsizing, there was no penalty applicable or claim possible. 

I'll let all the rest go as fair minded rational debate, but you don't honestly believe this one do you?

Exador

30th May 2006, 09:13 AM

I'll let all the rest go as fair minded rational debate, but you don't honestly believe this one do you?

It's absolutely true. The only time a redundancy dismissal could be claimed as unfair is if you were sacked on the grounds of redundancy and then your position was filled by a new employee. Businesses have always had the right to minimise their employees on the grounds of a downturn in trade. Mind you, the employee has also had the right to argue the toss, but would be unlikely to succeed in the case of genuine redundancy.

As I have said, though, the dismissal laws are not the real action here, except as a stick to beat recalcitrant employees. The business about safety and so on is only to maintain the union's role in the workplace, the real action is going to be in the wages arena and that is going to get very nasty.

Greg Ward

30th May 2006, 09:53 AM

Nasty?
I see it as a balance.

Unemployment is at around a 25 year low.
Skilled and good loyal workers are hard to find.
Young kids move every 2-3 years.
Low skilled workers will always be paid poorly.

Good employees are really hard to find (believe it or not) and anyone with common sense who is prepared to work for the organisation that pays him, rather than work for himelf, will be treasured.

Yep, some of the old rorts will disappear, certain workers in certain unions in certain areas may face a reality shock.

Look at the wharves. What a change now that the rorts have gone. It's time it happened elsewhere.

As I said, it's all about balance and the scales will reach equilibrium.

(Although I accept they may move too far one way for a while.)
Regards
Greg

Exador

30th May 2006, 10:17 AM

Nasty?
I see it as a balance.

Unemployment is at around a 25 year low.
Skilled and good loyal workers are hard to find.
Young kids move every 2-3 years.
Low skilled workers will always be paid poorly.

That's all fine and dandy, but what happens when the economy goes south, as it is in the process of doing right now with the exception of resources, and unemployment rises again? How many are going to be placed in the position of accepting lousy pay and conditions "or else"? The whole point of the previous system was that it gave some protection against employers who choose to be unscrupulous.

Good employees are really hard to find (believe it or not) and anyone with common sense who is prepared to work for the organisation that pays him, rather than work for himelf, will be treasured.

It's a nice theory, but my gut tells me that if the boss reckons he can get away with a few more bucks on the bottom line, he'll take the opportunity. As one of my old bosses repeated ad nauseum "the cemetery is ful of indispensable people".

Look at the wharves. What a change now that the rorts have gone. It's time it happened elsewhere.

As I said, it's all about balance and the scales will reach equilibrium.

(Although I accept they may move too far one way for a while.)
Regards
Greg

Where is the next "wharves" do you think? I doubt there is a single industry in Australia that is not at close to international best-practise. My fear is that the equilibrium that is reached will be too much on the side of the employer and that decent employers will be forced to cut conditions and wages just to compete with those who don't care about their employees. What price the "valued employee" then?

Eddie Jones

30th May 2006, 11:27 AM

Exador

30th May 2006, 11:34 AM

" I doubt there is a single industry in Australia that is not at close to international best-practise."

I suppose that explains why more and more Aussie manufacturers are now Ex-Aussie manufacturers? Because we make things Soooo much better and cheaper than they do in China, or Thailand, or Taiwan, or Indonesia, or India, or.........Anywhere.

NOT!

We do it without using slave labour, matey. How cheap are YOU prepared to work? Price isn't everything and if, as Midge said earlier, more people were prepared to buy the Aussie product rather than the imported one, we wouldn't have a problem. It might be worth thinking about next time you're down at the local hardware

maglite

30th May 2006, 01:56 PM

We do it without using slave labour, matey. How cheap are YOU prepared to work? Price isn't everything and if, as Midge said earlier, more people were prepared to buy the Aussie product rather than the imported one, we wouldn't have a problem. It might be worth thinking about next time you're down at the local hardware

Fair enough argument this , but only if you are a manufacturer/retailer.
What about service businesses?

Personally as a small employer of 10 i am not in total favor of the new laws, but somethings had to change.
For instance, unfair dismisall.
Now, i reckon companies that employ 100 would have a HR, IR and any other department that can deal with the legislative requirements to dismiss an employee.
I, however, as an employer of 10 dont have any of these departments, not least because i simply cannot afford to do so.
Yet, i have to follow all the same legislation as a company that does have the experts to do it properly, if not i get creamed at the IRC simply because i failed to follow the proper procedure.

The state award in my industry was last ratified in 1986, yet whenever my professional body has tried to renogiate a new award the union does not want to.
This has happened every year since then.
I always thought that union was meant to protect the rights of their members, not build little empires so that the union head can be parachuted into a safe seat as seems to have happened quite regularily in WA.

If the new laws ensure that things become more equitable then im all for it.
A shame that most employees and unions always ask for a bigger share of the profits but rarely do they wish to accept a larger share of the associated risk.

Eddie Jones

30th May 2006, 07:01 PM

"We do it without using slave labour, matey."

Sure, "Matey", we don't use slave labour. We use payed-through-the-bloody-nose labour! Labour that will drop their tools because the boss swears at one of the sensitive little pricks. Labour that will stop a truckie carrying out his legal job because he would have to cross their "picket line". And unions that will spend any amount (because it's not their money) to defend said pricks if - unusually - they end up in court.

These things have a lot to do with why we cannot compete with most other countries!

I feel better now.

bitingmidge

30th May 2006, 07:36 PM

OK, I've seen "Spotlight" a few times, asked for the FACTS, but of course everyone is running and hiding under a rock, content to quote of all people Honest Kim.

I've done a quick search on the web, and all commentary is from Union or Union affiliated sites (including labor party ones) or from news quotes of Kim.

Here are a few FACTS as I know them and have unearthed them, and to show how unbiased I am, from a Union site at that ;) :

Excerpt from the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) Website (highlights by me)

An AWA must include a dispute resolution procedure.
AWAs cannot contain content prohibited by the Regulations.
AWAs exclude all other instruments from applying.
An award or certified agreement operating in your workplace can never apply to you, even if your AWA is terminated.
Certain conditions apply by law, and others are subject to terms in your AWA.
No current employee can be forced into signing an AWA.
No employee can be threatened in any way with the intent to coerce them to sign an AWA.
All employees have the right to representation by a bargaining agent of their choice, including CPSU.

So, NO existing Spotlight staff will suffer a pay cut. NONE. They are all able to continue on their existing award/agreement. No $90 per week pay cuts for anyone working there.

New employees can choose not to accept the position if they don't like it, and their conditions must meet the safety net requirements.

I read the Spotlight employment application form, and have to say that their system is comprehensive in ensuring an applicant understands the conditions, hours expected and so forth.

NO ONE could apply for a position and be under any misapprehension about conditions.

As for whether it's fair to be paid ordinary hours for a 38 hour week worked, I don't know. As a self employed person, or an employer for pretty much my whole working life I've never experienced that, but I do know there are heaps of people who are prepared to work weekends for one reason or another and not expect to earn double time and a half! There are also heaps of people who appreciate not having that cost passed on to them.

I think anyone who thinks that the potential saving in overhead to Spotlight for example will go straight into the bottom line has a very poor understanding of the nature of business. Some of it will translate to profit, but I'm betting that the increased profit will come from increased turnover due to a slight decrease in retail prices as a result of the company being in a more competitive position! :D

I could go on to explain the theory of how the new rates are calculated, and how they relate to the existing awards by averaging, and how existing 9-5 employees will be better off, but I don't think that anyone who relies solely on reports in the press for information would be particularly interested!! :eek: ;)

If anyone is interested, let me know.:eek: :eek:

I am not an expert, nor a lawyer, but I have had substantial experience on both sides of the fence and have paid a lot of money to be represented by both! :p In that process, I have strangely enough, learnt a lot about the system and how it works!

I thought I got all this out of my system when I stopped employing people last year! I guess it's just way too much fun!

Cheers,

P (can i have tea now? - and thanks Mat for setting me off again!!)

Toolin Around

30th May 2006, 11:20 PM

Nasty?
I see it as a balance.

Good employees are really hard to find (believe it or not) and anyone with common sense who is prepared to work for the organisation that pays him, rather than work for himelf, will be treasured.

(Although I accept they may move too far one way for a while.)
Regards
Greg

You've obviously not worked in the cabinetmaking business, the only thing treasured is how cheap you can get them to work for.

Shannon Nash

30th May 2006, 11:58 PM

The lowest common denominator.

I am a teacher at a Seondary school. 95% of the students do the right thing. They respect each other, each others property, opinions. They treat all members of the school as they would like to be treated themselves.

Why is it that the 'rules' of the school have to be catered to the 'lowest common denominator'? The 5%? This new IR stuff seems to be based on protecting employers from the employees who represent employees that are the 5%. and Vice-versa the 5% of employers who want to unfairly treat their workers.

We have how many million emplyees in Australia? How many employers of these people? Yet how many have been 'waiting for this IR leg.' to go balistic?

The first lesson in HRM is that your employees are your most expensive but also your most important asset. Why would you stuff up this relationship to save a few dollars that will then cost you even more.

I suspect that as the populations ages, more jobs caring for the population are created and skill shortages become worse, that those good employees will be more valued. Employers will need to reward good staff to keep them on.

It is the 'lowest common denominators' who will abuse these IR laws. The rest of Australia will probably get on with it and treat each other the way they should and work together!

My 2 cents worth.

johnc

31st May 2006, 12:07 AM

As an employer of seven in a professional service industry I would not say we looked at the new IR changes with any enthusiasm, nor did we love the old rules. In both cases it seemed a mine field trying to work out the correct category to pay new staff and navigate the vagueness of the system. Our staff are fortunate in that they have skills that are in short supply and do not have to worry about downward pressure on wages. We value everyone and have not lost an employee in the last two years, and had a turnover in the past four years of only two staff in total. I am not saying we are wonderful just fortunate.

Those in jobs that require low skills in industries that are price takers rather than setters such as contract cleaners are in a very poor position to bargain and it seems that the new rules place them at a further disadvantage. I am yet to be convinced that the safety net will work for this group in the long term and worry that as a country we are developing a working poor with low pay and less than full hours. It feels as if this group will be further disadvantaged and may well spend there lives relying on social security assistance to raise families and never be able to purchase a home.

Reading all the other posts there seems to be a lot of unease out there as well as a dose of anger over employee, employer relations. There are plenty of @r#^ h*!@s on both sides of the fence I just hope this does not give them the chance to be even bigger p#$%s in the future and undercut the rest of us.

It seems we have to remain competitive as a nation, but I am uneasy about the direction that is taking us as we loose manufacturing and become a quarry and food bowl for the world. Hardly high tech, those jobs seem to be migrating as well as people head overseas to further their opportunities.

John

Exador

31st May 2006, 07:30 AM

Exador

31st May 2006, 08:10 AM

I could go on to explain the theory of how the new rates are calculated, and how they relate to the existing awards by averaging, and how existing 9-5 employees will be better off, but I don't think that anyone who relies solely on reports in the press for information would be particularly interested!! :eek: ;)

If anyone is interested, let me know.:eek: :eek:

I am not an expert, nor a lawyer, but I have had substantial experience on both sides of the fence and have paid a lot of money to be represented by both! :p In that process, I have strangely enough, learnt a lot about the system and how it works!

I thought I got all this out of my system when I stopped employing people last year! I guess it's just way too much fun!

Cheers,

P (can i have tea now? - and thanks Mat for setting me off again!!)
I know you won't be interested in this, as it comes from a newspaper, but it was in the SMH this morning:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/goodbye-to-perks-as-work-laws-bite/2006/05/30/1148956346900.html

"A survey by the Office of the Employment Advocate - the agency where employers must register Australian Workplace Agreements - showed that of 6263 agreements lodged since the legislation took effect, 64 per cent removed leave loadings and 63 per cent cut penalty rates. It also found 52 per cent of new agreements cut workers' shift loadings and 40 per cent stripped staff of public holidays."

There was also this: "
The Office of the Employment Advocate's figures were revealed to a Senate committee on Monday night.
The office's director, Peter McIlwain, confirmed that since the laws had been introduced, the office no longer checked that contracts were legal."

bitingmidge

31st May 2006, 08:37 AM

I know you won't be interested in this, as it comes from a newspaper,
I'm always interested, just never believe until I've done a bit of homework first.
:D :D :D

"A survey by the Office of the Employment Advocate - the agency where employers must register Australian Workplace Agreements - showed that of 6263 agreements lodged since the legislation took effect, 64 per cent removed leave loadings and 63 per cent cut penalty rates. It also found 52 per cent of new agreements cut workers' shift loadings and 40 per cent stripped staff of public holidays."

See the emotional clap trap here? "stripped staff of public holidays?", cut workers shift loadings?

None of that can be true if by definition, the AWA cannot be forced on an existing employee.

By "stripped staff of public holidays" the report means "removes loading for those working on public holidays in the context of a 38 hour average week incorporating a new wage level which averages penalty loadings over a twelve month period", but that doesn't sound anywhere near as unfair does it?

The office's director, Peter McIlwain, confirmed that since the laws had been introduced, the office no longer checked that contracts were legal."
Now that is quite disturbing, particularly given some of the employers I know, however the penalty for lodging an unlawful contract is set down in the act - $6,000 for an individual and $35,000 for a corporation and I understand that restitution would have to be made retrospectively, so if an employee was properly informed it shouldn't be a problem. Note again that we are talking about NEW employees here, who would have accepted the position knowing what the conditions were prior to commencing.

BTW on the Spotlight front, the $14.30 per hour that is apparently on offer, not coincidentally I'm sure, is exactly the rate in the retail award in Qld.

Craig, I doubt that we'll ever agree on this stuff, and in principal I have no difficulty with working a 38 hour week at any hour without penalty rates. Don't forget that penalty rates were devised when the fight was on for a 48 hour week, and employers conditions have steadily eroded since then, no drivers, no manservants....(sigh! :p) but the point that I am trying to make is that however firmly one's political belief, the debate is fuelled by emotion not by fact, and I think it's time that we looked a bit beyond the headlines if we are to make sense of it all.

Cheers,

P:cool:

Exador

31st May 2006, 09:02 AM

I'm always interested, just never believe until I've done a bit of homework first.
:D :D :D

See the emotional clap trap here? "stripped staff of public holidays?", cut workers shift loadings?

None of that can be true if by definition, the AWA cannot be forced on an existing employee.

By "stripped staff of public holidays" the report means "removes loading for those working on public holidays in the context of a 38 hour average week incorporating a new wage level which averages penalty loadings over a twelve month period", but that doesn't sound anywhere near as unfair does it?

What of the staff member who wishes to spend public holidays with his family, as was the original reason for their existence? Can he "average" his lost days off?

Now that is quite disturbing, particularly given some of the employers I know, however the penalty for lodging an unlawful contract is set down in the act - $6,000 for an individual and $35,000 for a corporation and I understand that restitution would have to be made retrospectively, so if an employee was properly informed it shouldn't be a problem. Note again that we are talking about NEW employees here, who would have accepted the position knowing what the conditions were prior to commencing.

Or, of course, a "former" employee whose contract has expired.

BTW on the Spotlight front, the $14.30 per hour that is apparently on offer, not coincidentally I'm sure, is exactly the rate in the retail award in Qld.

Yet without the additional award conditions that gave shop staff some measure of recompense for a crappy job.

Craig, I doubt that we'll ever agree on this stuff, and in principal I have no difficulty with working a 38 hour week at any hour without penalty rates. Don't forget that penalty rates were devised when the fight was on for a 48 hour week, and employers conditions have steadily eroded since then, no drivers, no manservants....(sigh! :p) but the point that I am trying to make is that however firmly one's political belief, the debate is fuelled by emotion not by fact, and I think it's time that we looked a bit beyond the headlines if we are to make sense of it all.

Cheers,

P:cool:

Mate, having worked on salary for many years and then being self-employed, I know all about working lots of hours for little recompense:rolleyes:. I believe penalty rates are important, as they are just that - a penalty that the employer must pay for not planning his activities to avoid them. Holiday loading I'm not so sure about, as it was originally introduced to compensate miners and other rural workers who may have had to travel for several days to get home and back on holidays. Yes, I know the world has changed and 7 day trading is the norm and perhaps that is not a good thing. I do think it's a shame that we can't see eye to eye on any of this, as I suspect that we are actually looking at the same injustices, but filtering them through our own prejudices. It's been (and will continue to be for some time) an interesting topic.

bitingmidge

31st May 2006, 09:25 AM

I do think it's a shame that we can't see eye to eye on any of this, as I suspect that we are actually looking at the same injustices,
No it's not a shame, if we saw eye to eye, we wouldn't have had the debate, (although I know I'd beat you to a pulp with "proper" facts if we were face to face.... you'd give up in a flash!:D )

Yes we are looking at the same injustices.

Perhaps I should also add that having at one time employed well over 100 staff in 24hr, seven day per week retail food businesses, even with the awards in place the theory and the practice are very different.

A senior employee earning $14.00 per hour rarely if ever will get a penalty shift, ($28 - $35 per hour), why would they when a junior on $7.00 per hour gets $13-$17 ? The result is less flexibility for the seniors, juniors being overpaid, and customers being underserviced.

There are many more dimensions to the debate than Spotlight's supposed 2c per hour!

And I REALLY wasn't going to bite on this thread!

Cheers,

P
:D :D

Grunt

31st May 2006, 10:24 AM

So much for protecting existing employees.

From The Age today (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/watchdog-backs-bosses-in-abattoir-case/2006/05/30/1148956347172.html)

bitingmidge

31st May 2006, 11:02 AM

So much for protecting existing employees.

From The Age today (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/watchdog-backs-bosses-in-abattoir-case/2006/05/30/1148956347172.html)
So the whole world is gunning for my argument now! OK if the paper's right, I'm wrong! :o

Maybe its time for me to become an employer again after all!

Cheers?

P

maglite

31st May 2006, 11:38 AM

Exador

31st May 2006, 12:28 PM

Wasnt " leave loading" actually bought into place to compensate workers that would lose shift and other allowances whilst they were on leave?

If one doesnt normally earn a shift penalty during their normal employment, why are they entitled to a loading when they are on leave?
In essence, i am paying that employee more to be on holidays that they are paid when they are working.

Leave loading was originally introduced to MIM workers, I believe, to compensate for the extensive travel (2 days each way at the time, I understand). It was later extended to all. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I do think that some form of compensation for loss of earnings during a compulsory leave break is warranted. Many people rely on their loadings to pay the bills.

Eddie Jones

31st May 2006, 07:37 PM

"You really do have a problem with workers expecting to get paid and treated properly, don't you? You still haven't answered my qyestion, either: "how cheap are you prepared to work?"

If I apply for a job and am accepted, I expect to get the wages and conditions that were on offer. Do you know of any examples where that has not happened? So to answer the above, if you apply for a job at X dollars, then implicitely you are prepared to work for those dollars. If not, why did you apply? There's your answer.

Now I've had enuff of this wank. I'm heading for the scotch.

Toolin Around

31st May 2006, 07:43 PM

I guess I've been looking at this from a slightly different view point. I haven't been here all that long but the sense I get is the average person tends to do without more often because they simply don't have any money. Also cause I'm a new immigrant I also spend a fair bit of time on new immigrant forums. And one of the most common observations by new immigrants from "western" nations is that the wages are noticeable lower than back home (where ever that may be). So when I hear the government on more than one occasion take steps to kill wage increases and in-fact want to to take it to another level and severely reduce wages... I've got to wonder where it will all end up.

Before I got here and for a while after I couldn't understand why a lot of job postings would mention "lots of over time" as a selling feature for the job. Until I got here and realized that most I encountered can't afford to live off their wage unless the do many hours of overtime a week. So what if you can reduce wages and therefore increase employment when most are just scraping by on what they make now. When the rest of the western world is trying to get away from over working and spend more time with the family the Australian government seems to be trying to go the other way.

My goal in starting this thread was to hopefully find out if anyone knew what the governments long term goals were with these and and other reforms. And what projection they have predicted as to what will take place in the near and far future.

bitingmidge

31st May 2006, 07:54 PM

Many people rely on their loadings to pay the bills.

Budgetting on behalf of an employee is not nor should it ever be, the responsibility of the employer.

17.5% of 1/12 of a years pay less (say 25% tax) equates to about 1.1% of an annual salary and sure as heck doesn't pay a very big bill!

It does cost close to that in admin costs for the employer though....

What of the staff member who wishes to spend public holidays with his family, as was the original reason for their existence? I suggest you stop blaming the employer for that.
Blame your missus, and me, and every other bugger that buys stuff or goes out on a public holiday. If we didn't want to be served, all those poor workers could stay home with their families, and we'd all be better off (except for the existing Spotlight employees, who'd be $90.00 a week worse off, because the shop would be closed when they currently get penalty rates.)

Then we'd have a whole new act of parliament insisting on people shopping and eating on Public Holidays I guess!

Cheers,

P (It's my birthday and I'll cry if I want to!)

:D :D :D

Ikkyu

31st May 2006, 08:15 PM

I'm glad I live in a bubble.

maglite

1st June 2006, 05:39 PM

Greg Q

1st June 2006, 06:51 PM

Geee, i wish i got to spend as much time with my family as my employees do!!!

In my case, I'd like just once to have as much time at home as any of my many bosses.

It would be good to see which "western" nations have a higher standard of living than we in OZ do, most if not all may make more money per hour but it would be a dead cert that the conditions and allowances wouldnt be anywhere near what we take for granted in this country.

You need to get out more. For starters, try almost any European country or Canada.

Some american (Well now THERE'S a example for all of us!) friends of mine stared at me blankly when i explained to them what i am expected to pay my staff. They simply couldnt believe it.....as for 4 weeks paid annual leave with a loading well thats another story too, apparently.

Yeah, its tough to get around those pesky worker's expectations, ain't it? The Americans get two weeks/year. They also hate it. Apart from enjoying a nation of cheap stuff, would you want to be an average American worker? How many million Americans fall into the category "the working poor"?

Now, i dont know what the solution is and i have no idea what the government is trying to implent in the future but as an employer i know that i have very little say in how my business runs once i follow ALL of the correct procedures, policies, awards, agreement etc etc etc.
Contrary to popular belief a lot of small business people arent the millionaires that some believe, nor are they a cash cow to be drained by ingrained poor work practises and under acheiving employees.
Perhaps the main aim of these new laws isnt to drive down the wages and conditions of employees but simply give control of the business they work for back to the person who owns it.

The real, hidden reason for these laws is John Howard's handing a poisoned chalice to Peter Costello. (I don't think he can stand him either)

Daddles

1st June 2006, 06:58 PM

The real, hidden reason for these laws is John Howard's handing a poisoned chalice to Peter Costello. (I don't think he can stand him either)

Ahh, spoken like a true conspiracy theorist :D

He was doing well up till then too :rolleyes:

Richard

Toolin Around

1st June 2006, 07:09 PM

Geee, i wish i got to spend as much time with my family as my employees do!!!

It would be good to see which "western" nations have a higher standard of living than we in OZ do, most if not all may make more money per hour but it would be a dead cert that the conditions and allowances wouldnt be anywhere near what we take for granted in this country.

Some american friends of mine stared at me blankly when i explained to them what i am expected to pay my staff. They simply couldnt believe it.....as for 4 weeks paid annual leave with a loading well thats another story too, apparently.

Now, i dont know what the solution is and i have no idea what the government is trying to implent in the future but as an employer i know that i have very little say in how my business runs once i follow ALL of the correct procedures, policies, awards, agreement etc etc etc.
Contrary to popular belief a lot of small business people arent the millionaires that some believe, nor are they a cash cow to be drained by ingrained poor work practises and under acheiving employees.
Perhaps the main aim of these new laws isnt to drive down the wages and conditions of employees but simply give control of the business they work for back to the person who owns it.

Canada for one - I would say a much higher standard of living to honest, but you can 't surf there. I've spent a great deal of time in the states also and would say that they have a higher standard also, they don't have much in the way of social programs but the oportunities far out way that. I think the UK is high up there also, much more in the way of social programs and the earning potential seems to be higher.

As per your last paragraph that is part of what I have been sensing (for lack of a better word). There are a lot of people here that are just getting by so I have to wonder how these new IR laws and other reforms are going to benefit Australia.

bitingmidge

1st June 2006, 07:11 PM

He was doing well up till then too :rolleyes:

I thought that was the only really good bit!

Comparisons with other countries are so dangerous they are almost irrelevant.

So you want the same wages in Finland? The be prepared to spend $6.00 on a cup of coffee, and a bucket load on house heating. If you are the sort of person that resents business making money, it's best not to go there either!

Everywhere there is a balance. If there is a better balance somewhere else, go there. Mat did exactly that, and I know he's not whinging about his lot, just enquiring, because he knows that on balance, here is pretty good! (If he did whinge, I'd tell him to rack off home anyway! :D )

On another note: did anyone hear ABC radio PM ref a new Spotlight store in Sydney's west?

I didn't and cant' find the transcript on the ABC website, but was told that the numbers presented about NEW employment opportunities were pretty significant, and most of the NEW staff were something like $300 per week better off. So the dole doesn't look so good when you bring it into the equation?

Cheers,

P:p

Greg Q

1st June 2006, 07:25 PM

Yes, comparisons can be misleading. On balance, we do enjoy a high standard of living in this country, but we also pay some pretty high prices for things, too. Houses to name one obvious example.

I don't think that anyone here really begrudges a business making money, and most of us have probably worked hard to ensure that in one capacity or another. Please realise though, that employees are valuable assets. The MOST successful business in my industry believes that if you take care of the employees, they will take care of the customer. The customer in turn will take care of the shareholders. This formula has helped them to make a profit every year for 25 years when almost everyone else has gone to the wall.

My father's business had 25 employees. Christmas parties were at our house every year. Birthdays, kids' milestones, weddings and deaths were all shared.
He gave a bonus every year to everybody. The guy who bought the business did away with all of that, and drives a bigger car than Dad ever did, but I know who was by far the richer man.

Best,

Greg

Toolin Around

1st June 2006, 07:50 PM

I thought that was the only really good bit!
Everywhere there is a balance. If there is a better balance somewhere else, go there. Mat did exactly that, and I know he's not whinging about his lot, just enquiring, because he knows that on balance, here is pretty good! (If he did whinge, I'd tell him to rack off home anyway! :D )

P:p

Very true. I'm trying to stick to the topic. Yes my financial opportunities "appear" (truly we haven't been here nearly enough to get a good understanding of Australian life to maximize it's potential) to be less, but the benefits my wife and I have gained in the short time we have been here out weigh them considerably. Particularly the people we have come to know are beyond compare. The fact that we can go have a barby down at the beach any day of the year will cause any hardships of the day to rapidly disapear... My goal in bringing up this thread was to attempt to gain some insight and therefore plan for my future and what I will be doing.

outback

1st June 2006, 08:17 PM

All terribly interesting and emotive.

Seems most arguments are fuelled by a deeply entrenched, probably instilled at birth, feelings, mostly derived from the colour of your collar.

Mat is trying to come to grips with a new country, new conditions, new work, etc. Midge seems to be backing his arguments with facts. As for the rest, most of it seems like the same old clap trap that's been around for years.

Remember folks, the grass is always greener on the other side, if ya like it there that much pack up yer mower and move.

Another note, in any heirachy, each individual rises to his own level of incompetance and remains there. I run my own one man business, this makes me very confused and in need of a rum & bex. :D

Greg Q

1st June 2006, 08:38 PM

All terribly interesting and emotive.

Seems most arguments are fuelled by a deeply entrenched, probably instilled at birth, feelings, mostly derived from the colour of your collar.

Mat is trying to come to grips with a new country, new conditions, new work, etc. Midge seems to be backing his arguments with facts. As for the rest, most of it seems like the same old clap trap that's been around for years.

Remember folks, the grass is always greener on the other side, if ya like it there that much pack up yer mower and move.

:D

That's a helpful suggestion. And not at all clap trap. Pack up and move-how original.

outback

1st June 2006, 08:55 PM

HEY! It worked for Mat, and the three billy goats gruff. :p

silkwood

1st June 2006, 09:32 PM

Midge backed his argument up with facts?

"An AWA must include a dispute resolution procedure."

This procedure is written to be less than useless. The retoric is not being lived up to. All an employer has to do is claim they are making the decision based upon economic factors. The "dispute" then has to be taken to court for resolution. How many employees are going to be willing to expend the thousands of dollars this process requires when they now have one of the early examples of the probable result?

"AWAs cannot contain content prohibited by the Regulations."

The prohibited regulations are so few and substantially reduced from those the legal fraternity as a whole have for years considered reasonable (that's the legal fraternity, not the unions)!

"AWAs exclude all other instruments from applying."

Explain how this protects any employee from unreasonable conduct.

"An award or certified agreement operating in your workplace can never apply to you, even if your AWA is terminated."

Ditto (have you actually read and considered much of this or just posted randomly?)

"Certain conditions apply by law, and others are subject to terms in your AWA."

Care to explain what this means?(neither did the minister).

"No current employee can be forced into signing an AWA."

No current employee can be forced into being a current employee either. The "tribunal court" has already allowed one company to tear up existing contracts and force anyone still wanting their job to sign the AWA. If you are an existing employee do you think the company will be giving you preference for overtime or promotion? Who do you think will be "let go" because their work didn't quite measure up?

"No employee can be threatened in any way with the intent to coerce them to sign an AWA."

Ha! See above.

"All employees have the right to representation by a bargaining agent of their choice, including CPSU. "

Which will be useless, considering the make-up and obligatory focus of the deciding arbitrator (I use the term laughingly).

Okay, this perspective is looking at the downside of this legislation but that's because for the vast majority of the population this is a reasonable perspective. As previously mentioned most here would agree there were real problems with the previous system but the Howard government has used this as justification to create a system which potentially creates (and it will eventually) a true working underclass on the pretence of fairness under the umberella of unproven and insupportable (logically) ideological perspective.

No facts, Midge, just propoganda wrapped up in poli-speak. And by the way, show me where the previous "no disadvantage" applies now (I mean actually locate it in the legislation).

Cheers,

bitingmidge

1st June 2006, 10:06 PM

No facts, Midge, just propoganda wrapped up in poli-speak. And by the way, show me where the previous "no disadvantage" applies now (I mean actually locate it in the legislation).,

Interesting. It's UNION propoganda that I quoted, you know, the blokes that are against all this stuff? That's why I lifted it straight from their pages, so I couldn't be accused of taking a pro-govt stance! :rolleyes: I can only shudder what your reaction would have been if I'd quoted something from the governments' pages!

The "no disadvantage" test has been replaced by new jargon; read instead "safety net".

I think it's a bit hysterical of all you buggers to mimic the union's bltches (or their parliamentary puppet's) about stuff that hasn't happened. For example your critique of the unions summary above which was lifted by me in full, including the bits that may have seemed counter to my own argument. The union seems to be comfortable with the fact that it can represent the worker, even if you aren't. It's NOT my work, please address your concerns to the author!

As Outback said, I think thus far I'm the only person to have actually taken the time to look beyond what has been said. Instead of the emotional cheap shots Silky, how about you get off your backside and YOU quote some facts. How about YOU read some of the legislation eh??

Personally I really don't give too much of a toss quite frankly, I'm out of the game, after ten years of representing both sides of the fence, I've seen appalling behaviour from both, and I have to tell you that in my experience the emotional outbursts like yours above are usually a last ditch attempt to cover up a lack of experience or knowledge on the subject. (I'm sorry I'm not meaning a personal attack by that, I've seen it time and time again in arbitration, I may even have done it myself once or twice.)

I have never understood the lemming-like rush for "better conditions" without consideration for productivity in the holistic sense.

I happen to have enjoyed a similar relationship with my employees as gregoryq's dad did, so have no cross to bear.

I hope your employees are as well looked after as mine were, but I suspect from the emotion I detect in the response above, you don't have any.

Lastly, please remember that this thread is a bit of a discussion, we're really just having a light hearted debate here aren't we? I know I am, but if it makes people think a bit more instead of shooting off blindly believing newspapers television and politicians, then we've achieved something.

Cheers,

P (Champion of the true working underclass)

:D :D :D

silkwood

1st June 2006, 10:47 PM

Okay midge I'll bite. The points you raised from a union website are in fact highlighted as potential defence taken from information and statements originally given out through government sources (note this was not actually quoted from the eventual legislation but was taken from quotes from the incumbent government representatives).

In reality the retoric has been shown to be hollow and the same unions now understand their so called safety nets and points of defence are likely to be less than useless. How can you say you're the only one to quote actual facts? Which comment you made was a fact? In reality you were spouting statements which were not directly taken from the actual wording of the legislation.

Please don't tell me to read the legislation, which one of us actually knew about the demise of the "no disadvantage" test? I have read much of the legislation and can follow little of it to conclusion (ditto for many industrial lawyers so I'm no orphan). From the response of the Australian Law Council (who have no vested interest in supporting or disparaging said legislation) and susbsequent decisions in the courts the aim of the legislation is without doubt to limit the opportunities of employees to dispute unreasonable decisions and to severely curtail the abilities of unions to represent their members.

I'm certainly no union promoter and agree that there is much to be desired in the way some unions work. I have, in the past, also been involved (as a consultant) in assisting with changes in the workplace to which unions were vehemently opposed. As previously stated I totally agree that unfair dismissal laws seriously disadvantaged small businesses. But it is syllological nonsense to say that we have some problems therefore we should change the whole system.

I have in the past employed people in my own business and stopped because I could not afford it and did not feel right in using lower paid options (such as the so called "training schemes" which in reality are simply opportunities to get employees at a cut price rate taking advantage of their inexperience and need, and being subsidised by the taxpayer).

Nowadays I am an employee and work under a workplace agreement which takes away my penalty rates and pays me a fair wage and conditions in return. I'm lucky to be in a position which allows me to negotiate such a situation.

I probably agree with more of your argument than you may realise, but I think we come from different philosophical perspectives. The main thrust of the Liberal ideology is that if those who run businesses can be allowed to prosper the benefits will flow down the the whole society. This is a relatively modern (a few hundred years) take on the Benificent Landowner concept which has existed for centuries and states that a nobles responsibility is to provide for his serfs. Interesting that the more modern take came about around the time of the industrial revolution and provided British Lords to argue for minimal wages for the good of the community.

I beleive we earn what we work for or can create from our intellect. If this then requires us to bring in others to enable us to maintain our profitablity then we are entering into a form of partnership. If our laws and behaviours were more aligned to this sort of perspective we would find it difficult to argue for a radical unionist perspective or a Liberal take on business growth.

A win-win ideology seemed possible for a short while in the late 80's-early 90's but it was not to be. Growth and the conditions it required in a so-called global economy put a stop to that. I am not afraid these new laws will disadvantage me, I worry about the next generation, including my kids. the only winners from this will be multinational companies.

Cheers,

silkwood

1st June 2006, 11:06 PM

Bitingmidge..

"I agree completely, although I'd like some ideas of how you think we should do that. If we all set off and do the "alternative" lifestyle thing, the world would suffer a glut of handwoven alpaca mohair ponchos in about one afternoon"Bitingmidge"

How come I can laugh myself stupid (I'm sure you'd agree) over your post in the environmental topic yet get so heated up over your comments here? I never claimed to be consitent, just persistent!

Cheers,

Toolin Around

1st June 2006, 11:36 PM

I would suspect these reforms are here to stay and they'll affect my future. Whether or not that'll be positive or not depends on me. So knowing something about these reforms, I.E. predicting trends and capitalising on them, would be a smart move in anyones book. It's in everyones best interest to take an objective look at these reforms be they positive and or negative and to adjust future plans as needed.

One thing that seems to be certain is wages for the working person are going to go down. I think that will "push" people into starting thier own small businesses. Australia already seems to be a country where starting a small business is relatively easy and maybe it will get easier as a result of these laws.

Grunt

1st June 2006, 11:54 PM

Starting a business is easy. The hard part is staying in business.

bitingmidge

2nd June 2006, 12:21 AM

How come I can laugh myself stupid (I'm sure you'd agree) over your post in the environmental topic yet get so heated up over your comments here?
Because here I'm trying to get under everyone's skin (like they get under mind by shooting off without thinking, and until you showed your colours, you were just like them! ;)

Okay midge I'll bite.
Thanks!

In reality the retoric has been shown to be hollow That's exactly the point I've been trying to make, and that all of the debate here has been based solely on hollow rhetoric!

How can you say you're the only one to quote actual facts? Which comment you made was a fact? In reality you were spouting statements which were not directly taken from the actual wording of the legislation.
I don't believe I did claim to be quoting facts, I think Outback said that! Actually I think I referenced my sources, in the hope that someone would get curious enough to check them and take me to task on some basis! I apologise if that's not what I've done, but I get a bit blinded by passion too occasionally :cool: , what I was trying to say was that no one else had made any reference to anything other than blind rhetoric and I was trying (unsuccessfully it would seem) to encourage others to actually read stuff and try to understand what the real impact will be rather than just keep mouthing off, or shooting from the hip

In doing so I did not want to set myself up as an authority, but something other than arguing "it's all bad" would be welcome! (as you have just done!)

Please don't tell me to read the legislation, which one of us actually knew about the demise of the "no disadvantage" test? Actually we both did, and again, it would seem only you and I are aware of its impact or probably care, but again there is only talk of what will be lost as though there is some sort of certainty when clearly there isn't. There has also been no talk of the conditions that prevailed when some workplace conditions were originally brought to bear, and whether they are even relevant any longer?

Why should we have a situation where an anachronistic "hard won" mentality is maintained on behalf of workers, when conditions in any industry may well dictate a completely different set of circumstances?

I have mentioned the airlines, and I know also the hospitality industry has a far from level playing field. Why should "workers" be entitled to something simply because of the colour of the uniform they wear.

I have read much of the legislation and can follow little of it to conclusion (ditto for many industrial lawyers so I'm no orphan). From the response of the Australian Law Council (who have no vested interest in supporting or disparaging said legislation) and susbsequent decisions in the courts the aim of the legislation is without doubt to limit the opportunities of employees to dispute unreasonable decisions and to severely curtail the abilities of unions to represent their members.
As you are aware I am no lawyer but I am sure it will be years before any of us can follow it to a conclusion, which again is why I am happy to rail against the portents of doom. I think it appalling that for years the ability of unions to dictate terms (and they have, in concert with certain employer groups) has gone unchallenged, always the small businesses have suffered, without the ability to defend themselves. Whether factual or not, I see two powerful well financed parties here: big business, and the employee (via the unions).

Small business (which is apparently the country's biggest employer) could not afford the representation it needed, and has always been the easybeat. Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far, we'll see, but as you have said (unlike others), we can't yet follow this to a conclusion!

I'm certainly no union promoter and agree that there is much to be desired in the way some unions work. I have, in the past, also been involved (as a consultant) in assisting with changes in the workplace to which unions were vehemently opposed. As previously stated I totally agree that unfair dismissal laws seriously disadvantaged small businesses. We are in total agreement, except that I am an unashamed union detractor, who has in the past been involved in assisting unions to achieve changes in the workplace in the face of opposition from my own industry!

But it is syllological nonsense to say that we have some problems therefore we should change the whole system. Well no, there once was a system which didn't have those problems, let's change it back! ;) (I had to look up the meaning of syllogical by the way.)

I have in the past employed people in my own business and stopped because I could not afford it and did not feel right in using lower paid options (such as the so called "training schemes" which in reality are simply opportunities to get employees at a cut price rate taking advantage of their inexperience and need, and being subsidised by the taxpayer). Again, I agree entirely with those sentiments, and have also been in that position on more than one occasion. On others, I've used training schemes to provide real benefits to the recipients, and found the cut price wages cost us a fortune in lost productivity and "training" time, because we took it seriously.

Nowadays I am an employee and work under a workplace agreement which takes away my penalty rates and pays me a fair wage and conditions in return. I'm lucky to be in a position which allows me to negotiate such a situation.
I dips me lid and would say that you are lucky to recognise you are lucky. Let's just hope that a few of the other "detractors" read this!

I too work in a similar situation now albeit as a consultant with a defined project, and it's the easiest, most certain time I've had in my entire career.

I probably agree with more of your argument than you may realise, but I think we come from different philosophical perspectives. I was going to say the same! Cough splutter.... this is getting too cuddly!

I beleive we earn what we work for or can create from our intellect. If this then requires us to bring in others to enable us to maintain our profitablity then we are entering into a form of partnership. If our laws and behaviours were more aligned to this sort of perspective we would find it difficult to argue for a radical unionist perspective or a Liberal take on business growth.
I am afraid that I have always held that view as well, but have been bitten many times by employees taking advantage of this benevolence. The responses of those that recognised our views made it worthwhile however.

The indoctrination of the historical employer/employee relationship to which you refer makes it difficult to convince an employee of his place in that partnership, and the "them and us" ideology so clearly displayed on this thread is an enormous impediment to employers who do are sympathetic.

A win-win ideology seemed possible for a short while in the late 80's-early 90's but it was not to be. In fact that engendered the opposite of that "partnership" of which you spoke. The reality was that employees decided they had "rights" which in turn put other pressures on business.

Having in relatively recent history managed a firm of 45 staff which had 2 human resources 'managers', I know what sort of financial pressure that attitude created. Far from the core philosophy of the comrades, employee "rights" aren't concerned with risk, or profit or even the next bloke, they are just about "me". That's why it all came unstuck.

Growth and the conditions it required in a so-called global economy put a stop to that. No, see above! I think that growth has actually created a situation where the new laws may just work. Profitable businesses will employ the most productive people and reward them accordingly.

The real problems will occur with ordinary operators who treat their ordinary staff badly, but the communist model didn't work, so let's just recognise that some people will always be better off and get on with it!

The reality is that some people run slower than others, and will always come last in a footrace. If that footrace is to the dinner table, then they'll have to get leftovers. It's nature's way!

bitingmidge

2nd June 2006, 12:24 AM

I am not afraid these new laws will disadvantage me, I worry about the next generation, including my kids. the only winners from this will be multinational companies.

Well we differ there too. I certainly won't be disadvantaged, but I know the next generation will be resilient enough to survive. I don't think the multinationals will be winners, I alluded to this elsewhere. Their bottom line is expressed as a percentage of turnover. If lower wages mean lower costs and turnover increases, they'll make more profit, but they will also have employed a correspondingly larger number of people to generate the increased turnover.

The real winners are likely to be all those small businesses which hang precariously between breaking even and complete failure, and that's most of them, if the ABS stats are to be believed.

All we are doing is turning back the clock, to a time where we lived differently. You see, I come from a generation where I was indentured to my firm. I was paid exactly half the amount I could have received on the dole, for working a five and a half day week, while attending college four nights.

I thought that I was lucky to have a job in my chosen field, and worked bloody hard to do the best I could. If the boss wanted a cup of tea, I didn't tell him I was overqualified, I made it for him. This was no different for any other apprentice, or even articled clerks in the field of law!

After graduation we often worked 60 hours a week without overtime for very ordinary wages, you see there was no award in my field, and that's what the industry demanded. We did it because we loved what we were doing, or it was all we knew. If we wanted more money, we could have worked in a shop.

Flexitime was measured in hours worked after 5.30, but never recorded.

We all survived, enjoyed life and considered our jobs a privilege not a right.

One of my kids can only be described as itinerant, in her late 20's she works in a variety of low paid positions, all casual some "exploitative".

She's chasing her own dreams, in a different way to the way we did, but she'll make her choices and thrive.

Another lives in poverty with her husband, both students and destined to be so for some time. It is their right of passage into the world, and whatever the employment situation for them it will be their choice to accept conditions or move elsewhere, just as it was for me.

Times don't change, only people's expectations.

If a (slightly) reduced standard of living means that people can only afford one tele, or a small engined four cylinder car or not buying takeaways, then welcome to the next decade and a new lifestyle which isn't much different to the one we left behind.

Believe it or not, there were a lot of happy people back then, and the duckpond wasn't nearly as overgrown as it is now!:D

Cheers,(and thanks for the considered response, I hope I've done justice to it. It was that or watch "Inspector Rex"! :eek: :eek: )

P