Industrial relations worker legislation (end of an era) your thoughts

[Walkinshaw]

Has anyone read the legislation from cover to cover??

IF your basing your opinions based soly on advertising campaigns i really pitty you.

[KEV EB XR8]

Originally Posted by Walkinshaw

Has anyone read the legislation from cover to cover??

IF your basing your opinions based soly on advertising campaigns i really pitty you.

did you read the thread introduction, dont pity us , share your knowledge with the rest of us : : :sm_headba

[Walkinshaw]

I don't proclaimed to have read the document, I’m not sure its even publicly available yet, however commenting on something when you don’t know the whole story isn't usually a smart idea.

I’m not knocking people for commenting on such a serious situation, which more than likely will have very serious ramifications to peoples workplaces, but jumping to conclusions and opinions based upon advertising campaigns of equal extremes isn't much more than following the propaganda train of either party. Again, I’m not sitting here bashing peoples right to have their comments or opinions, I’m simply expressing my views on forming an opinion based on advertising campaigns, due to the apparent lack of public accessibility to the document.

[The MaDDeSTMaN]

Originally Posted by maglite

I too, employ a great bunch of people and it is in my best interests to look after them well.

Sadly there are MANY employers out there who don't see it that way, and so, people who work for employers like that will be worse off, sooner or later, because it would be foolish to think that those employers wouldn't have the "if you won't do it, I'll advertise tomorrow and have 100 people who will to interview" attitude.

I don't have all the answers, nor do I claim to, however I do think that there will be people worse off, and that's simply not good enough.

[Bossxr8]

The way I see it is that yes, there may be some bad employees out there, but there are also a lot of greedy employers who will take advantage of people who can least afford a loss of pay or conditions. How these proposed changes make the system fair is beyond me. Seems like a case of Johhny helping out his big business mates buy a few more investment properties every year.
If it can't be totally fair to both employers and employees then its wrong.

[4.9 EF Futura]

I dont think the legislation has been tabled yet so i dont think anyone knows the full details.

But website for workchoices:

https://www.workchoices.gov.au/

[bindi]

Originally Posted by KEV EB XR8

did you read the thread introduction, dont pity us , share your knowledge with the rest of us : : :sm_headba

Go Kev!

Flappist, if I lived in Qld I'd come work for you mate.

[The MaDDeSTMaN]

Originally Posted by bindi

Flappist, if I lived in Qld I'd come work for you mate.

Me too! It's hard enough to find a job these days (despite the cr@p on https://www.workchoices.gov.au/ourpl...ionssystem.htm - "More people are now in work than ever before in Australia’s history. With real wages for Australian workers more than 14 per cent higher than under previous governments, workers are benefiting directly from the country’s strong economic performance." GRR), but it's even harder to find a fair and good boss. I hope your workers appreciate how lucky they are to work for you.

[MO]

Red; might I suggest you link the other thread on this, from when it,the Changes, were first put out there.

Now I am hard pushed to not put on my union hat here, all I will say is..and I said this in the original thread....if you think things are bad now with the current(old)I.R.rules....look out in the future...its going to get a whole lot worse!!!!!

[MO]

It's ok Red I found it and gave it a bump...might I suggest...readers of this thread take a look at Workplace reg changes...by svo347.

[RED_EL_XR8]

Who am I? The odd jobs guy?

[vztrt]

This whole legislation is meant to increase productivity of the Australian workforce. Even if leading business analysts dont see how this will work.
(This information was in an SBS doco about two weeks ago, so I'll try and not put any bias in there)

Howard has wanted these reforms to be put into place for the last 15-20 years, but it wasn't till the Libs got hold of the senete that this law was put thru the lower house. It wasnt part of their political policy till after the election because they knew they would never be able to get it thru the senate.

Now what I'm worried about is that every time an independant tribunal was to work out the new pay rise for workers the Libs never liked the amount that the tribunal established.
The minimum weekly is about $480 a week but if it were under the Liberals it would be only $430 a week.

I just dont like these reforms as I dont like something that can be abused.

Saying that there should be reforms as there are employees that abuse the current laws out there, but no reform should give either side a chance to rule the other.

Now with the ACTU ads it seems that some of the IR laws have been changed, but if these reforms were going to make workers lives (the majority of workers) so much better than it should have been run during the last election. (I know what I said earlier, with the Libs not having it part of their policy until they won the senate) But the laws may not be as bad due to the large amount of pressure the ACTU has put on them.

I was speaking to a guy today who was living in the UK when Maggie Thatcher bought in all these reforms to the market place over.
Nearly 20 years ago, if not more.

These reforms do follow the same vein in Australia. I am not going to argue the ins or outs, rights or wrongs BUT when Tony Blair was elected he promised that all the reforms would be rolled back (sound familiar).
Strangely enough most if not all of those orignal reforms are still in place today.

IMHO both parties want to see it implemented, only labor wont go anywhere near saying anything like that cos they want to get elected!!!
Dont we remember how Beasley was going to roll back the GST........on tampons and?????????

Question: This dates back a while and most probably wont know the answer, so i made it multiple choice.

1.Who was the first political party to think seriously about introducing a G.S.T. ?(consumption tax way back then)
a.Liberal
b.Labor

2. The reason they never went for it was:
a. The economy of the country would have been able to sustain it.
b. The inflation rate would rise.
c. It wasnt politically palatable to the population in general.

Look forward to your thoughts
Steve

[GTFORDMAN]

Hmm, IMO if these reforms go through we might just see a large jump with people joining the dole, i thought little johnny howard wanted people OFF the dole.

[BAUTE]

Originally Posted by maglite

1.Who was the first political party to think seriously about introducing a G.S.T. ?(consumption tax way back then)
a.Liberal
b.Labor

2. The reason they never went for it was:
a. The economy of the country would have been able to sustain it.
b. The inflation rate would rise.
c. It wasnt politically palatable to the population in general.

Look forward to your thoughts
Steve

that would be B and C under Paul "the worlds greatest treasurer" keating

[MO]

On the news tonight a guy had been working for a short time with a fishing tackle mob...he was given an AWA to sign...the guts of it were...you will be expected to work overtime,weekends and nights without any penalty pay...he refused to sign and was escorted off the premises..and his resignation accepted.

IT'S BEGUN!!!!!!!

[The MaDDeSTMaN]

Originally Posted by John McMaster

On the news tonight a guy had been working for a short time with a fishing tackle mob...he was given an AWA to sign...the guts of it were...you will be expected to work overtime,weekends and nights without any penalty pay...he refused to sign and was escorted off the premises..and his resignation accepted.

IT'S BEGUN!!!!!!!

Yes, doesn't sound like a fair "negotiation" process to me, that's what worries me, from what I've read it places all the power in the hands of the employers.

That is the biggest worry I think, giving the employers more power. "Negotiating" sounds good, until you realise the reality of the situation. The reality is that the employers will be "Negotiating" for the least possible in the way of holidays, sick pay and other benefits, and all an employee really has in the way of bargaining power is "I'll go elsewhere" (big deal says the employer, there are plenty of people out there who don't have a job, won't take long to fill the position), it becomes clear just how bad this has the potential to be.

I'm shocked this thread is still going, considering all the talk of politics that's been in it...

[MITCHAY]

I dont know anything on the subject, but have seen the advertisements plastered everywhere. The way I figure it is, if the government say its good then it most probably isnt.

[MO]

The Maddest man don't be shocked because of the political content...this is a very serious subject which affects all of the workers...and the team are still very kindly allowing this to flow as per the original thread.

Consider this I did say in the original thread that there has been no detail put out and they've had close on 10 yrs to have it watertight and still in the peak of their campaign ....no detail.!!!!!!

[xr8ute]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

The way I figure it is, if the government say its good then it most probably isnt.

LOL, I think you've got it well figured ;)

Always question authority. Look beyond their media propaganda ("WorkChoice"...WTF!!) and do your own research, because they wont tell you what they dont want you to know...

[xr8ute]

What are these "real wages" the government keeps crapping on about?

Are they different to regular "wages"...?

[MO]

Originally Posted by xr8ute

What are these "real wages" the government keeps crapping on about?

Are they different to regular "wages"...?

Yep they're 25/50% below what you get now.

Originally Posted by John McMaster

On the news tonight a guy had been working for a short time with a fishing tackle mob...he was given an AWA to sign...the guts of it were...you will be expected to work overtime,weekends and nights without any penalty pay...he refused to sign and was escorted off the premises..and his resignation accepted.

I didnt see the news item but IMO the story has more holes than swiss cheese.
If this is correct then the employer has a case to answer under the PRESENT system.
Was the employer also interveiwed for the news item?
Why did he resign? Under the current system he cant be sacked cos he didnt sign the AWA.

An AWA under the present system MUST stand up to scrutiny of the "no disadvantage test" and believe me the process is water tight.
Basically the test is designed to ensure that employees will not be worse off than those on the standard state/federal award when they agree to enter into an AWA.
No mention is made in the post of wether his normal hourly rate, penalty rates, holidays + leave loading etc were almagamated into a standard hourly rate as is generally the case.
Also it is generally accepted practise that when an arbitrated wage increase is validated, most AWA's have a clause that ensures that the AWA is changed to reflect this.

The media never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.

[MO]

Maglite...I'm an ex but still staunch unionist...yea no mention was made of what you speak,,,,look at this way its an employer trying it on and those that work for Supercheap auto are on a similar deal.

Until I see and read the detail of the proposed legislation I will keep an open yet wary mind.

As I've said before they've had 10yrs to get the detail right....so where is it???????

[MO]

Originally Posted by maglite

I didnt see the news item but IMO the story has more holes than swiss cheese.
If this is correct then the employer has a case to answer under the PRESENT system.
Was the employer also interveiwed for the news item?
Why did he resign? Under the current system he cant be sacked cos he didnt sign the AWA.

An AWA under the present system MUST stand up to scrutiny of the "no disadvantage test" and believe me the process is water tight.
Basically the test is designed to ensure that employees will not be worse off than those on the standard state/federal award when they agree to enter into an AWA.
No mention is made in the post of wether his normal hourly rate, penalty rates, holidays + leave loading etc were almagamated into a standard hourly rate as is generally the case.
Also it is generally accepted practise that when an arbitrated wage increase is validated, most AWA's have a clause that ensures that the AWA is changed to reflect this.

The media never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.

I was going to take you to task sentence by sentence but then it dawned on me that you are STUPID!!!!!!

[The MaDDeSTMaN]

I was given what amounted to a gag order under a previous employer and was told if I didn't sign it, I would have to seek employment elsewhere. Sure, they couldn't actually say "you didn't sign it, there is the door", but there was nothing stopping them from making up a reason and firing us for that. I refused to sign it, after getting advice from a professional that it wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Sure enough, not that long afterwards, I was unemployed again...

Originally Posted by John McMaster

I was going to take you to task sentence by sentence but then it dawned on me that you are STUPID!!!!!!

John,

Put simply, if no one has read the proposed legislation, why is the media campaign by the union movement so strong or are they special and have gotten to read the legislation before anyone else?
Yes i agree that a centralised IR system may not be the wisest way to go about things and look forward to seeing the legislation in its entirety.

Oh and one other thing John, if i choose not to agree with the union rhetoric or your opinion.......that doesnt make ME look stupid!!!!

[ebxr8240]

My two sons are under AWA working in a Club...They have NO overtime, They can bring you into work even if you have 6 hour break between shifts...Like working to midnight then having to start at 7 oclock the next morning...If its part of your roster they have to work it.. Keep in mind they call them IN if short due to NO penalty rates...Meaning the other employees on casual don't get the work...
Roster and shifts are going to be a fight in the future....

[MO]

Originally Posted by maglite

John,

Put simply, if no one has read the proposed legislation, why is the media campaign by the union movement so strong or are they special and have gotten to read the legislation before anyone else?
Yes i agree that a centralised IR system may not be the wisest way to go about things and look forward to seeing the legislation in its entirety.

Oh and one other thing John, if i choose not to agree with the union rhetoric or your opinion.......that doesnt make ME look stupid!!!!

My apology for calling you stupid was uncalled for.

[KEV EB XR8]

The title of my thread was (End of an era) past prime ministers, Frazer etc, have all had a go in thier time to lessen union power. unions were formed to give a fair go to the blue collar worker,business incentives to business operaters post depression started the wheels turning again. smart decisions moved australia into the world trade market, and this country has stood firm even in bad times. Canada,New Zealand,England(vat), all suffered for years before the tax imposed turned around. Even our large company's with the added workers to proccess, BAS,GST,ETC endured and remain trading.
Think back to pre union days:? Evolution strives forward not backwards,I believe this may bring us in line with 3rd world statis without a voice to protect what forefathers have worked for ?????