Rudd released IR Policy (1 Viewer)

[townie]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/working-under-rudd-as-pm/2007/04/17/1176696820196.html

mmmm

not as radical as I expected, quite balanced actually

 

[Gay Captain]

State Labor: Don't let [state] Liberal turn IR powers over to Canberra!

Federal Labor: We will create a uniform, national [IR] system.

When will the lies and inconsistencies end?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

State Labor: Don't let [state] Liberal turn IR powers over to Canberra!

Federal Labor: We will create a uniform, national [IR] system.

When will the lies and inconsistencies end?

The nsw labor ads were essentially to say debnam would remove state protections from howards laws, of course there's no need for such protections if the labor government is in federal power.

not as radical as I expected, quite balanced actually

The rhetoric sounds ok and what I sort of expected, but before I say anything about them I'd like to look over their exact proposal, not just the speech he gave on it. I also don't understand the insistence on ripping up AWA's... perhaps they mean collective agreements? If not it's probably merely because reversing their opinion now would upset many workers who have come to see AWA's as the devil.

 

[frog12986]

The policy encapsulates Rudd completely. Trying to be everything to everyone. Although the public won't think so, the reversions in relation to unfair dismissal laws will not be good for business, full time employment and ultimately the economy. It merely works in favour of the casualisation of the workplace..

 

[wheredanton]

The policy encapsulates Rudd completely. Trying to be everything to everyone..

You have a problem with a policy that tries to satisfy everyone?

The policy encapsulates Rudd completely. Trying to be everything to everyone. Although the public won't think so, the reversions in relation to unfair dismissal laws will not be good for business, full time employment and ultimately the economy. It merely works in favour of the casualisation of the workplace..

Wholsale statements such as 'it won't be good for business' are not usefull.

It's about balance and consensus. It would be wonderful for business it they could pay their workers 8 bucks an hour and didn't have to worry with OHS compliance. GREAT for business. I don't think anyone would question that. But being great for business is not the crux of everything. Important, but not everything. Not everything can be sacrificed at the behest of small business.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You have a problem with a policy that tries to satisfy everyone?

I do. I think the need to strive for a balance between different groups can often leave us with situations that are undesirable for either party and leave both parties worse off than they would have been if one conceeded more ground. I think this would be especially true of economic decisions.

 

[wheredanton]

I do. I think the need to strive for a balance between different groups can often leave us with situations that are undesirable for either party and leave both parties worse off than they would have been if one conceeded more ground. I think this would be especially true of economic decisions.

Are you talking in terms of political pramatism (ie a party's interests in getting elected) or are you talking about the welfare of the people when you refer to 'undesirable' situations?

 

[townie]

from what i understand (and i'm prepared to be corrected) the argument that removal of unfair dismissal laws is good is because business is because they wont be afraid to hire people in case in "doesnt work out".

Surely 6 months or a year is a long enough period to find out if an employee is working out for the company, and thus after such time they should be able to have job security

 

[frog12986]

You have a problem with a policy that tries to satisfy everyone?

It's about balance and consensus. It would be wonderful for business it they could pay their workers 8 bucks an hour and didn't have to worry with OHS compliance. GREAT for business. I don't think anyone would question that. But being great for business is not the crux of everything. Important, but not everything. Not everything can be sacrificed at the behest of small business.

Balance is a good thing, however, it seems that everytime a politician/political party attempts to implement changes that are both far reaching and medium to long term, they are 'spooked' into altering those changes in preference of politically expedient policy.

The changes to unfair dismissal has been good for business, however what seems to be ignored is that the benefits have also extended to the worker through full time employment and a sense of permanency depite the fundamentals of the changes. 97% of the jobs created in the past year have been full time. The ALP has criticised the government for the last ten years for contributing to the casualisation of the workforce, yet it blatantly rejects the one key policy that is delivering alterations to that trend. On the flipside of what you said, when something is good for business, it does not automatically mean that it is bad for the worker.

Flexibility and permanency are good for business, but does that automatically mean that it will negatively impact on the employee? No.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Surely 6 months or a year is a long enough period to find out if an employee is working out for the company, and thus after such time they should be able to have job security

It's a good start, but I don't think it's just about that. Whenever an employee gets fired these days there is usually a desire by them to claim unfair dismissal, dealing with such claims is basically just very hard for small business to do on top of all their other obligations.

Are you talking in terms of political pramatism (ie a party's interests in getting elected) or are you talking about the welfare of the people when you refer to 'undesirable' situations?

By a party I meant a group of people, not a political party. My claim is that compromise can probably lead to results which are worse for both parties than the implimentation of either of their policies in entirity would have.

 

[frog12986]

It's a good start, but I don't think it's just about that. Whenever an employee gets fired these days there is usually a desire by them to claim unfair dismissal, dealing with such claims is basically just very hard for small business to do on top of all their other obligations.
.

Additionally, it provides continued incentive to the employee to ensure they maintain, or even improve performance. NTB has a valid point. It's interesting that Rudd's premise for establishing a uniform, national private sector IR system was to reduce the 'legal quagmire' that now faces small business, yet he freely promotes a policy that has legal implications for small business that are both costly and time consuming. Moreover, the grand 'education revolution' is designed to address the productivity problems for the economy yet, once again, the unfair dismissal laws provide yet another barrier to productivity for small business. Is he ALP pro-productivity or anti-productivity? Or do they only opt for politically safe policy?

 

[townie]

If small businesses cant afford the cost then they shouldnt go into business in the first place

 

[banco55]

If small businesses cant afford the cost then they shouldnt go into business in the first place

You're obviously not an economics student.

 

[chelsea girl]

I do. I think the need to strive for a balance between different groups can often leave us with situations that are undesirable for either party and leave both parties worse off than they would have been if one conceeded more ground. I think this would be especially true of economic decisions.

"A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied, and I think that's what we have here."

 

[frog12986]

If small businesses cant afford the cost then they shouldnt go into business in the first place

We'd have a thriving economy with that logic..

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

You're obviously not an economics student.

and that makes a difference to the weight of his opinion, doesn't it? I would have thought that such a fan of the free market, frog, would certainly not advocate the intervention of government (or otherwise) in helping those who are unprosperous/unprofitable along.

 

[ZabZu]

On the flipside of what you said, when something is good for business, it does not automatically mean that it is bad for the worker.

It depends on the situation. WorkChoices is very good for business but horrific and immoral for workers.

The policy encapsulates Rudd completely. Trying to be everything to everyone.

Regarding industrial relations its very important to have a balanced policy. The interests for the economy (GDP, unemployment) and equity both need to be considered. Rudd's decision to keep Labor's policy on AWAs shows that the ALP is fully committed to collective bargaining and in a way appeasing the union movement. Other than that it seems preddy decent and balanced. WorkChoices on the other hand provides insufficient protection for employees and gives enormous power to employers.

Moreover, the grand 'education revolution' is designed to address the productivity problems for the economy yet, once again, the unfair dismissal laws provide yet another barrier to productivity for small business. Is he ALP pro-productivity or anti-productivity? Or do they only opt for politically safe policy?

So your saying that when people have no job security they are going to work harder? Workers will have the constant fear of being fired and there is a much larger chance of getting injured at work. Workers also need job security because its very hard for unskilled workers to find a new job. Experienced accountants and doctors in the blue ribbon Liberal seats are almost guaranteed employment because they have skills that are in high demand.

Rudd's stance on unfair dismissal is a step in the right direction.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If small businesses cant afford the cost then they shouldnt go into business in the first place

In some cases that might be true, unfortunately if we cost everyone out of being a small business we'll be left with a situation where only the crooks survive.

 

[bshoc]

If small businesses cant afford the cost then they shouldnt go into business in the first place

I can't believe so many people have quoted and debated such an ambiguous statement ...

 

[frog12986]

So your saying that when people have no job security they are going to work harder? Workers will have the constant fear of being fired and there is a much larger chance of getting injured at work. Workers also need job security because its very hard for unskilled workers to find a new job. Rudd's stance on unfair dismissal is a step in the right direction.

That type of situation is true of economies that face extensive labour surpluses and high levels of unemployment. In Australia, currently and into the future, we are facing a difficult situation whereby we are approaching full employment across all sectors of the economy, and an increasing difficulty for business to find quality employees. If we were in China or even Germany's position we could not of course adopt such a policy, however, the dynamics of our economy are different and subsequently so are our approaches.

Job security is important, however I see no reason why the nature of that security should not be based on the ability of the employee in the workplace, and their contribution to that particular workplace. If we are to better the productivity of this nation, in the face of a dwindling workforce, we cannot continue to reduce the incentive and quality of our employees by pretending that the relationship between job security and performance is not important. Call me anti-humanitarian if you will, however Rudd cannot continue to give platitudes about the productivity problem in this country if he ignores one of the fundamentals; incentive.

Let's not forget, that the reforms of this government have provided more people with the best form of welfare that any government has provided in the past 32 years; employment. The ALP and unions paint a picture of a crumbling economy in the face of draconian reforms, however despite the electorates belief of this picture, reality is a very different story and it seems the only way that this will be recognised is when it disappears.