IR reforms -- anyone been hit? (2 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

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

Companies and people should have the same obligations, because they're both just parties to a contract.

I don't support one over the other at all, and to suggest otherwise is moronic.

 

[Collin]

Rubbish Mongke, there's heaps to be said about IR. I'm glad this thread has become a platform for which to facilitate such discussions, and I encourage anyone with an opinion to state their stance.

Personally, like I clarified in Generator's IR thread in NCAP (wait, was it his thread, or perhaps I just thought so because 99% of posts there are from him.. heh), IR is a mixed bag to me. Simply put, I've minimal issues with the unfair dismissal section of the legislation, but harbour a higher dissapproval stance on the premise of AWAs and it's consequences regarding pay rates (minimum wage and penalties). Many here argue that unfair dismissal overwhelmingly favours that of the employer, and no doubt, I'd agree there. Infact, it's plain obvious that every part of this legislation pretty much favours the employer. However, some parts which favours the employer are justified, and I think that's where the integral point lies. With unfair dismissal, ZabZu mentioned that huge companies are already making record profits, and CEO's are pocketing massive salaries. True, but many of those companies which fit such criteria lie outside of the power this legislation asserts; that is, 100 employees. The deal is, many small businesses don't make 'record' profits, and their owners don't rake in 'ridiculous' salaries. However admittingly, I would advocate an even lower cap than 100; to me that seems even fairer.

To finish off, I'd like to emphasise that although it seems like the people who are pro-IR here are also pro-employer, that may not necessarily be the case. They may simply be advocating a fairer balance, and I guess some parts of IR does address this. Where the balance should lie is obviously subjective, so I encourage everyone to respect that. My arguments above probably make me seem like a IR-butt kisser, but in effect I don't believe I'm biased towards either employees or employers (and logically for my own interests I should even be anti-IR, for these laws may very well put me worse off in my current job eventually), but on an overall level, I believe it IS fairer.

 

[ZabZu]

With unfair dismissal, ZabZu mentioned that huge companies are already making record profits, and CEO's are pocketing massive salaries. True, but many of those companies which fit such criteria lie outside of the power this legislation asserts; that is, 100 employees. The deal is, many small businesses don't make 'record' profits, and their owners don't rake in 'ridiculous' salaries. However admittingly, I would advocate an even lower cap than 100; to me that seems even fairer.

Yes thats true but big business still gains considerably from the IR reforms. Its easier to sack people, power of unions decreased, AWAs, etc. I fear that companies like Coles and Woolworths are going to take away people's penatly rates (on Sunday, public holidays and midnight to 6am). These companies can easily afford to pay workers compensation for working these days/times.

I want an IR system thats fair to both employees and employers. The old IR system in NSW significantly advantaged the workers. Howard and Kevin Andrews have now made a unfair system that swings the pendulum completely towards employers. An IR system in the middle would be best for Australia.

 

[FuckLiberals]

I fear that companies like Coles and Woolworths are going to take away people's penatly rates (on Sunday, public holidays and midnight to 6am).

Why wouldn't the worker just say "Fuck you, I quit."?

 

[walrusbear]

Companies and people should have the same obligations, because they're both just parties to a contract.

I don't support one over the other at all, and to suggest otherwise is moronic.

your posts never suggest this attitude
it's mostly defending a companise rights to fire who they need
you've never really expressed any concern as to how these reforms affect more vulnerable workers

 

[walrusbear]

Corporate responsibility means doing what is best for the company. The second half of your ad hominem attack failed to register. Rephrase it please, preferably in English.

i was suggesting that corporations have some level of social responsibility - or at least should.
my 'ad hominem attack' was just pointing out that the far right on this board will take any social detriment in favour of corporate gain. usually those who lose out are blamed for their position.

Exploiting? You mean, paying people to perform a task is exploitation? If you don't like the terms of employment, why would you work at that corporation?

well i'm looking at examples where people are put in a position where they work at a much lower rate or face losing their jobs. or heck, even losing their jobs just because it is convenient for the company. your attitude really only suggests you're out of touch with how life is for many people. many work where they can because they have to and this reform allows companies to take advantage of this by enforcing lower pay rates. this idea of seamless job mobility is somewhat of a farce, it's weird that people assume it is a universal situation.

 

[walrusbear]

Social responsibility is a meaningless buzz word. It means "being communist" doesn't it? Define the term.

what's meaningless about it?
it's making sure that a whole lot of people aren't being fucked over, basically
it means making sure you're not exploiting the vulnerable and marginalised.

1) workers are being overpaid and 2) seamless job mobility? forgetting centrelink?

Jesus, hardship is a part of life. What about the hundreds of thousands of umemployed who can't get jobs now because companies can't fire at will?

Not everyone can have a nice house with a BMW. Unfortunately, some people just can't cope. That is where social welfare comes in. Not "oh, instead of asking the government, i'll expect it from companies. Then i'll bitch about high prices which means I can't buy what I want".

you're just advocating poverty as the means for many - which is fine for you, presumably, because you aren't poor.
no one suggested companies can solve poverty, but there's no need to give them the opportunity to exploit workers any further.

 

[ZabZu]

Why wouldn't the worker just say "Fuck you, I quit."?

Because all other employers/companies would also refuse to pay penalty rates.

I believe workers should get paid extra on Sunday because today a blue collar workers working week is Mon to Fri (with an increasing amount working on Saturday). If a worker goes to his mates, oi you wana go to the rugby league game on sunday afternoon, they all should be able to go. The people who cant go because they are working on Sunday should be compensated since they cant go out with their mates.

Workers should get paid extra on public holidays because most people dont work on public holidays and people expect to use these days by seeing friends, family, etc who dont have to work on these days. Workers should be compensated for their employers decision to take a dedicated leisure day away from them.

Workers should get paid between the hours of midnight and 6am because these hours are unsociable, give people a bad sleeping pattern and with very weird sleeping hours, these people spend less time with friends, family.

Thats how i see it, i reckon the unions would have similar viewpoint.

 

[FuckLiberals]

Because all other employers/companies would also refuse to pay penalty rates.

And you know this as a fact?

 

[walrusbear]

Ever heard of Social Welfare? I've a very strong supporter of social welfare to end poverty.

I don't think Australia can afford to use corporate money to provide for our workers anymore.

What's worse - lower wages and govt grants, or high wages and your job outsourced to India in 3 years time, with the rest of your industry doing the same?

i presumed you weren't a fan of welfare, like waf.

it's preferable to offer as many stable and reasonable paying jobs as possible. i'm not sure of how the govt is going to fill in the gap for those working at lesser rates, or not working at all.
i'm sure it's not a simple case of these reforms being essential to keep industry in the country.

 

[ZabZu]

And you know this as a fact?

I said its a situation i fear will happen