New IR laws...

[outback]

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]

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]

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]

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]

" 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!

[Exador]

" 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]

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]

"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]

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!

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! 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]

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]

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]

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]

"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.

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?"

[Exador]

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! 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/...956346900.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]

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.

"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! ) 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