The official IR reform thread! (13 Viewers)

[Generator]

So the fight for the support of the masses begins.

Thousands march against IR reforms
By Adam Morton
June 30, 2005 - 12:11PM


Protesters - including an estimated 100,000 in Melbourne - marched today over John Howard's sweeping workplace reforms.

A day before the government takes control of the Senate, clearing the way for the reforms, similar rallies were staged across the country.


The centre of Melbourne has come to a standstill with up to 100,000 protesters filling Swanston Street to fight the Howard Government's proposed workplace laws.

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley was hugged and cheered as he waded into the crowd as it moved from Trades Hall in Lygon Street, Carlton to Flinders Street Station.

The crowd, a cross-section of blue and white-collar workers, many with children, chanted ``Shame Howard, shame'' and ``Beazley's our man'' as the Labor leader joined his deputy, Jenny Macklin, and union chiefs at the head of the march.

Others chanted: ``What do we want? Howard's head!''

One marcher held up a large doll, wearing a fairy costume and a John Howard mask, prompting calls of ``Burn, Johnny, burn'' from the crowd.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Banners and purple Heath Services Union balloons bearing the slogan ``Stronger together'' dotted the crowd, which stretched as far as the eye could see. Union leaders estimated there were 100,000 marchers.

Mr Beazley, who was wearing several union badges, briefly addressed the marchers outside Federation Square just after 11am, saying the protest would send a strong message to Prime Minister John Howard.

``I've spoken at many protests in Melbourne in the 25 years I've been in Parliament, I've never seen a crowd like this''.

Victorian Trades Hall Council secretary Brian Boyd said the march was one of the biggest trade union actions Melbourne had seen.

``John Howard is as welcome in Melbourne as a redback spider on a dunny seat,'' he told the crowd.

Australian Workers Union secretary Bill Shorten _ touted as a future Labor leader _ said the protesters had come as ``100,000 voices of a powerful army'' to say no to the industrial relations overhaul.

"I've got one piece of advice for the Prime Minister today - bring it on," Mr Shorten told protesters before they left Lygon Street .

``If he wants to take on ordinary employees and their families, he is digging his own political graveyard and we will attend the burial.''

Mr Shorten described the Government as a ``band of robbers'' for its attempts to do away with collective bargaining.

To loud cheers, he asked the crowd: ``Today is not the beginning of the start. Today is the start of the end for the Prime Minister, isn't it?''

"We're ready . . . we'll take your job if you want to take our job. Good on ya."

Australian Education Union Victorian president Mary Bluett said the legislation was unjust and a return to a "master-servant" era under a bullying Government.

``Just as we saw (former premier Jeff) Kennett on his way in his union-smashing agenda, we will also be here strong and in large numbers when Howard is kicked out the door," she said.

Australian Manufacturing Workers Union secretary Dave Oliver said he had a message for employers.

``We'll continue to fight this. We'll down tools, we'll go out into the street,'' he said. ``Don't use these laws, or else.''
- theage.com.au

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/thousands-march-against-ir-reforms/2005/06/30/1119724733386.html

 

[spin spin sugar]

wow - thats awesome it had such a big turn out. anyone know if theres anything like this planned for sydney?

 

[Generator]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...lace-power-carr/2005/06/29/1119724699903.html

WEEK OF ACTION

. Today Protest rallies in Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and other centres outside NSW. Students in Sydney will hold a "Brown Nose Day" protest.

.Tomorrow During a general stopwork, Unions NSW will hold a Sky Channel hook-up, addressing 200 meetings. Public, Catholic and independent school teachers will hold stopwork meetings.

A number of stop work meetings, it seems.

 

[White Rabbit]

Unions are protesting all over Sydney tomorrow, I think the main one is at Homebush, but I could be mistaken.

Although, many Unions could be doing what the NSWNA is doing, and allowing nurses to represent the Union, but there's no major disruption to the service. Any section within the Union (Hospitals, aged care facilities ect) that choose to take stronger action will still have their area covered and patient care will no be compromised. The transport Union is doing the same, they'll have reps but state transit will run as per normal (3/4 of the workforce could go on strike and I doubt regular commuters will notice much difference mind you). I'm not sure about the Teachers Federation, or the Police (but I'd imagine they'd be the same as us) and Ambos come under the Health Sector Union anyway, so they'd probably be the same as NSW Nurses as thats what we're under as well. So realisically, there's going to be a big protest with little interference.

 

[angelduck]

can someone plz explain the whole "no more penatly pay" thing? Like - i work at the footy, mostly sundays, and get dounble time (= $26 hr to cup chips! Go me!!) does this mean that i now will only recieve $13 per hour on sundays, saturdays etc. So good-bye to double time??

 

[withoutaface]

Unions are protesting all over Sydney tomorrow, I think the main one is at Homebush, but I could be mistaken.

Although, many Unions could be doing what the NSWNA is doing, and allowing nurses to represent the Union, but there's no major disruption to the service. Any section within the Union (Hospitals, aged care facilities ect) that choose to take stronger action will still have their area covered and patient care will no be compromised. The transport Union is doing the same, they'll have reps but state transit will run as per normal (3/4 of the workforce could go on strike and I doubt regular commuters will notice much difference mind you). I'm not sure about the Teachers Federation, or the Police (but I'd imagine they'd be the same as us) and Ambos come under the Health Sector Union anyway, so they'd probably be the same as NSW Nurses as thats what we're under as well. So realisically, there's going to be a big protest with little interference.

How are so many nurses able to go on strike without disruption to patients while at the same time everyone's complaining about critical staff shortages in the hospitals?

 

[White Rabbit]

As I said, there isn't a large number of nurses striking - simply reps of each branch.

http://www.nswnurses.asn.au/news_me...mpaign_05_PR2_-_Sky_Channel_clarification.pdf

Should clear up any misunderstandings.

 

[pete_mate]

wtf, dont nurses already get paid heaps cos theyre in such high demand?

this is the exact reason why liberal is doing these reforms. because in the future bargaining power will be shifted towards employees with our labour shortage

 

[White Rabbit]

wtf, dont nurses already get paid heaps cos theyre in such high demand?

this is the exact reason why liberal is doing these reforms. because in the future bargaining power will be shifted towards employees with our labour shortage

You're kidding me right?

If you seriously think Nurses get paid heaps then you're pretty stupid. The reason for the shortage is the shit conditions and shitter pay we get for the work we do... $38,000 pa is rather crap pay for a Uni Graduate.

http://www.industrialrelations.nsw....ontentlist=false&clause_plus=r&award_code=759

For State Hospitals - those in the private system earn less, as do nurses in aged care facilities.

 

[withoutaface]

You get paid low at the moment, there is a high demand and a low amount of graduates, it would seem to me that this puts you in a position to negotiate a higher contract for yourself because of this.

 

[White Rabbit]

You get paid low at the moment, there is a high demand and a low amount of graduates, it would seem to me that this puts you in a position to negotiate a higher contract for yourself because of this.

They've been trying that for years, it doesn't happen over night you know. Also, what you learn about supply and demand and what not from economics class does not always work that simply in real life. Hospitals do not have enough funding to put on more nurses, while it's agreed theres a massive shortage nobody wants to do anything about it.

And the Howard Reforms, any position we were in to bargin will be thrown out the window as the NSW Nurses Ass. looses power, and AWAs are introduced - and forget about aged care - an area with an alarminly high shortage of trained nurses - as they generally fall under '100 employees of less', the few rights they have for their small pay will be washed away!

We've just had a pay rise, a rather substantial one too, although it took years to finalise (and only was agreed to after proposed industrial action) however such wins will be but a memory under these new IR Reforms.



Asquithian - True, very true! (although, I did vote labour)

 

[Comrade nathan]

The irony (as has been pointed out by various media people) is that a fair whack of those out protesting probably voted Liberal.

Ofcourse. The first statistics i heard, that nation wide there was 70 percent dissaprovement of the IR reforms.

They vote liberal due to a stupid opposition party.

 

[withoutaface]

What percentage of those have looked into the issue any further than what the ACTU ads have told them?

 

[Demandred]

During the 1950s, 60s and 70s, Australia (and other OECD economies) experienced one of the best economic period in its history. During this period, as cyclical unemployment hits nearly zero, workers became too powerful and militancy occured. This combined with the rising oil prices, fucked the up the economy for the next 10-15 years. As inflation rose due to a 300% increase in oil prices, higher wages demanded, employers was at no position to say no, this saw higher productions, this leads to higher prices which in turn raises inflation. This is self-reinforcing and led to a wave of restrictionist/quasi-supply side economics/regressive policies which basically stuffed up the world economy for the next 10 years.

Compare that to now and you should find some pretty obvious similiarities. Unemployent is near full employment and oil prices are shooting through the roof and placing inflationary pressures, the goverment isn't really going to take any chances at all to let history repeats itself. Plus John Howard is a pretty staunch supporter of free market rationalism. This is sad, but true face of capitalism, efficiency and production at all costs.

Oh yeah, I was talking to a co-worker about what was it like during the 70s, she said that a lot of the workers were bludgers, many exploited the system and took way too many days off work, there were simply no mechanisms to stop this.

 

[ohne]

I finished my politics exam today so I will now have time to post on some of these issues. A few observations:

1. The present situation dealing with the industrial relations commision and minimum wages is not appropriate. The ACTU makes some extraordinary high claim and the BCA makes a low claim. The commision then settles on somewhere between the two. We need a system that takes into account a variety of factors such as unemployment and inflation, the new system will hopefully do this.

2. We need a balance between individual and collective agreements. Collective agreements don't reflect the fact that some workers work harder than others and are more important to a company. This is clearly a problem with pay levels in universities and government departments.

3. In 1900 the states reflected genuine centres of business activity in this country, therefore it made sense to have separate industrial relations systems in each state. Today many businesses work across all states and territories, having one system will therefore attract more investment to the country.

4. Unfair dismissal is a difficult issue. Many small businesses can not afford unfair dismissal and one dispute could send them broke. I don't think this applies to companies with close to 100 employees though. The government has previously introduced legislation for a 20-25 limit, I think this is more appropriate. Although I suppose making it easier to hire and fire workers is good for the economy overall and will probably put downward pressure on long term unemployment if there is more churning.

 

[ohne]

Power and democracy in Australia with Rolfe?

huh?

Yeah.

Why is that not appropriate? Everyone knows that the unions statement of claim always goes for more than it can get. That has been the tradition.

The present situation is primarily a contest between the ACTU and BCA. These two groups are not the only two affected by wage changes in the community. We need a body that can represent the whole community in some way.

The new 'fair pay board' or whatever it is going to be called will probably be loaded with employers.

It will be a mix of employers, unions and IR acedemics/experts. This can be manipulated, however, an ALP government in the future could load it with union hacks. We need a balance, anything would be better than judges deciding though.

As always there is a balance. I think Collective agreements would be more useful in areas were employment is not competitive and the employees cannot generally be differentiated from eachother.

Individual agreements only work for skilled labor where you can differentiate easily between the worth of a person to the company.

I agree. Although individual agreements can be useful in some manual and unskilled jobs if increased pay can be linked to improved individual productivity. Many workers in these areas still need union protection though (although many are on the minimum wage anyway).

 

[ohne]

Why are you doing a level 1 politics course!?

It is a spare 6UOC I had this session. It is probably the only POLS course I will be studying at uni unfortunantly.

 

[Sarah]

It is a spare 6UOC I had this session. It is probably the only POLS course I will be studying at uni unfortunantly.

Hey Ohne, what are u studying?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I did power & democracy with rolfe today too

what a trek that walk was to the bloody racecourse!

 

[Generator]

Some may find this interesting/of some help.

What do we want … and does it matter?
2 July 2005


A workforce revolution is on its way, as many new employees are about to find out. Nick O'Malley reports.

One of the most dramatic aspects of the Federal Government's proposed workplace changes has almost been disregarded during the past month of brawling between unions, employer groups, premiers and the Government.

Within five years almost one in five workers could be signed on to an Australian workplace agreement, an individual contract that overrides any and all of the thousands of state and federal awards.

These workers will have largely forgone union representation in bargaining for pay and conditions, giving up most of the minimum awards set by the Industrial Relations Commission. They will be left with just five basic rights guaranteed and enshrined in law: minimum pay, three leave conditions and ordinary working hours.

For many workers, having these contracts slid across a table at them by a new employer on the first day at work will be their wake-up call that Australia's industrial relations landscape has truly changed.

The Government started pushing workplace agreements in its first reforms after it was elected in 1996. They proved thuddingly unpopular, and today only 2.5 per cent of workers are signed to them.

Dr Chris Briggs, a senior researcher at Sydney University's industrial relations research centre, says many employers found the agreements' administrative costs outweighed the benefits. "And many of them are small business so they were a bit too busy running their businesses to worry about it."

Even if employers went to the trouble of negotiating and certifying the agreements, a mandatory no-disadvantage test meant they had to meet set industry awards and conditions. But not any more.

The no-disadvantage test will be scrapped in favour of the five minimum standards, and the government office responsible for policing the awards, the Office of the Employment Advocate, has been charged with helping small business set them up.

Red tape over workplace agreements is to be swept away. Template awards that can be signed by staff and employers and sent off for fast approval by the advocate have been written. Even better, from the employers' point of view, though present staff cannot be forced onto workplace agreements, they may refuse to employ new staff who won't sign.

As 25 per cent of the workforce take on a new job each year, the growth of workplace agreements could be explosive. Industry groups such as the Pharmacy Guild and the Restaurant & Catering Association have declared they are working with the advocate to establish industry-standard workplace agreements. This is one of the points that has the unions barking mad.

While the Government says it wants to prevent industry-wide bargaining - known as pattern bargaining - by unions, it has established an office to help employers do it.

Workplace agreements cut unions, and the awards for which they have fought, out of the loop. And because large employers will not be able to negotiate individually with hundreds or even thousands of staff, workers will effectively be collective bargaining anyway, they just won't have the protection of the awards or the weight of the union behind them.

Unions complain that the deck is stacked against employees in other ways, too. For example, an employee may swap from a collective agreement or award onto a workplace agreement with a signature, but may swap back to a collective agreement only once their workplace agreement has expired.

Briggs says that when a similar system was adopted in New Zealand some supermarket workers heavily dependent on shift penalties lost up to 40 per cent of their income.

Briggs, who carried out the research predicting a 20 per cent uptake of the agreements in the medium term, is sceptical that workplace agreements are genuinely negotiated. He says all the available research shows workers are simply told to "take it or leave it".

That is what employees of the Department of Education, Science and Training, the department responsible for the system, say happened to them. "They said they were happy with all our work but if we wanted to have our existing contracts renewed we had to sign an AWA," a mid-ranking department officer says. "They had all the paperwork right there and then. And they made us sign off on a thing that said, 'We are happy enough to sign an AWA for our ongoing employment."' The department later backed down after staff took legal advice.

This was not the experience of Rayleen Ridgeway, an employment manager at the Mounties club in Mount Pritchard, who happily signed a workplace agreement more than two years ago. She spent four days studying the agreement and won the right to cash in sick leave and annual leave. For other concessions she was offered varied hours and paid maternity leave, which she has chosen not to take up. "I'd sign it again," she says.

This is the flexibility the Government believes will most benefit workers and employers. The Workplace Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews, and the Prime Minister, John Howard, argue the award system is complicated and atrophied, a relic of the industrial age that clogs today's more fluid workforce.

One industrial relations expert, Peter Rochfort, says the most dire predictions are unlikely to transpire. Yes, many guaranteed conditions will be stripped away, but employers will still have to pay well and provide good environments for good staff.

He says until the Government's legislation is revealed it is difficult to predict what the full effects will be.

"But some people, good workers, could find themselves better off," Rochfort says.


GLOSSARY


Australian workplace agreement - An individual written agreement between an employer and employee about the employee's terms and conditions. This contract, favoured by the Federal Government, overrides any state or federal award. Employment can be made conditional on signing a workplace agreement and under the proposed laws they can undercut existing awards.

Enterprise bargaining agreement or certified agreement - A registered agreement between a union, or a group of employees, and an employer regarding wages and conditions for the employees of a business or businesses.

Office of the Employment Advocate - This will approve, promote and police workplace agreements. The Government will transfer authority for certifying enterprise bargaining agreements to the office.

No-disadvantage test - Set up to ensure new workplace agreements did not undermine award conditions, the test will be scrapped and replaced with five minimum standards: annual leave, sick leave, other personal leave, parental leave and the maximum ordinary hours of work (now 38 hours a week).

Fair Pay Commission - Powers to set minimum award pay will be transferred from the Industrial Relations Commission to this new authority, to be appointed by the Government.

Unfair dismissal - Sackings that do not follow fair processes, break terms of contract or are harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Regulations to be abolished for businesses with fewer than 100 workers.

Unlawful dismissal - When an employer breaks the law in dismissing staff on grounds of sex (including pregnancy), race, colour, ethnic or religious background, descent or nationality, marital status, disability, age or sexuality. Not affected by the changes.

Unprotected/protected action - Employees or unions face stiff penalties for illegal strikes. Management must be notified before any strike takes place. The Government is expected to make it compulsory for unions to hold secret ballots before any action.

The upside - Rayleen Ridgeway hasn't looked back since her manager at the Mounties registered club in Mount Pritchard offered

her an Australian workplace agreement more than two years ago. "All my conditions improved and my pay went up substantially," says Ridgeway, the club's training and recruitment manager.

In four days of negotiations she settled for a package that increased her holidays, allowed her to cash in her unused annual and sick leave and granted her free meals.

When the agreement expired a few months ago she happily re-signed without altering the terms. "I had no reason to. They have my complete loyalty, 100 per cent," she says.

Though concerned the Government is planning to remove the no-disadvantage test that prevents the agreements from undercutting awards, Ridgeway is helping the management roll out agreements through the rest of the club's 400 staff.

The worst-case scenario - The ACTU presumes Cath, a supervisor in insurance, will lose the conditions that will no longer be guaranteed by the no-disadvantage test, costing her $5490 a year. She is covered by the Insurance Industry Award, works a 38-hour week plus three hours overtime, and at peak times works an extra day of overtime on Saturday.

Her base rate of pay as a supervisor under her award is $17.26 an hour, or $655.88 a week, she is paid time-and-a-half for the three hours' overtime she does every week, increasing her weekly wage to $733.62 The combination of overtime, six Saturdays a year and annual leave loading boost Cath's annual salary to $39,600.

But a workplace agreement could remove all penalty rates and other conditions except for her minimum hourly rate of pay, eight days' sick leave, four weeks' annual leave, unpaid parental leave and her 38-hour week. Cath's pay could be cut by $77.67 a week; she would lose overtime payments and holiday loading, cutting her salary to $34,110.

The New Zealand experience - For Garry Preston, a carpenter of 34 years, this is Groundhog Day. He was living and working in New Zealand in 1991 when the then government deregulated its labour market and workers drifted towards individual contracts similar to Australian workplace agreements. By 1995, having left one job and having signed a contract to take another, he had lost allowances for travel, tools and equipment. Worse, he lost the penalty rates he depended upon to prop up his income, he says.

When people enter contracts their basic pay might go up, but they inevitably lose their loadings, so their take-home pay falls, Preston says. In 1998 he resigned and moved his family from Dunedin to Sydney, where by working long hours with overtime loading he was able to double his income. "I think potentially the laws here are worse. In New Zealand it created a working poor; people worked longer hours to gain the same pay," he says.