Workplace reg changes.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by 347stroker

The end is nigh guys, and you still praise him......I have had such a great laugh through this thread, and its getting better.

Well its good to see so many of us watch the evening news and take it all at face value without looking into the facts. Some great sound bytes of beazly last night wasnt there?

Here's one i didnt hear from him... the fact that provisions currently exist in Western Australia for employees to cash in up to 2 weeks annual leave. Heck, correct me if im wrong but that was an initiative of the ALP. But anyways...

What the news didnt go into was the details (i really think the tv networks are enjoying the sitirring of this pot) and the focus on optionality within the proposed changes. Imagine that - employees actually having more flexibility and choice. How dare they?!?!?

The option to cash in up to two weeks of annual leave can only be taken at the request of the employee. I fail to see how this provision of flexibility equates to the evils of workplace reforms and the "end being nigh".

Seriously, enough of these packer/murdoch fed cliches about "average aussies" and having annual leave entitlements "stolen".....

[Work Horse]

Not to get political but I'll play :1syellow1

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Without going too-far off the topic, let's try and get something straight. John Howard was elected through a democratic process. The coalition now have a senate majority - again, something which comes around via a democratic process. Let's think about that. Voting. Majority rule. The people of our country providing a mandate.

To the people who despise howard... those who liken him to Hitler... whilst your opinions are equally as valid as the next person's - the people of Australia voted this man in. His cards have been laid squarely on the table before he was leader of the party (and on a similar note, Paul Keating called for similar reforms back in 1993... the ALP whistles a different tune these days doesnt it?). To put it simply - more people in Australia want this man to lead our country than those who dont. Democracy.... its a hell of a thing, aint it?

60% of Australians did not vote Liberal in the 2004 election. There is no doubt Mr Howard won the election and has a mandate. The idea that everyone who did not vote Liberal, or who did vote Liberal and still is not happy with one policy, has to grin and bear it until the next election is not democracy.

A healthy democracy requires an active vocal opposition.

I may not have the same opinion as you 4.9 EF Futura, but I defend your right to hold whatever opinion you wish, thats democracy.

A defination of democracy I like is simply, "social equality".

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

I'm not in a line of work that encourages me to support a union. Having said this, i have nothing against them. Although i'm not convinced the ACTU needs to spend $8million of member-provided funding to run TV ad cmpaigns.... and yes, people can cop a fair bit of flak for joining the union, but it works the otherway too. I know a few guys who work on sites with high union membership but they choose not to join... all day, every day they are treated like absolute scum (by their FELLOW WORKERS), are referred to as scab and have even had the sh!t kicked outta them at the local pub.

I have been physically threatened on a building site by a union rep. There have been some abuses of power in building unions, waterfront workers etc. I don't think all unions should be tared with the same brush.(not saying you were doing that 4.9 EF Futura) I also have nothing against unions and would argue they are vital in a healthy democracy.

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

There are currently 1.4million union members in Australia. Let's assume a "workforce" of 10million people, give or take a few million. 14% of the workforce being active union members. Quite a reasonable representation. There are currently 1.8million small business owners in Australia. 18% of this workforce. Now based purely on this, it would appear that more people stand to benefit from the reforms than those who stand to be potentially worse off. Im a numbers man and as stated above, one who believes strongly in the purest concepts of democracy.... it would appear that between union members and small business owners - the needs of the latter outweight those of the former.?

30% of the work force will be effected by these changes. The unions represent them all paid up or not. I own a small business and am against much of what the government has released thus far.

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

But to take a less-simplistic (yet still pro-IR reform) view of the world.... at the end of the day, to have employees you need an employer. To have an employer, you must (unfortunately) have the ability to generate profits and continue to grow. The IR reforms obviously benefit the employers of Australia. Does this not, by virtue of the above, provide benefits to all employees - union members or otherwise?

This would be the Liberal party position, that we would all be better off. And the unions would have us believe the sky is falling. I would imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle and depend on your personal situation and political philosophy.

Personally I believe in the egalitarian society Australian strives to be, as in the rest of the world, too few people control too much of the wealth.
The workplace reforms tip the balance the wrong way.

And to everyone before you post, it would be great, although difficult I know, to have a discussion like this without it disolving into personal attacks. Or discussing political parties like they are our favourite footy team.

GO PIES!!!

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

I may not have the same opinion as you 4.9 EF Futura, but I defend your right to hold whatever opinion you wish, thats democracy.

Thankyou. If i've given the slightest impression i do not support the voicing of opinions that differ to my own, i sincerely apologise.

A defination of democracy I like is simply, "social equality".

That is quite interesting, as I see democracy as a different thing all together. Perhaps i'm reading too much into it, but 'social equality' has too many connotations of collectivism... I see democracy simply as a 'majority rule'.... if the majority had preferred a collective approach I can only assume a blue-blooded party would not have assumed a senate majority 6 days ago. I guess my definition is somewhat convoluted by a preferential voting system but I would think anyone 18 years or older is capable of assessing the merits and implications of who their vote actually "ends up" with.

Im not suggesting those who oppose the government of the time should simply shut up for the next few years.. hell no... but, for example, claims seen in this thread such as "this will see the libs voted out" are pure speculation. I live in a world of fact... the fact being that Howard was given a mandate and industrial reform has been a long standing agenda item with him. Why does everyone act so suprised when the party makes moves to carry out this mandate? Why the hype and scare tactics now?

Let's look forward - the changes are likely to go through, let's focus on making sure everyone plays by the rules and the intended outcomes are achieved. It's not an attack from howard on these workers - its providing a framework for a flexible labour market. I hardly see that this policy is intended to allow companies to use this as an avenue to abuse the rights of its employees. Moral responsibility rests with the employers and this, in my opinon, is where union action is best directed.

This would be the Liberal party position, that we would all be better off. And the unions would have us believe the sky is falling. I would imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle and depend on your personal situation and political philosophy.

Here, here!! And (despite how it may appear) I havent quite swallowed the liberal party line hook, line and sinker... However, i sincerely believe that to benefit employers will benefit employees and the nation as a whole... a win-win situation. Improved employer performance (of which employee productivity plays a huge part) provides a bargaining tool for employees under a non-centralised wage system (or "free-er labour market") for wages to increase in line with productivity... this may result in some employees being worse-off... but I make no apologies when i say that results at the benefit of the many should outweigh negative results for the few...

To purely benefit employees obviously comes at a detriment to employers and this can potentially flow on to harm employees (unemployment) and the nation (inflationary pressure if wages are not linked to productivity). In which case the many may be worse-off than the few.... this obviously doesnt sit well with a philosophy based of the needs of the many...

But more to the point of the thread, I think the potentially negative results arising from industrial relaions reform have been blown way out of proportion. And it really suprises me how impressionable some people are and the complete lack of a balanced assessment of 2 points of view.... i.e. "i saw it on the news so it must be true..."

as in the rest of the world, too few people control too much of the wealth.

I think this will always be the case in a mixed economy which is skewed towards the free market approach (as seen in the majority of the world's economies). Now i hate to rest on "well if they do it, it's OK for us" but if Australia diverges too far from this approach then we will fail in our attempt to remain internationally competetive. If we abandon such pursuits, there will again be the potential for actions which benefit the minority to severely detriment the majority....

[eb2fairmont]

This is turning out to be an interesting thread.

I'm playing these changes by ear, but the consequences should they come to pass will be dire.

On one hand, Howard is playing a card he thinks will be better for the country. Yes he was voted in by a majority (who I think are idiots) but a majority nevertheless. I can't see him wanting to flush the libs down the toilet by screwing over the common worker, who far outnumber the business owners and high income earners. Doesn't really make sense does it? These same people bet on him and his interest rates scare campaign, and didn't fall for flaky Labour (Yes I voted for them too.). As an aside the lack of ground being made on this, mandatory detention, fuel prices and the like by labor still highlights Beasley's main problem - a lack of ticker.

Now just don't go thinking I'm a big right winger just yet......

The changes to the IR system are interesting, for the system as it stands is a reasonably fair one. However, unfair dismissal makes it very hard for employers to get rid of complete idiots. The converse to this is that personal vendettas and downturn in business (economic downturn) will make it easy to shed labor and shed costs.......

Remember the goal of business is to make money for it's stakeholders. The rest is secondary and the law of cost vs benefit is paramount. Joel Balkan's book titled "The Corporation" is compelling reading in this regard.

Any change to IR legislation or the ability to alter wages and conditons will be met with glee by the corporate world. There will be good operators who will use it to negotiate with their employees a fair and just set of conditions, so that they can meet thier targets (fair). Unscrupulous operators will use it to drive down conditions under the mantra "someone else will do your job". UNfortunately in the longer term it will effect everyone, beacuse a business with high overheads will go out of business against a harsh and unscrupulous operator. Inevitably those who deal in a fair manner will have to follow suit.

Think, if you can buy 2 products, brand x at $3.50 and Y at 2.98, which are you going to buy? But if Y has lower costs, mainly labour, indirectly we are saying that this is ok. Hell, I know what it is like, I buy stuff too, and often price is an important consideration. Another good example is what you buy at the supermarket, and how much of it comes from lower income societies, like china? Heven forbid if a FTA comes to pass.

Examples of this are already happening. How many taxi drivers out there are owner operators? Couriers? Sub contractors? The latter is particularly insidious, as it gets companies out of paying employee on costs, like super. The maritime dispute with patrick in 1996, Kemalex plastics, and factory workers who are encouraged to become unskilled subcontractors will become a larger proportion of the labor market. Again, those who aren't intelligent enough stand to loose the most, and unfortunately these will be the lower income workers.

It will be interesting to see the goverments response, beacuse this will get ugly. My bet is some of the reforms will be watered down somewhat.

Cheers

David M.

[XD 351 Ute]

Originally Posted by 460cixy

bloody brain washed unionists. ever heard of ppl getting the **** for not joining a union? i have. so much for free choice and all that crap. lets pay union fees to chock up the labour party. keep up the good work

Brain washed??? No.
Just wary of what's on the horizion for the average worker, union or non-union.
I've been on both sides of the fence, worked for both unuion and non-union sites, and sure, I won't pretend to know everything because I don't.

But I know enough to realise that we now have to watch our backs a bit more than before.
As I previously posted, good condtions we enjoy now, or good relationships with employers can come and go, and if you're unfortunate to be someone that doesn't see eye to eye with your boss, then there's every chance you can be given the boot.

The unfair dismissal law does need to be looked at, as as it stands a dodgy employee can't be given the sack without his employer going through a whole stack of sh!t to get rid him.

This is an issue that should be sorted, but not along with the abolition of our working conditions that determine our pay packets, and working hours.

That is a different kettle of fish all together.

Ed

[Tote]

There are some fact sheets here: http://www.workplace.gov.au/workplac...factsheets.htm

They give some info on the proposed changes, It's not clear what will happen to state awards under the new legislation.
We are covered by an AWA and when it was introduced we could not recieve less than we had already unless the majority of workers agreed to the changes. Having said that some suspicious tactics were used by the company to get the most recent changes to our agreement passed such as offering products as a "reward" if the agreement was voted in and structuring the people represented under the agreement so that the losers were a minority and hence had no means of retaining the benefits that they had previously. The lost benefits related to callouts and overtime payments and which classifications of worker were entitled to them. The losers in our office received substantial pay rises to cover their loss when their salaries were reviewed as their manager knew that if they did not the company would lose the staff.
We are in the IT game so unionisation is non existant

Regards,
Tote

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

That is quite interesting, as I see democracy as a different thing all together. Perhaps i'm reading too much into it, but 'social equality' has too many connotations of collectivism...

Your imagination is running wild 4.9 EF Futura. The definition of democracy as "social equality" I took straight from "The Collins Australian pocket Dictionary". Hardly a manifesto of any kind.

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

I see democracy simply as a 'majority rule'....

The federal government has control of both houses, I'm unsure how much more "rule" we can give them.
Our taxes, yours and mine pay the wages of Mr Beazely and his cabinet to sit in opposition. So they darn well better oppose or our money is paying for a rubber stamp. They have to offer an alternative position.

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

... However, i sincerely believe that to benefit employers will benefit employees and the nation as a whole... a win-win situation. Improved employer performance (of which employee productivity plays a huge part) provides a bargaining tool for employees under a non-centralised wage system (or "free-er labour market") for wages to increase in line with productivity... this may result in some employees being worse-off... but I make no apologies when i say that results at the benefit of the many should outweigh negative results for the few...
To purely benefit employees obviously comes at a detriment to employers and this can potentially flow on to harm employees (unemployment) and the nation (inflationary pressure if wages are not linked to productivity). In which case the many may be worse-off than the few.... this obviously doesnt sit well with a philosophy based of the needs of the many...
I think this will always be the case in a mixed economy which is skewed towards the free market approach (as seen in the majority of the world's economies). Now i hate to rest on "well if they do it, it's OK for us" but if Australia diverges too far from this approach then we will fail in our attempt to remain internationally competetive. If we abandon such pursuits, there will again be the potential for actions which benefit the minority to severely detriment the majority....

You are talking ideology, there is no right and wrong, this is why you will always get differant points of view.
I am an employer, and have actually just gone through a wage negotiation. I understand very well the need to make a profit. I understand how the market works and how our "Free Market" system is the best for employees and employers the world over.
I am not a communist but I believe our system could be made more equitible. It's not up to me to spell out how it should be done, that's what we pay the politicians for.

There was a large concert on the weekend. Some well meaning musicans were trying to free Africa from poverty. The message seems to be finally filtering through, the Trillion plus in aid that has been given to Africa over the last decade has not worked. One of the things that would help them is access to the so called "Free Market", to help themselves. To be able to sell their agriculture to Europe, whos markets are protected and subsidised. Europe argues that without the status quo their farmers could not compete. Their economys would suffer, and they would be in no position to offer any assistance to Africa. There has to be a more equitable way to do this.

I do not hold Liberal voters or supporters of the workplace reforms responsible for world poverty.

We are talking about reducing employees rights while increasing employers power, and everyone will benfit? There has to be a more equtible way to reform the work place to have a win-win IMHO.

We need more democracy, social equity.

[BAUTE]

Originally Posted by csv8

Remember, ****** Howard said no GST.

this is always my favorite line from people with a selective memory. yes he did say no GST, then he changed his mind AND TOOK IT TO AN ELECTION AS THE MAJOR POLICY and guess what boys and girls...HE WON...so I guess that means he was allowed to implement it doesn't it

Nazi reference removed in deference to goodwins law

[SpoolMan]

Guy's you are expressing more than Work Place Relations.... lets get the ship back on the thread topic.
.
I see the news tonight the PM has cut his Annual Leave short because of the back lash he is seeing from the proposed work place changes....soon you will see $20 million spend on there side of the story.... using tax payers money.

[Citric GT]

Originally Posted by 460cixy

well its good that i dont have to work with narrow minded ppl like your self any longer. its a free country and we have the right to choose. theres no need for union bullys in the work place. unions are there to protect the workers not suport political partys and there agenders. and dont get me started on univercity and tafe student unions there compulsery and for what?

Why should my union have to negotiate pay rises for non members?

Don't you think non members should negotiate thier own conditions?

[347Stroker]

Originally Posted by MNM96

Not happening. The Liberal Party has come out yesterday and stated that your holidays will not be cut to two weeks, but you will have the "CHOICE" to cash in two weeks.

I will not be replying to this thread, for now, and instead will peruse it in, say, twelve months. Let us see if I was wrong, and I will stand up and say so. Who else will be man enough?
GO THE MAROONS!!!

Well you were wrong with the maroons, so your avarage is looking pretty sad....

Wanna buy 2 weeks holidays??

[460cixy]

Originally Posted by Citric XR6

Why should my union have to negotiate pay rises for non members?

Don't you think non members should negotiate thier own conditions?

well what the hell do you thinks happening?


we are not all sheep some ppl are free thinkers and are capable of looking after them selves.

[347Stroker]

Guys, I think you are losing sight of the topic, its about the new IR regs.....not how much you like/dislike unions...

Just remember, a union is only as strong as its members, a collective of one opinion, and its not the unions fault if something goes wrong, it was what the collective wanted.....

[Citric GT]

Originally Posted by 347stroker

Guys, I think you are losing sight of the topic, its about the new IR regs.....not how much you like/dislike unions...

You're right. I'll give that part of it a rest now.:Reverend:

[MO]

Be on your guard...the campaign for the proponents..is about to start.
It will start with a million dollar print campaign,,and proceed to the square eye,which will cost a lot more.

I know its not easy to do..but take a balanced opinion for yourselves of what is proposed..and the rest.

[Jamie XR6]

Originally Posted by John McMaster

Be on your guard...the campaign for the proponents..is about to start.
It will start with a million dollar print campaign,,and proceed to the square eye,which will cost a lot more.

I know its not easy to do..but take a balanced opinion for yourselves of what is proposed..and the rest.

What annoys me is, little johnny has said that he will put the changes through no matter what people think of them. He said his approval rating will drop but it will improve after people get used to the changes. He also said that he won't start ads informing people until after the changes are made.

And people said Keating was arrogant. He had nothing on this twit.

[Grunter]

Originally Posted by 347stroker

...Just remember, a union is only as strong as its members, a collective of one opinion, and its not the unions fault if something goes wrong, it was what the collective wanted.....

Just remember, a government is only as strong as its voters, a collective of one opinion, and its not the governments fault if something goes wrong, it was what the voters wanted..... :voldar02:

[347Stroker]

Originally Posted by Grunter

Just remember, a government is only as strong as its voters, a collective of one opinion, and its not the governments fault if something goes wrong, it was what the voters wanted..... :voldar02:

And do you think many voters really know what they are doing??

How many fill out the ballot paper just like the garb you get for your particular party.....I bet most just put 1 in the box, and dont realise the consequences of preferential votes...

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by 347stroker

And do you think many voters really know what they are doing??

You assume most people dont understand the system? Give a bit more credit to your fellow Australians. Hell, even if you watch the news during election times you'll get the jist of where parties are allocating their preferences.

Just because a lot of people dont care, doesnt mean they dont understand.

[347Stroker]

The only reason Howard got in was due to preferential votes, and 2 elections back, more australians voted for Beazley than Howard, but Howard won due to the preferential votes, so you were saying....................

[Jamie XR6]

Originally Posted by 347stroker

The only reason Howard got in was due to preferential votes, and 2 elections back, more australians voted for Beazley than Howard, but Howard won due to the preferential votes, so you were saying....................

And this is why I hate the preferential system. Unless you vote Labor or Liberal, you don't know who your voting for. There should be one vote for each party and no preferences.

[347Stroker]

If everybody read through their preferred parties guidelines, we would be ok, but as I said, most Australians dont realise this.....and I know this by having so many ask me "whats this for" when handing them out....

[MO]

Originally Posted by 347stroker

If everybody read through their preferred parties guidelines, we would be ok, but as I said, most Australians dont realise this.....and I know this by having so many ask me "whats this for" when handing them out....

How true,if more ppl took the time to check out their own electorate let alone the system(which needs an overhaul)they would be much better off.

[347Stroker]

Looks like its just you and I John, with a world of work in front of us, and an opressed workforce......maybe we should get into politics

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by 347stroker

Looks like its just you and I John, with a world of work in front of us, and an opressed workforce......maybe we should get into politics

Politics would be an interesting career would it not? I'd say you have a good mindset for it.

Opressed workforce? Looks like it's just me who isnt afraid of having to stand up for myself in front of the boss? If you're not able to demonstrate your value to your employer then yes - perhaps you do have something to worry about. Is any such shortfall the fault of the government? Considering this in the context of a virtual shortage of skilled labour....

Re: preferences. Agreed this is not an ideal system. But you cannot accuse howard of 'scheming' his way back into power via the preference system. Look back to 1990 (lol, 9 years before i could even vote?!?!) and lab won it with a 39% primary vote. Say what you want about preferential voting but dont portray it as some evil tool in howard's garage to maintain control of the country. Say it how it is - the system may well suck, but there's no need to put the anti-howard spin on it. Unless of course, you're serious about that career in politics? lol

[pauljh74]

Originally Posted by 347stroker

Looks like its just you and I John, with a world of work in front of us, and an opressed workforce......maybe we should get into politics

You'd have to sell your integrity to get into politics - or at least to be a successful politician.

One interesting thing on the government fact sheet - they say they will remove things like long service leave from awards as they are covered by existing legislation. I believe the federal award I am under for example doesn't appear to have LSL provisions, which means it is covered by the relevant state act. So under the state act, all employees, whether they be full time or casual are entitled to LSL. I suppose this is OK as long as the award provisions aren't better than the provisions in the state act. The main difference in the respective state acts is the length of service required to get LSL. I looked into this last year as I racked up 10 years - as a casual employee.

[347Stroker]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Politics would be an interesting career would it not? I'd say you have a good mindset for it.

Opressed workforce? Looks like it's just me who isnt afraid of having to stand up for myself in front of the boss? If you're not able to demonstrate your value to your employer then yes - perhaps you do have something to worry about. Is any such shortfall the fault of the government? Considering this in the context of a virtual shortage of skilled labour....

Re: preferences. Agreed this is not an ideal system. But you cannot accuse howard of 'scheming' his way back into power via the preference system. Look back to 1990 (lol, 9 years before i could even vote?!?!) and lab won it with a 39% primary vote. Say what you want about preferential voting but dont portray it as some evil tool in howard's garage to maintain control of the country. Say it how it is - the system may well suck, but there's no need to put the anti-howard spin on it. Unless of course, you're serious about that career in politics? lol

Mate, I am by no means afraid to stand up for myself, and over the years, have actually lost jobs for standing up for others as well. I believe that we are all equal, and should be treated as such, and thats where AWA's that JH is trying to get through get up my nose.
I know I can debate, stir and argue my way with the best of them, and thats through many years of training, practice and being a passionate person.
But what about the quiet, non confident person, that goes in and gets the lowest rate of pay, and too many other "un australian" practices that JH is proposing in his bill, just because the boss knew he would not negotiate.

This is what I dont want to see happen, because it just makes the rich richer.....and that seems to be the way of a right wing capitolist government.

Look, I just feel that we are all entitled to equal and fair awards, and the way I see it, they wont exist for much longer.

And just as a point of interest for you, I am a business owner, an employer, and a company director....so if it all goes through, it would benefit me greatly on the P&L sheets and my pocket.....but to me its just BLOODY UN-AUSTRALIAN......

Politics.....it is something I enjoy......who else is a card carrier???

[GreenMachine]

Card carrier since I was 15. Proud of it.

[Grunter]

Originally Posted by 347stroker

And do you think many voters really know what they are doing??

How many fill out the ballot paper just like the garb you get for your particular party.....I bet most just put 1 in the box, and dont realise the consequences of preferential votes...

True, but the same applies for a lot of unions and their members. A good portion just accept some of the crap unions speak without checking to see what is real. Union members have just as much responsibility to the searching out the truth as the voter does in ensuring that they understand the consequences of just putting 1 in the box.

Ask the average active union member what the new IR actually is or means and nine times out of ten they just repeat whatever sensationised (sp) speel their union is spinning without actually looking at the detail within the IR changes.

Personally I understand the reasons behind the new IR reforms, but think the execution leaves a bit to be desired.

[347Stroker]

Originally Posted by GreenMachine

Card carrier since I was 15. Proud of it.

Well done brother....we should start our own thread....