AWA,s Hang in there Kev- Its all a Howard Beat-up [Archive]

bitingmidge

18th May 2007, 11:06 AM

Hmmm, at least half a dozen of our friends are actually enjoying their new ten hour day, four-days on four-days-off lifestyle, Mr Rudd will have that gone and a real dollar pay cut as well, but at least they'll get "paid" for working Sundays! :rolleyes:

Having been involved in the hospitality and retail industry for 15 years prior to the last two, I can assure you that it's a tough game, both from an owners and an employees perspective. For the last ten of those years it was made easier for both by our AWA's, and having assisted a couple of businesses to put new (replacement) ones in place, there has been no change under the new legislation, other than now having the right for a small business to employ whoever they want, which seems fair to me.

There's an awful lot of huffing and puffing, as there was before the legislation changed, and no-one's denying that some businesses have not done the right thing. Hopefully they'll pay a price for that.

There again, I've had a few employees steal stuff, come in late, knock off early, and take sickies too, under the old legislation I couldn't sack them! I suppose that's fair to Mr Rudd?

Gee I'm glad I don't employ anyone anymore. Of course if everyone felt like me, there'd be no grumbles, because no one would have a job.

Oh and while I'm at it, there was some stupid sheila on the front page of the local rag, whinging about how much that bloke from Macquarie Bank earned, compared to how much she earned in the local coffee shop.

I wrote to the paper suggesting she puts in place the same productivity incentive as his, ie, she sets her salary to 2% of the profit of the business, if it's a really good business she'll make between $800 and $2,000 per year.

If you don't like the way you are being treated, find an employer who'll value your time, there are plenty of them about.

It'd be interesting to go back over a couple of old threads on this topic, and see how those sprouting doom and gloom have actually been affected. I suspect not at all.

Cheers,

P :doh:

Gingermick

18th May 2007, 11:48 AM

Idiots have the uoo much union influence. I want to know why they can't allow people to be employed the way they want. If they want collective bargaining, then they should be entitled to it. If they want their AWA then they should be entitled to that as well.

Grunt

18th May 2007, 12:03 PM

I'm an employer and mostly agree with the unfair dismissal laws.

I do however have a real problem with the AWAs in their current form. The most disadvantaged are even more disadvantaged. Women, migrants etc. have no bargaining power and are simply paid less and work in poorer conditions.

The U.S. is very, very likely to go into recession this year. They will stop buying crap from China. China will need less raw materials. Pop goes the resource boom. Our unemployment rate will rise which will put employers in a greater position of power. They will be able to say "You want the job, take the minimum wage, work nights, weekends with no holiday pay and no sick leave. You don't we'll give it to the next person."

This is how it works in the U.S. Millions of people there work long hours and are still way below the poverty line.

The current WorkChoices is not fair and balanced. We need to have in stone some basic protections for those who are not in a strong bargaining position.

Chris

bitingmidge

18th May 2007, 01:28 PM

I'm an employer and mostly agree with the unfair dismissal laws.
Let me be clear, I mostly agree with them too, particularly the changes that make it possible to dismiss thieves, (and people who own boxer dogs! :D )

I do however have a real problem with the AWAs in their current form. The most disadvantaged are even more disadvantaged. Women, migrants etc. have no bargaining power and are simply paid less and work in poorer conditions.

Is that really the case overall? No one pretends that there are not disadvantaged groups in the equation, but by and large the benefits seem to be fairly well balanced.

The U.S. is very, very likely to go into recession this year. They will stop buying crap from China. China will need less raw materials. Pop goes the resource boom. Our unemployment rate will rise which will put employers in a greater position of power. They will be able to say "You want the job, take the minimum wage, work nights, weekends with no holiday pay and no sick leave. You don't we'll give it to the next person."
But of course after a certain number of hours, if the pay rate hasn't been averaged, penalty rates (or their equivalent) still apply. What does it matter if the nominal 40 hours is worked in four days, or over only Sundays? If we as consumers expect a service, and we don't want to pay for it, then something has to give.

When was the last time you walked into Bunnings on Sunday morning and volunteered to pay double the price because penalty rates apply? (OK I know they don't but you get the point!)

This is how it works in the U.S. Millions of people there work long hours and are still way below the poverty line.

No it's not how it works in the US. It's a completely different system, AND we don't live there either. We have a far higher minimum wage level, AND we don't have a black economy in illegal immigrants working at $3.00 per hour.

NO ONE HAS EVER ADVOCATED THAT SYSTEM!

The current WorkChoices is not fair and balanced. We need to have in stone some basic protections for those who are not in a strong bargaining position.

So what's wrong with the basic wage safety net that used to be there rather than a wholesale reinvention? Is it actually legal to have someone on an agreement working longer than 37.25 hours in a week (or whatever in a month) without paying penalty rates??

I don't think so. It may be what is happening in a few cases, but there's a lot of emotion that doesn't seem to be backed up with fact.

Last time we had this discussion, I asked for any evidence to be produced (other than ads on tele). It was the time of the Spotlight publicity, and it all turned out to be a fizzer as I recall.

So come on... convince me with FACT, none of this rhetoric.

BTW, I'm on the side of truth and light, so I don't have to worry about facts!

:D :D :D
P

Daddles

18th May 2007, 01:42 PM

BTW, I'm on the side of truth and light,

I thought you used hand tools. Isn't that going to the Dark Side? :rolleyes:

Richard

Gumby

18th May 2007, 01:52 PM

Wgat a lot of people forget in these debates is that while the 'Unfair dismissal' laws have changed, particularly for small business, the 'Unlawful Dismissal" Laws remain intact.

There is a difference.

PS> we aren't supposed to talk politics (or political views) in this forum.

MrFixIt

18th May 2007, 02:15 PM

Hi

It is about time the EMPLOYER, the guy PAYING the EMPLOYEE had some rights of his own.

For far too long the rights of the employer had been substantially diminished. I don't deny that there needs to be a minimum wage which IS applicable within the new AWA IR laws.

WHen employers can control THEIR OWN destiny then ALL business succeeds. Bad employers will find it hard to get good staff and the word spreads about such an employer. GOOD employers will be able to get and retain good staff - it's logical really!

I know of one instance (before AWA's) where and employee was dismissed for stealing. There was irrefutable evidence to prove she was stealing money from the cash register.

The UNION backed her case for UNFAIR dismissal and she won her case and gained a financial reward - how STUPID is that!

My personal experience with unions and the "collective bargaining" option was interesting. A UNION member was dismissed because he was just no good at the job for which he had been employed - these things happen. So, I was approached, being a NON-UNION member, and was asked to join the union. I declined the invitation. Subsequently the company was given a choice that either *I* joined the union or *I* would be dismissed and the utterly useless employee would be reinstated. Again - how STUPID is that!

Collective bargaining is of course tantamount to union blackmail, this has had over the years, disasterous effects to the cost of living of all Australians. The "follow-on effect" of one branch of UNION members blackmailing err collective bargaining their way to higher wages with the same or LESS productivity has done nothing for the BENEFIT of the Australian lifestyle.

I believe now as I have always done that people - employees - should be paid on their own merit and be able to negotiate higher wages if their merit proves this to be the case.

If I am good at my job the employer will want to keep me otherwise I can obtain better employment elsewhere. This is FREE ENTERPRISE for the employer just as it is the THE EMPLOYEE!

This is the major benefit of AWA's the GOOD employee can succeed very well, the less capable employee has to rely on the power (ie blackmail) of a union or collective bargaining to gain undeserved remuneration.

There is NO WAY any one unions OR employers can say that xx number of people desrerve a wage rise just because it's a nice thing to do. The repercussions of this is, as always higher prices to the consumer! Employers can though provide wage rises to those deserving of wage rises and pay any appropriate increase INDIVIDUALLY and maybe NO increase to those that do not desrerve an increase.

Employees should EARN their money, not be given it for NO effort.

Unions ergo the Labor party, are and have always been selfish. They have NEVER given consideration to the repercussions of their wage demands or other "deals". The Liberal party has always been for the individual. To allow ANYONE to get ahead if they so desire and have the ability to do so.

Anyway that's enough from me...

Soapbox mode off :D

Hmmm? I wonder who I'll vote for THIS time.....

Gingermick

18th May 2007, 02:50 PM

So does that mean you'll vote labour?

Rossluck

18th May 2007, 02:54 PM

As a declared leftie, I'm looking forward to the restoration of some union power in a few months. History has shown over and over that those in power will subjugate those without it.

This may be the one that closes the thread.:wink:

bitingmidge

18th May 2007, 03:47 PM

PS> we aren't supposed to talk politics (or political views) in this forum.

Oops! :oo:

I'm glad I wasn't being political... :D :D :D

Best we move? Or best we just read the thread from last time instead of rehashing all the fun!!

P
:D

Sturdee

18th May 2007, 03:51 PM

The current WorkChoices is not fair and balanced. We need to have in stone some basic protections for those who are not in a strong bargaining position.

Chris

I have recently become a victim of the WorkChoices policy of the Howard government.

Until 2 months ago I worked for over 5 years on a regular basis of 3 hours a fortnight for one employer.

I was then dismissed and offered re-employment under an AWA but the AWA only offered the basic rate of pay and more working hours were required of me, with the net result being that I would earn only a third of what I was earning before.

So now I'm retired and will vote for Kevin.

Peter.

Rossluck

18th May 2007, 03:59 PM

Poppa

18th May 2007, 04:21 PM

I'm an employer (or at least I would be if I could get my business to the point that I was making enough money!). I'm also a former employee, a former contractor, and a self-employed business owner. Politically I would describe myself as a liberal conservative. I strongly believe in individual freedom (that's the liberal side) and I'm a capitalist (that's the conservative side). I'm happy to admit that I voted for little Johnnie. But this time I'll be voting for little Kevvie. One of the major reasons for that is the Work Choices legislation, even though it doesn't disadvantage me personally one bit.

I was of the opinion that the laws restricting small businesses needed review and change, because small businesses were being governed and regulated out of business. To employ anyone was just too hard, and I believe a lot of small businesses didn't bother because of that. But, I believe that the Work Choices legislation as it stands is a move way too far, and gives employers the power to treat workers like slaves. I believe that in the long term this will cause a resurrection of the bad old days of the unions fighting employers at every turn (because workers will join unions again in droves if this legislation stays in place). And I believe that this will be VERY bad for the economy and general health of Australia as a nation.

I know of instances where people are employed for longer than 40 hours per week as casual employees (not permanent) and not paid any penalty rates. I personally was employed (some years ago now thank goodness - I have a strong aversion to work now :wink: ) for more than 40 hours a week with no penalty rates (sometimes as much as 80+ hours a week without penalty rates), but I never minded much because I was on a fair whack at the time.

It is now also legal for employers to take the compulsory superannuation contribution out of your wage instead of out of their pocket, and I know of an employer changing his employment conditions to do just that. I know of employers changing conditions and pay rates since this legislation to make employees much worse off, and the attitude is "sign it or you're sacked". I know of people being sacked for no reason, or being offered casual conditions after years of employment.

This is not fair, and I'm sorry but it shouldn't be the kind of society that Australians are willing to accept. And if all that is too political and causes this thread to be locked then I'm sorry!

silentC

18th May 2007, 04:38 PM

I know of one instance (before AWA's) where and employee was dismissed for stealing. There was irrefutable evidence to prove she was stealing money from the cash register.

The UNION backed her case for UNFAIR dismissal and she won her case and gained a financial reward - how STUPID is that!
Yeah I know one of them too. I also know of a company that wanted to sack an employee because he was rude to the customers, had no idea what he was doing, and was a definite liability to their business. But it cost them thousands in legal fees to make sure it was done right and he had no comeback. And I watched both of the business's owners turn grey overnight.

Something had to change but maybe it was a step too far, although I don't have any personal experience to base that on.

However I think that voting for the other guy because his policy is to overturn the policies of the current government is not necessarily a brilliant idea. Yes people are sick of Johnnie but what does Kev &co. have to offer? How many of you saw Julia Gillard last night unable to explain how they propose to support existing AWAs in legislation once they 'rewind' Work Choices or whatever it's called today? Her stance was that they have an objective, but as yet no details on how they are going to get there. "But we will release full details of that before the next election".

bitingmidge

18th May 2007, 05:01 PM

I know of instances where people are employed for longer than 40 hours per week as casual employees (not permanent) and not paid any penalty rates. I personally was employed (some years ago now thank goodness - I have a strong aversion to work now :wink: ) for more than 40 hours a week with no penalty rates (sometimes as much as 80+ hours a week without penalty rates), but I never minded much because I was on a fair whack at the time.

You see. "a fair whack".. Not minimum wages. A FAIR WHACK! In this situation the OT rates are probably included in the normal hourly rate wich is well over award. That's fair! If it was the bare minimum it wouldn't be.

It is now also legal for employers to take the compulsory superannuation contribution out of your wage instead of out of their pocket, and I know of an employer changing his employment conditions to do just that.
It's NOT legal. If it is, I can't find reference to it. Please show how this can be done LEGALLY.

It's just the sort of scaremongering claptrap that the ads portray.

I know of employers changing conditions and pay rates since this legislation to make employees much worse off, and the attitude is "sign it or you're sacked". I know of people being sacked for no reason, or being offered casual conditions after years of employment.

I'd really love to see the details, since this would appear to be an unlawful situation as well, from my very limited experience of the new legislation.

Again, please provide the specifics to show how they are worse off (no names). Last time we got into this discussion there were some experts watching with some real HR experience, but not one of those " I know of's" provided any detail. Experts, are you still here to weigh in one way or another?

Cheers,

P

silentC

18th May 2007, 05:04 PM

I'd really love to see the details
Don't you watch Mcleod's Daughters?

Sturdee

18th May 2007, 05:35 PM

However I think that voting for the other guy because his policy is to overturn the policies of the current government is not necessarily a brilliant idea.

Don't care, my vote will be a punishment vote against the current legislation.

Don't forget it is not oppositions winning but governments losing elections according to the experts. I think this disgusting piece of legislation will be little Johnies millstone that will lose the libs the election.

Peter.

silentC

18th May 2007, 05:41 PM

Don't take this the wrong way Peter, but isn't that a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face? Unless you're sure that the other guys have got what it takes to run the country, voting for them just to punish the current government is not a good reason for the vote in my opinion. If you think they will do the best job of running the country, well that is a different story.

I actually haven't decided yet BTW. My ancestors are ALP voters (Grandad met Gough once) but I happen to think Costello has done a good job, despite what you might otherwise think of him.

But then sometimes it's good to just throw all the cards in the air and see where they fall. One thing's for sure, even if Johnnie gets in again I bet he wont be around for long, so a vote for him is probably a vote for the smarmy one :wink:

Sturdee

18th May 2007, 05:52 PM

If you think they will do the best job of running the country, well that is a different story.

There are other reasons too, like I'm diabolically opposed to the way little Johnie has again sent our troops to fight in dirty little Asian wars and only to appease the yanks.

He was a minister in the Lib government that sent our troops into the first dirty little Asian war in Vietnam and now he has sent ours to Afghanistan and Iraq. Four years after we won the war in Iraq, according to Bush, we are still fighting there. We are not wanted there, we will not win and ultimately we will get kicked out like Vietnam.

There are more reasons, but they are the main ones.

Peter.

bitingmidge

18th May 2007, 05:54 PM

I think this disgusting piece of legislation

Peter!! You of all people!! :oo:

Tell me why it's disgusting! (Without resorting to heresay)

BTW, one of my daughters works approximately 45 hours per week in a retail job, gets one Sunday off in four, gets paid a whisker over award (less than $2.00 per hour) and the company for whom she works continues with the AWARD rather than one of those agreement thingies. Yep, as has been pointed out before, many awards allow that.

Why would they do that if it they could just rip off their staff wholesale the way everyone seems to claim??

PLEASE!

P
:D :D :D

Rossluck

18th May 2007, 05:54 PM

I think that what Silent has written is a fair-minded swinging voter's view; I find it hard to disagree with it. But on the other hand I think that there's been a tradition in Australia of oscillating between the left and the right in a sort of a dialectic, with the synthesis being the type of successful society that we enjoy.

I think that Howard's done a good job of representing a lot of the people (not me, I hasten to add), but it's been a long time. It's now time for the left to restore some of the more egalitarian aspects of our system.

Gotta go, visitor....

Barry_White

18th May 2007, 05:57 PM

I have recently become a victim of the WorkChoices policy of the Howard government.

Until 2 months ago I worked for over 5 years on a regular basis of 3 hours a fortnight for one employer.

I was then dismissed and offered re-employment under an AWA but the AWA only offered the basic rate of pay and more working hours were required of me, with the net result being that I would earn only a third of what I was earning before.

So now I'm retired and will vote for Kevin.

Peter.

Let's face it Peter you're like me an old Phart and unemployable based on age only and nothing to do with experience.

Employers want young guys because they think that they can race around with one hand tied behind their back and do the job. The fact that they usually stuff it up has no bearing on it. Most employers don't take experience into the equation.

Just one other point I think people have short memories and forget how the labour party stuffed this country and have no history of having changed.

Gingermick

18th May 2007, 06:26 PM

Either way we'll still have a snivelling little weasel as our countries leader.
Did everyone see that Jerry “Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them.” Falwell had a heart attack and expired the other day?

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Falwell notoriously declared: “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America ... I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’” Wsws.org

Sturdee

18th May 2007, 07:13 PM

Employers want young guys because they think that they can race around with one hand tied behind their back and do the job. The fact that they usually stuff it up has no bearing on it. Most employers don't take experience into the equation.

I know. My first replacement lasted 1 day and stuffed up the pay transfers in such a way that it took his outside accounting firm a week to fix it up and recover the overpayments. :D

The second one lasted 2 pay periods. :D

Peter.

ozwinner

18th May 2007, 07:21 PM

I know. My first replacement lasted 1 day and stuffed up the pay transfers in such a way that it took his outside accounting firm a week to fix it up and recover the overpayments. :D

The second one lasted 2 pay periods. :D

Peter.

But hey, they were cheap..:doh:

Al :U

Grunt

18th May 2007, 07:54 PM

Just one other point I think people have short memories and forget how the labour party stuffed this country and have no history of having changed.

We have had nearly 16 years of economic growth. The current government has been power for 11 years. When John Howard was the Treasurer he made a fair mess of it. There was a recession, high interest rates and high unemployment. The Hawke/Keating government implemented a lot of economic reform such as floating the dollar and the beginning the path down to free trade. 7 years of the Fraser/Howard government were a wasted opportunity in my book.

To say the Labor stuffed the economy is plainly untrue.

Why would they do that if it they could just rip off their staff wholesale the way everyone seems to claim??

Because the economy is currently good and it is hard to get staff. When, that is a WHEN, the economy tanks the true hubris of this legislation will be plain for all to see.

No it's not how it works in the US. It's a completely different system, AND we don't live there either. We have a far higher minimum wage level, AND we don't have a black economy in illegal immigrants working at $3.00 per hour.

Yes it is. You are right we do have a much higher minimum wage. I have lived there and I can tell you I don't want Australia to turn out like the U.S.

So what's wrong with the basic wage safety net that used to be there rather than a wholesale reinvention? Is it actually legal to have someone on an agreement working longer than 37.25 hours in a week (or whatever in a month) without paying penalty rates??

Yes, why did the Howard government do a wholesale reinvention of the system when the could have fixed the unfair dismissal laws and put in basic protections for the low paid and simplified the award system?

Last time we had this discussion, I asked for any evidence to be produced (other than ads on tele). It was the time of the Spotlight publicity, and it all turned out to be a fizzer as I recall.

So come on... convince me with FACT, none of this rhetoric.

It's a little hard because the government does not publish the information on this any more. However, the average woman's salary has gone down in the last 12 months.

Gumby

18th May 2007, 08:08 PM

To say the Labor stuffed the economy is plainly untrue. .

try telling that to the people who were paying 17% on their home mortgage. :cool:

We are now free of the huge debt this country had when the Libs got in. We are no longer paying interest on humungous overseas loans.

We ALL benefit from that.

errr, and just for the record, you won't ever get me voting Labor. never have. Never will.

outback

18th May 2007, 08:30 PM

NOW I get why wer'e not allowed to discuss politics. :no: We can't do it without showing absolute one eyed bias one way or the other.

All I see is party based rhetoric.

Gumby

18th May 2007, 08:34 PM

N

All I see is party based rhetoric.

So do I, from the left that is. :D

Gingermick

18th May 2007, 08:38 PM

I just saw shrub on the telly attempting to justify his new propaganda campaign (The facts) against the union propaganda campaign (The rhetoric) . Though he would not call it propaganda.
Does anyone have a poli-speak dictionary?

Grunt

18th May 2007, 08:42 PM

try telling that to the people who were paying 17% on their home mortgage.

People are paying a higher percentage of the income on mortgages now than they ever have before.

How is our trade deficit going? Despite the resource boom, Australia still goes backwards every month. Banana Republic here we come.

Grunt

18th May 2007, 08:47 PM

So do I, from the left that is. :D

People should just accept that I'm right, well left. Bugger, now I'm confused.

:D

Toolin Around

18th May 2007, 09:03 PM

Gumby

18th May 2007, 09:06 PM

Bugger, now I'm confused.

:D

I prefer you that way :D

the governent thinks it needs to compete with countries like china where "slave labour" is the norm.
Yep, bring it back. Slaves, children working in the mines, ah those were the good 'ol days.

Studley 2436

18th May 2007, 09:20 PM

We have had nearly 16 years of economic growth. The current government has been power for 11 years. When John Howard was the Treasurer he made a fair mess of it. There was a recession, high interest rates and high unemployment. The Hawke/Keating government implemented a lot of economic reform such as floating the dollar and the beginning the path down to free trade. 7 years of the Fraser/Howard government were a wasted opportunity in my book.

To say the Labor stuffed the economy is plainly untrue.

No Labor did stuff the economy there is no doubt in the world. A study of the economy shows that inflation went through the roof, unemployment simultaneously shot up, for the original incarnation of stagflation. It has taken 30 years to recover from Gough's ego and the labor belief that with the keys to treasury they had unlimited money to throw at all their pet ideas.

The former economic theory was that as inflation increased unemployment decreased well until Gough that is what happened.

Fraser was a leftie at heart, being born rich you can understand, he stymied and blocked Howards attempts to liberalise the economy. Then Hawke Keating did liberalise because there was no other option. Howard supported them from the opposition benches.

Howard became PM he has been a let down to me and many others like me I am sure for his massive give aways high taxation and the like but you can't have everything you want. He has always been a much better option than the opposition.

AWA's are about one thing only. The Unions no longer have a legislated place in the workplace. You can understand how upset they are that they had a special protection and free ride and now it has been taken away.

My own fear was as a small business owner seeing the IRC last year force unfair dismissal and redundancy payments etc upon small business. The risk of employing anyone and growing my business became massive. I could see my dreams dissappearing due to a judge feather bedding his own position.

It has always been Labor that did the economy and nation in because they have no love of our nation and it's best interests and always been the Liberal/Conservative parties that have had to dig it out of the muck.

Was always thus and always thus would be.

Studley

bitingmidge

18th May 2007, 09:58 PM

I have recently become a victim of the WorkChoices policy of the Howard government.

No Peter, you've recently become a victim of the employee choices policy of an employer.

Whatever the situation, the government isn't to blame for the unreasonable attitude of your employer. I don't understand what it is that causes people to repay that kind of loyalty in such a way, but it isn't the government that's the cause.

Their foolishness has already cost them more, (and given you a better lifestyle with more free time and not having to deal with dopes every time you go in there!)

I haven't seen anything at all that makes that sort of behaviour compulsory.

Think about it. I don't want to pry, but what is so special about workchoices that made them think they needed you for more hours? Three hours a week and they gave you a pay cut?? What was their real motivation, I'll bet it wasn't political.

Cheers,

P

MrFixIt

18th May 2007, 11:19 PM

Hi

We have had nearly 16 years of economic growth. You said it and isn't this a GOOD thing?

There was a recession, high interest rates and high unemployment. The Hawke/Keating government implemented a lot of economic reform such as floating the dollar and the beginning the path down to free trade.

To say the Labor stuffed the economy is plainly untrue.

Why, when...
[QUOTE]The Hawke/Keating government implemented a lot of economic reform
There was a recession WE HAD TO HAVE, high interest rates and high unemployment.

Grunt

18th May 2007, 11:42 PM

You said it and isn't this a GOOD thing?

Yes, the Economy was not ruined by the Labor Government. We had a recession and we recovered from it during a Labor Government.

We had a recession during the Fraser/Howard Government. It wasn't until Hawke/Keating got into power did we recover from that one.

Labor did not ruin the economy. They caused a recession but so did the previous Liberal Government.

Whatever the situation, the government isn't to blame for the unreasonable attitude of your employer.

The WorkChoices policy makes it easier for Arsewipes like Peter's employer to treat employees with complete and utter disdain. If it wasn't for WorkChoices Peter would not have been sacked.

journeyman Mick

19th May 2007, 12:11 AM

I don't like to get into political discussions. It's a bit like talking about death and dismemberment or burst sewer pipes whilst at the dinner table :o . I think all politicians are highly untrustworthy and generally believe that whilst any problems financial or otherwise are more than likely caused by political meddling any good fortune is just that. Something that through good fortune happens despite the worst efforts by our elected representatives. :roll: I've found that whilst it may be more comfortable or easy to work for someone the only person who comes close to giving me the hours and dollars that I want is me.:; Still too many hours and not enough dollars though.:doh:

Mick

Farnarkel

19th May 2007, 09:21 AM

Dear Mr Woodwork Forums

I didnt realise politics wasnt allowed on this forum

The heading is misleading!

Ah well what about religion ???

Just Kidding!!!:wink:

nic

19th May 2007, 09:37 AM

At the end of the day, with the resources boom, there is so much money running coming into the place it doesn't matter who runs the joint.
Like a business that got an open order for it's products, if the manager is good or bad it will make little difference. Things will keep going strong.
Anyone could run the economy at this stage and it would be ok.

Now what really counts is what happens when the orders stop ..
The day China stops ordering and we have to lean back onto out "other" income sources we will look back at this period and ask, what did we do to future proof our future ???

All the current laws provide are employer options for more people to get sacked when thing do turn sour.
The current gvt is doing nothing to make sure we have other incomes when the resources boom stops.

Nic

Farnarkel

19th May 2007, 10:07 AM

Very true Nic

The thing I have always been amazed at is how Costello has controlled the world economy.

Isnt it strange that the whole world economy (with a couple of exceptions) has been booming since Costello/Howard have been in control.

Mmmmmm think about it.

Gumby

19th May 2007, 11:13 AM

The current gvt is doing nothing to make sure we have other incomes when the resources boom stops.

Nic

Yeah, you are entitled to a good income, even if your employer is going broke. :rolleyes:

It's not up to you to make your way through the world, the government is there to make sure you don't go without. :cool:

Sturdee

19th May 2007, 12:14 PM

Think about it. I don't want to pry, but what is so special about workchoices that made them think they needed you for more hours? Three hours a week and they gave you a pay cut?? What was their real motivation, I'll bet it wasn't political.

Cheers,

P

Alas this interesting debate kept going whilst I went out dancing the night away :D so my reply is a bit out of order.

Midge, without going into specifics, " Workchoices" allowed them to do it. Reasons are that they extended the premises (and made a foolish move into another suburb as well that didn't work out) which was to be financed not by loans but by cashflow.

A recipe for disaster, even in a cashflow positive type of business where you pay immediately and bills only come in two months later.

In addition the consultants wanted a higher share of the fees they generated so that last July he forced all the office staff, except me, on to AWA's. Since then over half have left for greener pastures.

I was the last one, I don't have regrets, but the government " Workchoices" legislation allowed it to happen without compensation.

Most of my life I have been a predominant liberal / dlp voter , however I've voted labour a number of times.

I voted for Gough so we would get out of that dirty little Asian war the libs inflicted upon us, I've voted against Kennet to get rid of that arrogant ******, and now as they affected my hip pocket I will vote against the libs.

BTW the argument about labour and high interest rates have never meant a damn to me, as I have never had to borrow to get where I am. I have always paid cash on the knocker for everything, part of my puritan upbringing to always live within your means.

Peter.

dazzler

19th May 2007, 01:03 PM

There are other reasons too, like I'm diabolically opposed to the way little Johnie has again sent our troops to fight in dirty little Asian wars and only to appease the yanks.

He was a minister in the Lib government that sent our troops into the first dirty little Asian war in Vietnam and now he has sent ours to Afghanistan and Iraq. Four years after we won the war in Iraq, according to Bush, we are still fighting there. We are not wanted there, we will not win and ultimately we will get kicked out like Vietnam.

There are more reasons, but they are the main ones.

Peter.

Hey Peter,

I am just as opposed to the BS stupid war as you are.

But the US, UK and AUS are a bit like a footy team or the coppers. One in all in and the moment GWB had his brain snap we were going, labor or liberal would have made no difference IMO.

And while 200million funadamentally different people (not less than us just different culture/policitcal leanings) our govt will protect its great protector. :(

At least this time the US didnt watch for 3 years :rolleyes:

cheers

nic

19th May 2007, 01:33 PM

Yeah, you are entitled to a good income, even if your employer is going broke. :rolleyes:

It's not up to you to make your way through the world, the government is there to make sure you don't go without. :cool:

No Gumby, I never said the gvt should guarantee good incomes for everyone.

What I'm talking about is promoting other industries, encouraging research and development...
When the resource boom is over it might take 20 years but IT WILL END.
What will we have left ?
The OIL rich countries in the middle east have picked this up and are diversifying into tourism,banking,trade and other sectors.
China is pumping out more scientists that you can think of .

My company exports high tech products and I can assure you that in other parts of the world Australia isn't known for much apart from the croc hunter.
If you talk about most euro contries and people immediately think high tech/quality.

Then again I'm asking gvt to have long term view, something they seem incapable of

Nic