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

[bitingmidge]

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 ) 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]

I'd really love to see the details

Don't you watch Mcleod's Daughters?

[Sturdee]

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]

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

[Sturdee]

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]

I think this disgusting piece of legislation

Peter!! You of all people!!

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

[Rossluck]

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]

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]

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]

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.

The second one lasted 2 pay periods.

Peter.

[ozwinner]

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.

The second one lasted 2 pay periods.

Peter.

But hey, they were cheap..

Al

[Grunt]

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]

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

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

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]

NOW I get why wer'e not allowed to discuss politics. We can't do it without showing absolute one eyed bias one way or the other.

All I see is party based rhetoric.

[Gumby]

N

All I see is party based rhetoric.

So do I, from the left that is.