IR reforms -- anyone been hit? (1 Viewer)

[Mongke]

:angry: we might as well say "here, do with me what you will!" a company wont do anything unless it has to. if the company doesnt want you cos you have black shoes they dont have to hire you. an interesting point, a friend of mine did an assignment on these laws and found that if you are in a buisness of <100 and you are raped and fired there is nothing you can do about it. the company has that right to dismiss you unfairly. companies are going to be tough, real tough and there is nothing you can do about it. sure, you can do the holier than tho thing and apply for another job, but that one is going to ask why you havent had a job for so long, what happened in your last interviews, and demand as much from your contract as possible cos if you dont like it you can go to another job who will do exactly the same thing. pick up the soap and swallow.

 

[withoutaface]

:angry: we might as well say "here, do with me what you will!" a company wont do anything unless it has to. if the company doesnt want you cos you have black shoes they dont have to hire you. an interesting point, a friend of mine did an assignment on these laws and found that if you are in a buisness of <100 and you are raped and fired there is nothing you can do about it. the company has that right to dismiss you unfairly. companies are going to be tough, real tough and there is nothing you can do about it. sure, you can do the holier than tho thing and apply for another job, but that one is going to ask why you havent had a job for so long, what happened in your last interviews, and demand as much from your contract as possible cos if you dont like it you can go to another job who will do exactly the same thing. pick up the soap and swallow.

Yeah, because it's in the company's interests not to hire a capable employee because they wear black shoes

 

[Sarah]

Thanks, miu miu's argument has now been contradicted and the world can go back to normal.

Huh?

Just a quick re-cap...

Miu mui raised the issue about training and the fact that existing staff may not have the skills to step up.

And then you pointed out that employees should constantly seek new jobs. I asked why and then you said business are constantly seeking new employees.
And I made the last comment that employers wouldn't seek staff if none are needed.

Now you replied with the above comment. I'm confused

And really, training, learning and development is a big issue in HR due to the lack of investment for employers to undertake it and the preference to purchase it. (I'd rather not go into it but it's illustrated with nursing, teaching and to some extent doctors)

Note: I'm not being very clear about the above and really should stop posting during the am hours but hope you get the gist of what i'm saying

 

[Mongke]

Yeah, because it's in the company's interests not to hire a capable employee because they wear black shoes

you can never trust thoes black shoes!! lol. but seriously now, companies are primarily concerned with profit, so if your contract compramises that (which it will if you ask for special services) then they will have no qualms with hiring the 9 to 5er who is willing to to drop the services you want/need and will get the job done anyway. if both can get the job done, as an employer, youd chose the person who wont ask for too much. this will make it very hard for family people to be competitive in the work force. why swing so far? the old laws were a pain, but why go this far!

 

[withoutaface]

you can never trust thoes black shoes!! lol. but seriously now, companies are primarily concerned with profit, so if your contract compramises that (which it will if you ask for special services) then they will have no qualms with hiring the 9 to 5er who is willing to to drop the services you want/need and will get the job done anyway. if both can get the job done, as an employer, youd chose the person who wont ask for too much. this will make it very hard for family people to be competitive in the work force. why swing so far? the old laws were a pain, but why go this far!

The issue being with the minimum wage that situation is 1000x more likely to come about.

 

[Mongke]

The issue being with the minimum wage that situation is 1000x more likely to come about.

wat? you mean, if we had a minimum wage employees would have to sacrifice more just to be competitive? i dont see how that follows....

 

[withoutaface]

Under true competition where everyone's paid their market rate, if an employer chose not to employ a black man for a position, he'd have to either lower the qualifications or up the pay, and thus making it less in their interest to do so. Under minimum wages, you have a flooded market of employees, so no such problem exists for unskilled labour and employers can pick and choose.

 

[Mongke]

i have no idea how that makes sence, even if i was right wing, so ill just nod and smile

:uhhuh:

ive given up trying to decifer how your logic works waf, i just, it just, i mean, minimum wage, ummm, protects the workers? err, never mind...

 

[withoutaface]

i have no idea how that makes sence, even if i was right wing, so ill just nod and smile

:uhhuh:

ive given up trying to decifer how your logic works waf, i just, it just, i mean, minimum wage, ummm, protects the workers? err, never mind...

That's because you don't understand the basic tenets of logic, and this is exemplified by the fact that you're a filthy red.

 

[walrusbear]

in wafs version of the world it is companies we look out for, not people
also apparently they behave completely altruistically and anyone arguing for their rights is presumably a deadweight to society

another balanced take on things waf

 

[MiuMiu]

The reason I didn't reply to 'withoutaface' last night was because I found his argument a childish way of essentially admitting defeat.

I realise now that maybe he has some conviction in what he said, which makes me think he's even more of an inept airhead than I first considered.

The biggest flaw in your argument 'waf', is that you put companies and employees on equal footing. They are clearly not. The law does not pretend they are, nor does policy, or for that matter most people with half a brain.

I just cannot concieve how you would find it fair that a company could say to an employee who has done nothing wrong 'get out, we don't want to pay you anymore and therefore you have no job'. Redundancy entitlements are there to protect both the employee and to a certain extent the employer. An employee gets enough money to allow adequate time to find a new job without having to declare bankruptcy because they are jobless with no income, and a company gets to terminate the employment of an employee that they no longer require without getting done for unfair dismissal of an employee who has done nothing wrong.

The IR reforms take this away from employees, a huge kick in the teeth for Australian workers and their job security.

 

[ZabZu]

Under true competition where everyone's paid their market rate, if an employer chose not to employ a black man for a position, he'd have to either lower the qualifications or up the pay, and thus making it less in their interest to do so. Under minimum wages, you have a flooded market of employees, so no such problem exists for unskilled labour and employers can pick and choose.

Obviously in a unregulated labour market with a wage lower than the minimum wage, employers can afford to hire more people and hence employment increases. This is very relevant to the IR reforms with employers not having to pay penalty rates and stuff. The deregulation of the labour market is good for unemployed people who now suddenly have a job but for the unskilled workers who were previously employed, they are worse off.

 

[Mongke]

Obviously in a unregulated labour market with a wage lower than the minimum wage, employers can afford to hire more people and hence employment increases. This is very relevant to the IR reforms with employers not having to pay penalty rates and stuff. The deregulation of the labour market is good for unemployed people who now suddenly have a job but for the unskilled workers who were previously employed, they are worse off.

but the people who gain even more from the drop of the minimum wage are the owners of the companies. which is why its so popular with them, and why companies like Nike chose to employ sweat factory workers. labour is the greatest cost for companies so yes, the unemployed now have work, but they should have that anyway AND at a liveable wage. its not good enough, if companies can afford such large golden hand shakes to corrupt executives they can afford to hire more workers and pay them well.

with the drop of the minimum wage with the introduction of the knew IR laws the unemployed will be required to work under appalling conditions as this is the cost of the favour of having a job. companies should pay their workers more and their executives less, simple as that. some things are that easy

 

[Gangels]

My employer never even undertook them. I didnt even get time and a half, stingy fuck! I got to the point where i was working 2 hours a week, then he'd say to me that i took too long and would only pay me an hour. I talked to the union and they said they couldnt do a thing.:mad1:

So i quit

 

[ZabZu]

but the people who gain even more from the drop of the minimum wage are the owners of the companies. which is why its so popular with them, and why companies like Nike chose to employ sweat factory workers. labour is the greatest cost for companies so yes, the unemployed now have work, but they should have that anyway AND at a liveable wage. its not good enough, if companies can afford such large golden hand shakes to corrupt executives they can afford to hire more workers and pay them well.

with the drop of the minimum wage with the introduction of the knew IR laws the unemployed will be required to work under appalling conditions as this is the cost of the favour of having a job. companies should pay their workers more and their executives less, simple as that. some things are that easy

I agree with you 100% , i was just outlining the economic benefits of the deregulation of the labour market. I believe the disadvantages to workers significantly outway the benefits to workers.

Im also very annoyed with big business' strong support for the IR reforms. Even in the past few years without the laws they have made record profits and CEOs are receiving ridiculous salaries. The laws will further increase the profits of businesses at the expense of the unskilled employees. Big business = fat cats.

I reckon employers should not fire people on the spot without any financial compensation, no matter what the circumstance. Its unfair and unethical.

 

[ZabZu]

I reckon employers should not fire people on the spot without any financial compensation, no matter what the circumstance. Its unfair and unethical.

This is in the context of restructuring by the employer. If the employee comes to work drunk or bludges, even after a warning, then he/she deserves to be fire on the spot.

Its unethical because if your going to fire someone you should give them time to find another job. If you cannot do this you should give them financial compensation. In your proposed IR system wiki, workers wont be able to earn a consistent, stable income and will have to go through periods where they will be making no money at all.

 

[*Minka*]

So are people meant to be evicted from their homes for being unable to pay rent, quit University because of lack of income or let their kids go hungry because theyw ere fired with no compensation?

 

[withoutaface]

So are people meant to be evicted from their homes for being unable to pay rent, quit University because of lack of income or let their kids go hungry because theyw ere fired with no compensation?

Are small bussinesses meant to go bankrupt because employees quit without giving them compensation?

 

[Mongke]

Are small bussinesses meant to go bankrupt because employees quit without giving them compensation?

im sick of this issue. weve made our possiton clear and so have you, no more can be said. im out.

 

[walrusbear]

So are people meant to be evicted from their homes for being unable to pay rent, quit University because of lack of income or let their kids go hungry because theyw ere fired with no compensation?

of course

for waf and wiki their support for 'personal responsibility' translates in practice into blaming people for their problems. corporate responsibility doesn't exist, because as waf just confirmed - it is of paramount importance that anything suffers in favour of business.

if a business can't function without exploiting workers then it doesn't deserve to exist