Workplace Laws and Rights - Page 2

BAFalconXT · 13-11-2006, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Who says the worker should set the pay? Who says the employer should set the pay? Let the market find the middle ground i say, it's the only fair way to do it. Yes - we need to be fair to employers, regardless of how 'big and mean' they appear.

This may seem understandable from an economic philosphy. But, how long can a business go without one extra employee? How long can you hold out for a reasonable offer when you morgage needs to be paid?

4Vman · 13-11-2006, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAFalconXT

Not everyone has the same opportunities. Many peoples parents dont earn very much or maybe on the dole, that gives them a huge disadvantage. Lots of kids are forced out of home from a young age and have to find work rather than go to university or get a trade. Training costs money and/or time off work. Many people who are well off will not be able to afford to hire a lawyer to protect their rights, let alone the less well off. These laws open the flood gates for the minimum wages to fall, forcing working people below the poverty line.
Unemployment rates may "look" good, but real unemployment rate is at least 15%. This includes people who are not looking for work and people who are "under employed". You only have to work something like 1 hour a week to be considered employed. John Howard has now introduced that anyone that can work more than 15 hours per week who is disabled can no longer claim disability benefits.
Rather than creating an underclass, John Howard should spend some of his $17 billion surplus helping people to stay in education and get more skills.
Maybe next election, next to each candidate they should write how much money they are willing to work for and people can add that into account when voting.

Some of the people i look upto and admire the most in life are those who made themselves successful, they started with very little in the way of money or opportunity, but they were driven and self motivated to be successful, probably against the ods too, not all are educated the traditional way, some are "self taught" through trial and error, in many ways this is probably the best form of education.
These are the types of people who make it happen rather than sit around waiting for it to happen, and then blame others when it doesnt, or blame the "system" for not looking after them.
Id love to know where these "15%" unemployed people are, hopefully some want a job soon because i need staff!!

4.9 EF Futura · 13-11-2006, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAFalconXT

Not everyone has the same opportunities. Many peoples parents dont earn very much or maybe on the dole, that gives them a huge disadvantage. Lots of kids are forced out of home from a young age and have to find work rather than go to university or get a trade. Training costs money and/or time off work.

Invalid argument.

Im not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I was booted out of home after school. Got a part time job whilst i studied. Yeah, wasnt the most luxurious way to live - food in stomach, roof over head, change in pocket... had the essentials covered.

And i make no exaggeration when i say - if i can do it, ANYONE can.

But if you want a nice comfortable life handed to you from the moment you leave the womb to the moment you kick the bucket, then i have no sympathy when your "world owes you a living" philosophy falls on its ***. I dont want people who sit back and wait for 'what's coming to them' holding my country back.

Now getting a decent salary (AWE or thereabouts).

Quote:

Rather than creating an underclass, John Howard should spend some of his $17 billion surplus helping people to stay in education and get more skills.

Lol, that number gets bigger every time i hear it! Yeah how dare they clear all that debt, must make the left's blood boil to see all that interest expense being saved?

So you have some good data to share with us regarding the inadequate money being spent on training and education? Or you're more of a "headliner" kinda guy?

Seriously. Now is the time to put the headlines and slogans aside. Let's see some OBJECTIVE analysis as opposed to your SUBJECTIVE rhetoric.

BAFalconXT · 13-11-2006, 07:02 PM

[QUOTE=4.9 EF Futura]
FYI i get 4 weeks leave and unlimited sick leave under my AWA. Oooh, such a nasty little document isnt it??? The point i make - please cut down on the broad generalisations you make based on your very limited experience.

QUOTE]

Do you know how much experience I have? Maybe next time they will offer you less pay and no holiday or sick pay. Maybe no other business will be looking at hiring in the area you are in. What are you to do?

4.9 EF Futura · 13-11-2006, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAFalconXT

This may seem understandable from an economic philosphy. But, how long can a business go without one extra employee? How long can you hold out for a reasonable offer when you morgage needs to be paid?

I guess that's not really what i mean. Yes, individuals will end up working for "not enough" and others will be working for "too much". But the market will deliver an equilibrium.

You cant manage an economy at an individual level. It needs to be managed as a 'portfolio'. It's the only way that you can ensure the needs of the majority are being looked after...

4.9 EF Futura · 13-11-2006, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAFalconXT

Do you know how much experience I have? Maybe next time they will offer you less pay and no holiday or sick pay. Maybe no other business will be looking at hiring in the area you are in. What are you to do?

Again, not quite what i meant. I apologise, i understand communicating is not a strength of mine.

You were putting AWAs down based on yours. Mine offers the same provisions the relevant award used to. I know at least 2 other people (who have asked me for my opinion on theirs) who have the same deal - a mirror of the award, with benefits the worker doesnt need "exchanged" for wage increases.

Maybe you're right about the next time? Maybe there'll be an influx of people with my skill base? You make a very relevant point.

What will i do? Assess the market. If that's the market value of my skills then

a) i accept that and take a paycut
b) i improve upon my skillset and position myself in the part of the market where i want to be

To be honest, its a pill that i wouldnt have too many objections in swallowing. There's a BIG shortage of people in my field and my earnings have seen upward pressure as a result of this. I'd be a real bastard if i didnt want to travel the other side of the road.

There's a lot of bastards out there, hey?

congo3sr · 13-11-2006, 07:13 PM

heres a thought,xrated.give 4vman a go,I dont know whether you have been in a manufacturing enviroment before,but there is a certain satisfaction,when you see the finished product,and you know you had a hand in its build process,just a thought remember,but you never know where the new direction could take you.
all the best mate.

BAFalconXT · 13-11-2006, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAFalconXT

This may seem understandable from an economic philosphy. But, how long can a business go without one extra employee? How long can you hold out for a reasonable offer when you morgage needs to be paid?

Maybe you missed this. There needs to be a minimum set of wages and conditions. If companies cannot stay viable with these conditions, the government needs to spend money training people in areas that need workers. Education is the only way to help people. Maybe you suceeded, but things happen, and not everyone does.

4Vman · 13-11-2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAFalconXT

Maybe you missed this. There needs to be a minimum set of wages and conditions. If companies cannot stay viable with these conditions, the government needs to spend money training people in areas that need workers. Education is the only way to help people. Maybe you suceeded, but things happen, and not everyone does.

In case you missed the news a couple of weeks ago the minimum wage was just raised quite considerably, disproportionate to inflation too i think.
Making Education avaliable is only part of it, the govt can provide training in areras of need, but like the old saying goes: "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink"...

BAFalconXT · 13-11-2006, 07:38 PM

Minimum wage means nothing if it can be bargained away. More effort should go to solving that problem of education.

congo3sr · 13-11-2006, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotwelder

heres a thought,xrated.give 4vman a go,I dont know whether you have been in a manufacturing enviroment before,but there is a certain satisfaction,when you see the finished product,and you know you had a hand in its build process,just a thought remember,but you never know where the new direction could take you.
all the best mate.

Hey xrated are you still with us?

Outbackjack · 13-11-2006, 07:43 PM

Just reading through the responces by 4V and 4.9. The ideology that you believe in is really shining through. Some of this in the real world simply doesnt stack up. Like the very broad asumption that has been eluded to that if your not educated, its your own stupid fault and you should be shunned by the industrial system. How in-humane can you get? And we must all work our bums away to make the share holder as rich as possible. And please dont respond with " we should all be happy with wonderful returns by way of super returns" . The super payments made by companies on employees behalf is being negotiated away as we type away with our little discusion. What Johnnies ideology assumes is that all working people are bludgers and must be cut back to smallest common denominator. Like I said, what will hapen in 4 or 5 years when the resources boom takes a dive? These IR laws are not there to protect the worker. They are there to protect the share holders and the company directors. These are the people that realy stand to make huge gains with the "work choices" laws. And the right wing theory of the trickle down effect has been proven not to work. There is no trickle down effect due to all profits and as much revenue as possible going to a very small number of people. These people are not keen on having any kind of pay cut, but are happy to see others go to the wall.
Johnie has forgotten the fact that without employees a company is nothing, with out companies people once worked the land. A very nieve statement to be sure, I know all the benefits that the industrial revolution has brought. But the industrial revolution has not benefited everyone.

And also dont forget, Johnie is a minority prime minister. He is the leader of a party that has around 30% of the Australian people's votes. I dont think that country people are very happy with the national party. I think that the next election will be a very interesting time for Australia. If Kim Beazley actually does have the guts to tear up all these new IR laws, things will be very interesting.
It is not a choice when you have no choice.
I didnt proof read this, gotta take number 3 to TaikwonDo.....Sorry if its hard to read. And I guess I did pratle a bit.
And plesae dont anyone accuse me of beiing some type of Stalinist... If you knew me and what I do you would know that nothing could be farther from the truth.....
Peace all.

BAFalconXT · 13-11-2006, 08:02 PM

Kim Beazley will have no choice if elected to reverse these laws or it would cause major rifts in the Labor party. I dont know if they will push to remove AWAs though.

MO · 13-11-2006, 09:54 PM

Ok this is aimed at both left and right wing...i.e. 4.9 and outback....mark my words in the next five to twelve years OZ is going to go through a Depression..not recession..bigger than 39.

Why..because we have an out of control govt'..that only supports big business...I will stop now lest I get a holiday and let you all think about it.

Oh just for all to contemplate..with regard to Keynsian economic theory...in a down ...spend...in an up save...ring a bell 4.9?

4Vman · 13-11-2006, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

Just reading through the responces by 4V and 4.9. The ideology that you believe in is really shining through. Some of this in the real world simply doesnt stack up. Like the very broad asumption that has been eluded to that if your not educated, its your own stupid fault and you should be shunned by the industrial system. How in-humane can you get? And we must all work our bums away to make the share holder as rich as possible. And please dont respond with " we should all be happy with wonderful returns by way of super returns" .

Sorry mate, can't agree with that, education comes in many forms, both formal and informal, ive never said one is better than the other, IMO it makes no difference what kind of education you get, as long as you keep challenging your self and learning, diversify your skill base to make the most of opportunities then apply those "learnings" into productive life.
Some people are happy to cruise through life, some aspire to achieve more, there are also smart and "not so smart" ways of working hard, i'll leave it at that.

BAFalconXT · 13-11-2006, 10:28 PM

Do you think the new IR laws are going to help those who have been forced into unskilled work when they turned 16, who have no bargaining power, who will have no job security, and even lower rates of pay? It will be much harder for people to get out of this work, increasing the divide between rich and poor. Skilled and unskilled......

SpoolMan · 13-11-2006, 10:37 PM

Keep the direction of the discussion at the IR laws, political statements aren’t needed as the thread will just loose its way, we have had a few go down on this topic before..

On a good note we finally came to an agreement at work today on our EB.
It took 4 1/2 months.
Works out at 4.45% for the next 3 years, not a bad outcome and we didn’t have to use industrial action that we had to have a secret ballot to get up..
Up to 10 weeks sick leave paid out when you leave the Company.

BAFalconXT · 13-11-2006, 10:45 PM

Collective bargaining? Do you think it would it have been the same outcome if you each had to individually bargain?

SpoolMan · 13-11-2006, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAFalconXT

Collective bargaining? Do you think it would it have been the same outcome if you each had to individually bargain?

If your asking me, my answer is no way in the world....AWA's are about driving wages down.
My wife is on $20 an hour happily working as a casual, her employer now wants her to sign a 5 year AWA with the only wage structure in inside the document being her wage will be set by the fair pay commission.
What a joke, does anyone think the fair pay commission will set a $20 minimum, it will be more like a $10 to $13.50 minimum when its set.
Fair pay commission hasn’t set the minimum wage, so therefore she would be signing a blank document.
I will edit the name of the business and post up the document later in the week.
Anyone who hasn’t seen an AWA can see what a poor one looks like.
I want her to quit if she has to sign that so called fair work agreement.
If your professionally employed AWA may work ok, for the unskilled worker an AWA is normally a lower than standard wages.

Outbackjack · 13-11-2006, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpoolMan

Anyone who hasn’t seen an AWA can see what a poor one looks like.
I want her to quit if she has to sign that so called fair work agreement.
If your professionally employed AWA may work ok, for the unskilled worker an AWA is normally a lower than standard wages.

Bingo, and it is not just un skilled workers. Like I said I am 1 of 12 in Australia that can do my job.... And I am being screwed out of 70K a year!!! No-one is immune. No-one is above these laws, except polititions and corporate moguls!! And lets face it, they are the ones in Australia making the laws.

BAFalconXT · 13-11-2006, 11:21 PM

Hmmm... Well, I am assuming your enterprise bargaining was at the company level, whereas AWAs are at industry level. Individual contracts are where each person has to individually negoitate with the employer with union help I think. Where the average person will be worse off than AWAs and EB.
Labors policy is to abolish AWAs altogether which means that all condition cannot be bargained. Most people never read their agreements, when I first started working my AWA wage was bargained below minimum wage, 1 week sick pay(minimum is 2), could be made to work every second Saturday, and made to work all but about 4 public holidays. What are public holidays if you have to work?

Work Horse · 13-11-2006, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpoolMan

Keep the direction of the discussion at the IR laws, political statements aren’t needed as the thread will just loose its way, we have had a few go down on this topic before..

Yes Mark it always seems which ideological side you fall determines what you think of the new IR laws. I can't see anyone changing their ideology so political statements are an exercise in futility.

That said :hihi:

_2:

This is the Ford forum, what did old Henry used to do to his workforce over x-mas? Sack them and re-employ them the next year. Good for business, good for everyone right!! And if the workers didn't like it they could get another job, bit hard in a down turn!!!

What's that got to do with now and IR laws?? Hmmmm, calls for a big speel on Unions and that would get me introuble with SpoolMan.

But no one would get away with sacking the workforce over xmas now?!

My wife is a Primary school teacher. She was employed under contract by the former state government. The contract ran out at the end of the school year. She was re-employed the second day of the next school year at the same school doing the same job. She was not paid for the six weeks between.

So the government saved us money, good for business!! And if my wife didn't like it she could take her degree and do someting else with it.

Well plenty of teachers did just that. Overnight almost, a huge percentage of the experienced teachers left the industry. Now we have a shortage of good teachers, so who are the biggest losers?

So what's my point?

You can not look at the new IR laws from a purely economic perspective IMHO. But we are constantly being told we must. This is ideology.

You can not tell people to just take another job if they don't like it, or just retrain IMHO. People need to feel secure and valued at work.

Was that to political Mark? I was trying to be good LOL

Firefox7 · 13-11-2006, 11:45 PM

As an owner and director of several companys, I do not believe in the IR laws full stop. I can however see how the employer ( me ) does benefit from these new laws, however i will not enforce them because I deem them as unfair. They are totally & outrageously unfair. Unfortunatley for me...I do worry about my employee's from the youngest who is 16 to the oldest who is 50+. I treat my employees like they are family, and guess what...in the last four years the productivity of my companys has grown greatly dramatically. A happy workforce is a productive one....an unhappy workforce is un-productive. I actually gave all a 8% pay rise this last fortnight...i didn't have to do it..but the profits from the last few quarters reflected the above. Why not......

Cheers

Outbackjack · 13-11-2006, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firefox7

As an owner and director of several companys, I do not believe in the IR laws full stop. I can however see how the employer ( me ) does benefit from these new laws, however i will not enforce them because I deem them as unfair. They are totally & outrageously unfair. Unfortunatley for me...I do worry about my employee's from the youngest who is 16 to the oldest who is 50+. I treat my employees like they are family, and guess what...in the last four years the productivity of my companys has grown greatly dramatically. A happy workforce is a productive one....an unhappy workforce is un-productive. I actually gave all a 8% pay rise this last fortnight...i didn't have to do it..but the profits from the last few quarters reflected the above. Why not......

Cheers

Firefox7, we need to have you stuffed and mounted on the mantle piece next to the other 3 decent employers!! What a novel concept, treat your employees with respect, reward achievements and keep them motivated, do ya think that it could ever work in Australia??? What industry are you in, I might be looking for a job soon....

nugget378 · 14-11-2006, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Yes Mark it always seems which ideological side you fall determines what you think of the new IR laws.

Either that,or what some stand to gain personally..
Which is fine,except when that gain is taken from others..

BAFalconXT · 14-11-2006, 12:07 AM

Maybe you should tell John Howard your philosaphy!

Must be a great man!
There are two companies near me that do nearly the same thing. One treats staff well and no one wants to quit and its impossible to get a job at, the other treats workers like cr@p, people always get sacked and quit, and they are always looking for workers.

4Vman · 14-11-2006, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firefox7

I treat my employees like they are family, and guess what...in the last four years the productivity of my companys has grown greatly dramatically. A happy workforce is a productive one....an unhappy workforce is un-productive. I actually gave all a 8% pay rise this last fortnight...i didn't have to do it..but the profits from the last few quarters reflected the above. Why not......
Cheers

Yep, i have done a similar thing too with my guys, I think you'll find this is how a large proportion of small business's operate, and you're right, an unhappy workforce is an unproductive workforce, ive got allot of friends who run their own business's too, they bend over backwards to keep their staff happy, go out of their way to help them out in their personal issues too, above and beyond their obligations as an employer, the notion that all business owners are rich greedy selfish ogres is purely wrong.
In terms of the IR laws i don't know many people who have actually even had to "take advantage" of them, they're there should they be needed, but again, no employer with half a brain is interested in making their workforce unhappy and ruining productivity.

4.9 EF Futura · 14-11-2006, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

And we must all work our bums away to make the share holder as rich as possible. And please dont respond with " we should all be happy with wonderful returns by way of super returns" . The super payments made by companies on employees behalf is being negotiated away as we type away with our little discusion. .

OK on the broader topic of IR reform, i think ive made myself pretty clear. Its a philosophical standpoint - i therefore reiterate everything ive said over the past 12 months.

The first part of the highlighted text... why is it always 'us vs them'?? Can you not see the benefit to employees of having a strong, viable employer? Like ive said on many times - the employer and the employees objectives are not mutually exclusive. At the end of the day, we both want the company to be there in the morning.

4Vman puts this concept better than i could : "no employer with half a brain is interested in making their workforce unhappy and ruining productivity."

So you guys seem to be of the flawed view that just because someone was earning $20 under the colelctive system, then they deserve this to be paid under an individualised system? Please explain.

Second point about superannuation is interesting. It's an industry which i enjoy participating in, the objective of super being one that both ends of the political spectrum can appreciate. Im interested to hear your comments regarding the erosion of employer contributions? The superannuation gurantee legislation mandates a minimum 9%, very few exceptions, and there's not a bill/paper/idea out there which calls for a reduction to this. In fact, everything being written on the topic at the moment is looking at the impact of increasing the SG (i would advocate more encouragement for employees to sacrifice some of their own earnings to fund their retirement). Im sure you've all heard Paul Keating's thoughts on SG (particularly employee contributions), he's a great mind and contributes a lot in this field.

And the continued johnny/director/shareholder bashing really detracts from a lot of the discussion. Valid points are totally negated because it starts to sound like typical left wing dogma.

BaFalconXT. You want to talk about education? So we're agreed - education and skills is the key? As has already been noted - you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make em drink. If your doom and gloom predictions are correct (not that i believe them for a minute) then surely its a pretty good motivator to get australians into TAFE, university and privte learning facilities?

What do you think will happen to enrolments if people continue getting $20 an hour for completely unskilled labour? I know fully qualified mechanics who earn less than this and they spent 4 years of their life working hard and living lean to get through the trade. Where's the incentive if i can earn $20 hour "because i need protecting" ?

Quote:

Labors policy is to abolish AWAs altogether which means that all condition cannot be bargained

Um, i believe you had just finished telling me i dont understand economics? A poorly managed economy will hit an unskilled worker a damn site harder than a trade off in conditions made under an AWA.

Quote:

Ok this is aimed at both left and right wing...i.e. 4.9 and outback....mark my words in the next five to twelve years OZ is going to go through a Depression..not recession..bigger than 39.

Come on mate, what is anyone expected to say to this? Lol, this isnt even remotely factual? Hey, can you tell me when Jesus is coming back down to earth as well? Are my lotto numbers going to come up on saturday?

Quote:

I will edit the name of the business and post up the document later in the week.
Anyone who hasn’t seen an AWA can see what a poor one looks like.

I was going to post up my AWA as an example of a good one, unfortunately its in a PDF with my employer's name/logo/crest plastered all over it... wouldnt really be appropriate to post up.

Quote:

But the industrial revolution has not benefited everyone.

You're right jack. But it benefited MORE PEOPLE than it disadvantaged. That's what IR reform is all about. A concept you seem so opposed to? The majority of the workforce is skilled and works full time. Yet you seem hell bent on putting everyone at risk in the name of offering some sense of security to the minority?

Spock must have been a conservative as i understand he preached that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

A casual is a casual. If there's no work, he/she gets sent home. Its how it always was and its how it always will be.

Quote:

I actually gave all a 8% pay rise this last fortnight...i didn't have to do it..but the profits from the last few quarters reflected the above. Why not......

Lol, you certainly sound like an employer of choice!

Can i ask (this is a serious question, no tricks or cheap shots).... what happens if things start to slow down a bit? If the profitability of the company falls to a point where that extra 8% is unsustainable?

What im getting at is that it's a difficult task to reduce wages when the time comes. Indeed, peoples expectations are assymetric when it comes to wage levels. Very happy to receive raises... but fight tooth and nail to stop an employer reducing wages...

The observations i have seen in such a situation are typically - let someone go and the rest remain on the full pay.

And this is a question for all participants. What is a better outcome: (note that scenario [a] represents an 8% increase from scenario [b])

Assume, for the sake of the excercise, that the employer's budget needs wages to come in at a max $400/hr.

a) 18.5 FTE on $21.60
b) 20 FTE on $20.00

Both have an (almost) identical cost to the employer. Personally I beleive that scenario (b) is "better" and is an outcome that is more likely to be devliered under workchoices than it would be under a collective system.

Cheers lads.

4Vman · 14-11-2006, 12:14 PM

The concept of setting minimum wages is complex, and to be honest it troubles me to some extent, it removes the ability of market forces to play out to the fullest extent, while i understand they're there to ensure some people don't abuse certain circumstances i also believe they can provide a safety net for complacency to some extent, and also make us vulnerable or less competitive against some import competitive industries.
The bottom line is every time wages increase so to does the cost of goods and services, its all part of the inflationary cycle which is totally normal however when the average wage increases above and beyond the CPI % it generally creates extra pressure on inflation and interest rates. So you gain in one hand and loose in the other.

Outbackjack · 14-11-2006, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Second point about superannuation is interesting. It's an industry which i enjoy participating in, the objective of super being one that both ends of the political spectrum can appreciate. Im interested to hear your comments regarding the erosion of employer contributions? The superannuation gurantee legislation mandates a minimum 9%, very few exceptions, and there's not a bill/paper/idea out there which calls for a reduction to this.

Cheers lads.

It will be stripped away after the next election, if, god forbid little Johny gets back in. How do I know, I cant tell you. Is it on the drawing board, yes it is. But since Johny is your idol, you will just go along with it and sing it's praises. I seem to remember you posted a picture of yourself in another thread. You dont look very old, but you seem to think that you have all the cards when it comes to human nature and the real world. I would guess that you haven't done you mandatory course in the school of hard knocks and reality. But you will learn. This is not meant to be fighting words, just an observation. Sorry, very busy today...... working that is, will be a long one too by the looks of things.