New IR laws...

[Greg Q]

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]

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! )

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]

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.

[Greg Q]

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.

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

[outback]

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

[silkwood]

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]

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! 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)

[silkwood]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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?

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 , 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]

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!

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