The official IR reform thread! (10 Viewers)

[Generator]

Thanks for that, Moonlight. I work on a Thursday night and I normally stick to the papers and the ABC's radio programmes, so I would not have noticed that transcript.

KERRY O'BRIEN: This is revolutionary change on the Australian landscape. You will now have minimum workplace conditions legislated by the Parliament, by the politicians, by the Government. You will have a national system overriding all the State system. You will now have a constitutional head of power, the corporations head of power totally overriding the industrial relations power which was what the founding fathers wrote in. They had an industrial relations head of power, which you are overriding. Now do you really think - what basis do you have for saying that the Parliament should be micromanaging to the extent of setting workplace conditions?

JOHN HOWARD: Kerry, this is not revolutionary. I mean - with great respect, that is an absurd proposition.

KERRY O'BRIEN: It sounds revolutionary to me.

JOHN HOWARD: Kerry, I listened to your question. It is the next stage along the path to further reform. The corporations power in the constitution was put there by the founding fathers at the same time as they put the conciliation and arbitration power.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But not for industrial relations?

JOHN HOWARD: Well, that's what you assert. But Kerry we now live in a national economy. In 1901, we were six colonies. We regarded..... People in Victoria regarded people in NSW virtually as foreigners. We are now a single national economy and that cries aloud for a single national industrial relations system. That's not revolutionary, it's commonsense.

Howard is one tricky bastard.

I consider the notion of a national system to be common sense, but the manner in which it is being sought, and the nature of the proposed system, is clearly revolutionary. Then again, in the mind of a staunch neoliberal like Howard, I guess that such changes may be considered as being evolutionary.

I'll edit this post later tonight/early tomorrow with the transcript of the PM piece that covered today's IR Ministers meeting (I'll watch Lateline/look at the transcripts for tonight's programme for a change, too).

Edit:

States meet over Federal IR changes
States vow to continue opposing Federal Govt control of IR laws

 

[Generator]

No quoting today, just links. Enjoy (or not, I don't mind).

States to challenge new IR changes, States to fight IR takeover in court, IR court challenge inevitable: states

Pell and Jensen raise IR protest to critical mass, Hallelujah chorus in IR opposition (same article as that in the Herald, just changed slightly for The Age)

State's weary salesman harkens as penny drops

 

[Sarah]

No quoting today, just links. Enjoy (or not, I don't mind).

Generator, do you ever feel like you're talking to a brick wall?

I don't mean it in a bad way but lately there just seems to be a lack of interest in this issue. There's not many ppl contributing to this debate.

 

[Generator]

Generator, do you ever feel like you're talking to a brick wall?

I don't mean it in a bad way but lately there just seems to be a lack of interest in this issue. There's not many ppl contributing to this debate.

Yes, but I don't mind. I can understand the reluctance of some (if not most) to debate the issue, because at the moment the issue is only being discussed in terms of generalities and possibilities. I'm hoping that more take note of it when the legislation is released (and challenged), though. The only annoying thing is that the release of the legislation will be taking place at a critical time for me when it comes to my uni work, so I won't be able to update (or contribute to) the thread at that stage.

Edit:
Pell, Jensen don't speak for community: PM
Jobs more a concern than terror: Labor
Picnics, not pickets, unions' new strategy

Edit: I'm leaving BOS for a time, and I have asked two other forum regulars to update this thread whenever necessary (if they don't mind). I may no longer be a regular, but the IR thread will live on (I hope). In all likelihood, I'll be away throughout the parliamentary debates regarding the legislation, too, so you will all have to go without my thoughts on what I consider to be an issue of fundamental importance to us al... OK, another link or four and then I'm off.

IR protest picnic draws thousands
And now for the slick brochure …
Howard's long service leave axe still high
Caucus wants IR explanation

Generator.

 

[Sarah]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/working-mums-win-parttime-option/2005/08/08/1123353241862.html

I wonder if these changes will be part of the reforms.

 

[Generator]

Seeing as though I'm back for a moment (VSU debate, I couldn't resist), I thought that I might as well post a link.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1435618.htm

Nothing like a bit of scare mongering (a likely situation or not, I'll let you decide) to get the thread back in action.

 

[Sarah]

I thought the Howard has at least agreed there will be a minimum wage? Like a basic wage for everyone and that the AWA would not go below it (under IR reforms).

Even so, that situation is likely to be occuring now for ppl covered by awards but who aren't aware of the award wage for their position in the industry. Some ppl take it as a given that what they're being paid is the award wage.

And from reading that article, there seems to be confusion as to whether the girl is part-time or casual. The ACTU talks about buying out annual leave and sick leave (which are entitlements for part time workers) however the S.A IR Court found she was a casual.

Although the ACTU does raise a good point about the ability of young workers negotiating an AWA.

Overall, no matter which IR system is in place, there's always going to be bad apples amongst employers and employees.

 

[thatjazz]

Overall, no matter which IR system is in place, there's always going to be bad apples amongst employers and employees.

But surely you understand that with Howard's new IR reforms, the employee will have less freedoms to state thier distaste with goings-on in the workplace. Effectively, by giving the Employer more control over employees of small business, the voices of the working majority are being lost.

By the by, John Howard's speech a little while ago, (the one in which he claimed every Australian needs to put self gain behind a national priority), has appalled me. If I wanted to live in a socialist society, I'd have shot myself by now.

 

[Sarah]

But surely you understand that with Howard's new IR reforms, the employee will have less freedoms to state thier distaste with goings-on in the workplace. Effectively, by giving the Employer more control over employees of small business, the voices of the working majority are being lost.

By the by, John Howard's speech a little while ago, (the one in which he claimed every Australian needs to put self gain behind a national priority), has appalled me. If I wanted to live in a socialist society, I'd have shot myself by now.

Well it's all speculation for the time being and there's an air of consensus from those opposing IR reforms that it will make the employee worse off when it comes to statutory entitlements.

But the reason why i said there would always be dodgy employers and employees is that no matter which system your're under these new IR reforms won't stop employers underpaying employees, requesting employees undertake duties outside their job description. Nor will it stop employees breaching underlying work duties e.g stealing, breaching confidentiality.

 

[thatjazz]

I understand what you are getting at. But I must confess I rather believe you are trivialising this issue - regardless of wether or not an employee will steal a packet of staples, the issue remains the same.

And, out of interest. Under the current AWA system, being fired for stealing a packet of staples is considered ridiculous - everyone does it. But under the proposed IR reforms, you could be fired for that, and it is considered just. Because unfair dismissal laws would cease to exist - hypothetically, you could be fired for refusing to wear a short skirt to work.

It is with thanks to John Howard that we're standing on the docks, waving our equality, democracy, freedoms, and civil liberties goodbye. But thankfully, he's determined that facism really is the way foward for Australia. Hell, it's not my fault - I didn't vote.

 

[Sarah]

I understand what you are getting at. But I must confess I rather believe you are trivialising this issue - regardless of wether or not an employee will steal a packet of staples, the issue remains the same.

And, out of interest. Under the current AWA system, being fired for stealing a packet of staples is considered ridiculous - everyone does it. But under the proposed IR reforms, you could be fired for that, and it is considered just. Because unfair dismissal laws would cease to exist - hypothetically, you could be fired for refusing to wear a short skirt to work.

It is with thanks to John Howard that we're standing on the docks, waving our equality, democracy, freedoms, and civil liberties goodbye. But thankfully, he's determined that facism really is the way foward for Australia. Hell, it's not my fault - I didn't vote.

No i'm not talking about stealing stationary, i'm talking about confidential information that costs business money e.g equipment, client lists. It happens and it's costly.

I don't have an indepth knowledge on Industrial Relations or Law, so I can only say with the short skirt scenario that there could be a possibility that the dismissal could be challenged e.g Why do I need to wear a short skirt? Are other workers required to wear short skirts? If not, than the employee could possibly make a claim for unlawful dismissal on the grounds of discrimmination. Again, i don't know, i'm only guessing and i'm also tired at the moment.

 

[Sarah]

It is with thanks to John Howard that we're standing on the docks, waving our equality, democracy, freedoms, and civil liberties goodbye. But thankfully, he's determined that facism really is the way foward for Australia. Hell, it's not my fault - I didn't vote.

You're using some very strong words there! If the majority of people thought we were waving those listed items away, well they sure don't show it. I don't see people protesting, support for the opposition growing nor do I see anyone taking an active approach to offer an alternative which is realistically practical.

It's easy to sit back and criticise, but it's harder to go out and do something about it.


edit: wasn't sure if the comment you made was specific to IR reforms and govt in general so i assumed it was the latter

 

[thatjazz]

No i'm not talking about stealing stationary, i'm talking about confidential information that costs business money e.g equipment, client lists. It happens and it's costly.

I don't have an indepth knowledge on Industrial Relations or Law, so I can only say with the short skirt scenario that there could be a possibility that the dismissal could be challenged e.g Why do I need to wear a short skirt? Are other workers required to wear short skirts? If not, than the employee could possibly make a claim for unlawful dismissal on the grounds of discrimmination. Again, i don't know, i'm only guessing and i'm also tired at the moment.

Thankyou, you've proven my point. Under the IR reforms, in a company of 100 or less employees, there is no way to challenge a dismissal. You stated that "there could be a possibility that the dismissal could be challenged" - but there isn't. Unfair Dismissal laws will be changed if they come in to place.

 

[thatjazz]

You're using some very strong words there! If the majority of people thought we were waving those listed items away, well they sure don't show it. I don't see people protesting, support for the opposition growing nor do I see anyone taking an active approach to offer an alternative which is realistically practical.

It's easy to sit back and criticise, but it's harder to go out and do something about it.


edit: wasn't sure if the comment you made was specific to IR reforms and govt in general so i assumed it was the latter

Actually. I see alot of people protesting. I recall a Friday I missed from school because the Teacher's union joined in support of several other unions to march in capitol cities. Apparently, the cries of thousands of people are falling on the very deaf ears of our Liberal government.

And here is a practical, active approach: Do not mess with status quo.

 

[Sarah]

Thankyou, you've proven my point. Under the IR reforms, in a company of 100 or less employees, there is no way to challenge a dismissal. You stated that "there could be a possibility that the dismissal could be challenged" - but there isn't. Unfair Dismissal laws will be changed if they come in to place.

Read over my post again. I went on to elaborate that if it could be proven that it was discrimmination than the employee could make a claim for unlawful dismissal which cover's discrimmination based on sex, religion, ethnicity. To determine this you could question the intention of the employers' request.

If someone doing law is reading this, I think i may be getting Unfair and Unlawfull dismissal mixed up. I'm under the impression unlawful dismissal relates to discrimmination and unfair relates to whether dismisall is meets 3 criterias unfair, unjust and there's a third criteria which i've forgotten.

 

[Sarah]

Actually. I see alot of people protesting. I recall a Friday I missed from school because the Teacher's union joined in support of several other unions to march in capitol cities. Apparently, the cries of thousands of people are falling on the very deaf ears of our Liberal government.

And here is a practical, active approach: Do not mess with status quo.

Well where were the "cries of thousands of people" during that picnic held last Sunday at Homebush with the purpose of raising awareness of IR reforms? There was even free transport and yet the turnout was still disappointing. From what I heard on the news, it ending up costing $400 p/head in transport costs (which was bourne by taxpayers) and to quote a radio station I was listening to "it would have been cheaper to hire limousines" for transport.

Also, just something i've observed from the media coverage i've seen you don't see many ppl in high paying positions out protesting.

*sigh* that status quo comment, well if you really believed in it then we'd still have the Accord in place, actually, we'd still have a lot of old public policy in place. Hope that's not trivialising or taking out of context what you've said

edit: i'm tired hence the poor phrasing

 

[Sarah]

Some news items on IR reforms

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/unrest-in-the-west-over-ir-telstra/2005/08/14/1123957940259.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-did-not-slap-me-down-says-vaile/2005/08/14/1123957938292.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...ange-IR-reforms/2005/08/14/1123957943452.html

The one belows looks interesting. Highlights an alternative path to improving productivity. Something which I think would be more beneficial and whilst achieving one of the govt's goals.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...uctivity-report/2005/08/14/1123957939674.html

 

[Generator]

The one belows looks interesting. Highlights an alternative path to improving productivity. Something which I think would be more beneficial and whilst achieving one of the govt's goals.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...uctivity-report/2005/08/14/1123957939674.html

An alternative path that appears to be out of step with the government's ideological position. I really cannot see the current Coalition government pursue a path that would lead to a greater levels of public expenditure when they could quite easily knock off a few public bodies and 'liberalise' the workplace in order to achieve their stated goal of maintaining economic growth.

That tackling Health and Education would require cooperation with the Labor states as opposed to a confrontation with the states over the proposed national IR system may well be something that stands in the path of such a reform programme, too .

 

[Generator]

Howard rejects Nationals' IR stand

The WA Nationals are for all intents and purposes toothless, but such comments are still quite damaging.


Staff lockouts rise tenfold in decade

I wonder whether the proposed reforms will allow for lockouts at short notice yet outlaw strikes of a similar nature. Time will tell, I guess.

There was also a piece on AM this morning with the ACTU's President that discussed the cashing out of sick leave and whether it is something that either an employer or employee should be able to 'bargain away' under the proposed reforms (or AWAs in general). I'll post the link to the transcript (or a relevant breaking news article) later today.

Edit: The transcript. The World Today covered the issue with a Ministerial response to the ACTU's statements, so I may post the link to that transcript later today, too.

Edit 2: More on PM, such as that a Senate Inquiry into the proposed legislation will be held (according to Andrews) - http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1437884.htm

 

[Generator]

A summary piece for the day.