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

[Collin]

Thread title asserts all; anyone been hit by these new laws yet? Perhaps you recently acquired employment with say, Woolies and was surprised to find overtime pay absent?

I'm interested to know which companies have already implemented the new legislation.

 

[ToO LaZy ^*]

what does this new legislation change? (website? )

at the moment, i dont think coles has killed off O.T.
otherwise, i wouldnt have got paid @ $44 for 7 hrs.

 

[LeftrightOut]

what does this new legislation change? (website? )

http://www.workchoices.gov.au

Came in end of last year PDF on this page here
https://www.workchoices.gov.au/ourplan/act/

 

[Generator]

Thread title asserts all; anyone been hit by these new laws yet? Perhaps you recently acquired employment with say, Woolies and was surprised to find overtime pay absent?

I'm interested to know which companies have already implemented the new legislation.

As leftrightout's link shows, the bulk of the legislation comes into effect sometime in March. As of the current moment, nobody has been hit by the actual reform agenda, but some may have been subjected to related actions (such as new union agreements, unscrupulous employers acting before it is time, etc.).

 

[Generator]

*bump*

An example (link also posted in the NCAP 'IR Reform" thread).

 

[Mr_Shrimp]

That fucking sucks...

Not as bad as some people will get hit though. I mean, she's 16, earning $8.57 at a juice bar. That's not TOO out of whack. the only thing really terrible about it is that they've abolished penalty rates..

 

[ZabZu]

That fucking sucks...

Not as bad as some people will get hit though. I mean, she's 16, earning $8.57 at a juice bar. That's not TOO out of whack. the only thing really terrible about it is that they've abolished penalty rates..

Theres a lot of other negative effects on workers other than the loss of penalty rates.

People who work in a company with less than 100 people can be fired and the worker cannot appeal the decision. Even if you work for a larger business you can be fired for operational reasons. Eg. if your employer has too many staff, say 5 people are doing the job that 3 can, 2 workers can lose their jobs.

The laws casualise the blue collar workforce by taking away job security.

Also,
- Its legal for employers to monitor workers via video (illegal in NSW a month ago)
- Unions (legally) cant strike, unions and employees face huge fines
- Union officials cannot enter/inspect the worksite
- The hourly wage for an AWA can now be less than the award wage
- Workers will get paid less and the profit of employers will increase, further increasing the gap between the rich and poor

 

[MiuMiu]

I work in a partnership (law firm) so these laws cannot and will not effect me. Booyeah.

 

[*Minka*]

Theres a lot of other negative effects on workers other than the loss of penalty rates.

People who work in a company with less than 100 people can be fired and the worker cannot appeal the decision. Even if you work for a larger business you can be fired for operational reasons. Eg. if your employer has too many staff, say 5 people are doing the job that 3 can, 2 workers can lose their jobs.

The laws casualise the blue collar workforce by taking away job security.

Also,
- Its legal for employers to monitor workers via video (illegal in NSW a month ago)
- Unions (legally) cant strike, unions and employees face huge fines
- Union officials cannot enter/inspect the worksite
- The hourly wage for an AWA can now be less than the award wage
- Workers will get paid less and the profit of employers will increase, further increasing the gap between the rich and poor

Yeah Howard. You are really looking out for people.

 

[LynH1326]

good idea is to join the union (if there is one offered where you work)

i know NSW maccas do not have a union for the under-18s, whilst maccas ACT are part of SDA. I am part of SDA with target and they do a lot to help those (such as the older and younger workers) who are the ones most exploited.

 

[withoutaface]

Eg. if your employer has too many staff, say 5 people are doing the job that 3 can, 2 workers can lose their jobs.

So an employer should be expected to pay two deadweight employees to do 8 hour shifts of star jumps on the spot?

 

[MiuMiu]

So an employer should be expected to pay two deadweight employees to do 8 hour shifts of star jumps on the spot?

1. The company hired them in the first place, its not the employee's fault.

2. I believe he was referring to the fact that under the previous law the two 'deadweight' employees as you refer to them would have recieved redundancy packages....under the new legislation they can just be given the arse without any payout.

 

[withoutaface]

If the employee wants redundancy, they can negotiate it into the contract, and are you saying a company that already has its business dwindling and losing money should be forced to lose even more money through redundancy payments and potentially cost all five employees their jobs?

EDIT: Question: A senior employee decides that they don't need to work anymore, and want to retire. This causes the company great problems, having to replace them with someone completely inadequate to fill their shoes. Should this employee be able to quit at any time, and if so should they owe the company redundancy payments?

 

[MiuMiu]

If the employee wants redundancy, they can negotiate it into the contract

What company is going to put redundancy entitlements into an employment contract when they don't have to?

and are you saying a company that already has its business dwindling and losing money should be forced to lose even more money through redundancy payments and potentially cost all five employees their jobs?

Thats exactly what I am saying.

Welcome to the real world where if you dig a hole, you must lay in it.

If a company goes belly-up, why should the employee suffer?

EDIT: Question: A senior employee decides that they don't need to work anymore, and want to retire. This causes the company great problems, having to replace them with someone completely inadequate to fill their shoes. Should this employee be able to quit at any time, and if so should they owe the company redundancy payments?

Thats not even an argument? It just shows your lack of understanding and quite possible lack of maturity.

When you leave a company you aren't making it redundant, it still operates and has a job to do?

And yes, given their specified notice (generally a month), an employee is free to leave their employment as they so wish.

Question for you: why is it the employee's problem that there is no one adequate to take over their position? Would that not be the fault of the company who have failed to train someone (because *shock horror*, there is always a possbility of someone deciding to leave the company)?

 

[withoutaface]

What company is going to put redundancy entitlements into an employment contract when they don't have to?

Because it gives their contract something that the competing companies contract doesn't.

Thats exactly what I am saying.

Welcome to the real world where if you dig a hole, you must lay in it.

If a company goes belly-up, why should the employee suffer?

If the employee goes belly up, why should the company suffer?

Thats not even an argument? It just shows your lack of understanding and quite possible lack of maturity.

When you leave a company you aren't making it redundant, it still operates and has a job to do?

And yes, given their specified notice (generally a month), an employee is free to leave their employment as they so wish.

And the employee can find another job. They're not murdered by the company upon leaving.

Question for you: why is it the employee's problem that there is no one adequate to take over their position? Would that not be the fault of the company who have failed to train someone (because *shock horror*, there is always a possbility of someone deciding to leave the company)?

Why is it the company's problem there's not another job that fits the employees needs just waiting for them? Shouldn't the employee constantly be looking for new jobs?

 

[Sarah]

Because it gives their contract something that the competing companies contract doesn't.

If the employee goes belly up, why should the company suffer?

And the employee can find another job. They're not murdered by the company upon leaving.

Why is it the company's problem there's not another job that fits the employees needs just waiting for them? Shouldn't the employee constantly be looking for new jobs?

You're good at answering a question with another question.

I'm curious though, why should employees constantly be looking for new jobs?

 

[steelite]

good idea is to join the union (if there is one offered where you work)

i know NSW maccas do not have a union for the under-18s, whilst maccas ACT are part of SDA. I am part of SDA with target and they do a lot to help those (such as the older and younger workers) who are the ones most exploited.

Hmmm, l know the unions have done heaps in the past to improve working conditions but nowadays, the pricing is just unfair, l think the lowest per annum fee for the union is about $150 a year, what type of bullshit is that plus it goes up depending on the hours you do per week, right up to a possible $350 a year. If l have an issue with pay or something, l go directly to the appropriate manager who will fix it up, what use is the union delegate if l can get the issue resolved.

 

[withoutaface]

You're good at answering a question with another question.

I'm curious though, why should employees constantly be looking for new jobs?

Because apparently businesses are always supposed to be looking for new employees. It's essentially the same situation.

 

[Sarah]

Because apparently businesses are always supposed to be looking for new employees. It's essentially the same situation.

But what's the point of always looking for new employees if none are needed?

I can see the why they would if they were short of staff, but if they aren't, it seems like a way to waste time

 

[withoutaface]

But what's the point of always looking for new employees if none are needed?

I can see the why they would if they were short of staff, but if they aren't, it seems like a way to waste time

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