The official IR reform thread! (2 Viewers)

[ohne]

Hey Ohne, what are u studying?

I'm doing town planning in FBE.

 

[paper cup]

Some may find this interesting/of some help.

I saw that, and it was cut pasted and went in my legal studies folder in an amazingly short time.

 

[Generator]

Andrews signals no compromise on IR
July 3, 2005 - 10:57AM


The Workplace Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews, has indicated there will be no compromise on the Federal Government's industrial reforms.

The Government is preparing to overhaul the nation's industrial relations system now that it has a one-seat majority in the Senate.

Changes will include exempting businesses with 100 employees or fewer from unfair dismissal laws, and creating a single national industrial relations system.

Asked if there was any scope for compromise in the package, Mr Andrews said the Government had already consulted extensively on the changes.

"I spent a good six months consulting widely about this package, including the ACTU and some unions," he told the Ten Network.

"The ACTU, for example, said that they wanted to retain federal awards which we've done, they said they wanted to retain the classification structure, which we've done.

"It is a carefully balanced package. It's one in which we've announced the central tenets of and we believe that doing things like streamlining agreement-making is very important in the future."

The minister denied that the package was radical and he accused unions of running a dishonest campaign against it.

"The unions are running a misleading and deceptive campaign," he said.

"I think it's more about politics than it is about the welfare of workers in Australia."

Mr Andrews said the Government hoped to introduce the changes in September or October and confirmed the package would be supported by a government advertising campaign.

"People will judge this package not on what the union rhetoric is at the present time, they'll judge this package in terms of what is the impact on me as an individual, what's the impact on my family," he said.

"When we introduce the legislation we'll obviously make the facts and the details known to Australians."

Media reports of a $20 million price tag for the advertising campaign were speculation, Mr Andrews said.

The minister defended the planned changes to unfair dismissal laws, saying the offence of unlawful dismissal would be maintained for all businesses.

"That is if somebody is dismissed on discriminatory grounds because of their family responsibilities or they're pregnant or their union membership or their political views or the colour of their skin etcetera, that is unlawful and will remain unlawful in the future," he said.

West Australian Liberal leader Matt Birney has expressed support for maintaining state industrial relations systems, but Mr Andrews said: "The reality is that business wants these changes".

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...ompromise-on-ir/2005/07/03/1120329313269.html

I wonder what the reality is for all in general? I guess that we will only find out in time, probably at the next election if the movement against the reforms (be it against the reforms as they stand or against the idea of reform in its entirety) fails to have an impact in the immediate future.

 

[Generator]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15827923%5E1702,00.html

Andrews responds to the results of the two polls.

 

[spin spin sugar]

yeah, and i dread the campaign in response to ACTU's. the australian public is so impressed by anything claimed to be done in 'economic interests' they will get over this in 5 seconds. the problem with this issue is that very few people actually understand it's real implications... so they are easily led. i am going to assume this will be the peak of labour's approval throughout the campaign, given that the ads have JUST been launched, 'first off the block', while the liberals have not yet launched theirs.

 

[spin spin sugar]

I think they will emphasise the fact that under john howard, real wages have increased and unemployment is at an all time low. nevermind the fact that this occured under a completely different industrial relations system!!

 

[withoutaface]

I think they'll start emphasising that individual contracts reward those who work hard, and give you more room to negotiate.

 

[ohne]

I think he is right (Andrews)...People will forget about it. the articles are also right in saying that Labor didnt score any of the points. Rather the ACTU scored points. The Labor party was busy in fighting.

Where the hell is BigKim? Get out there and say something. Prove that Labor stands for something. This is the first big issue that Labor can differentiate itself from Liberals.

Sharon from the ACTU has made a larger impact than big Kim.

True, although while this does prove there is a difference between the ALP and the government, it really just makes the ALP look more reactionary. I think Mark Latham's description of Beazley as a conservative stand for nothing leader will haunt him for some time.

 

[leetom]

On IR reforms

IMO the proposed IR reforms must occur in order to properly punish the electorate for abandoning Labor so completely in 2004. I am very unforgiving, I am a strong advocate of party loyalty, whoever the leader of the party may be. The nationwide abandonment of the Labor Party deserves swift retribution- however poorly run the Labor campaign was in 2004.

Of course, any worker who maintained party loyalty and who is hit with negative consequences as a result of the introduction of Howard's reforms- my heart goes out to them. I do believe though that this particular type of worker is small in number.

It is only through the complete and utter destruction of unionism will the working classes learn to truly value unionism. The generation that fought for unionism and those socialistic elements of Australian society that have existed up until today, those same socialistic elements which provide the benefits which so many workers take for granted, without any regard for the battles fought to attain them, have retired from the workforce. They have been replaced by young, individualist little upstarts who think holiday and overtime loading are commonplace. They think they can have the best of both worlds, taking for granted those socialistic elements that Labor and the unions helped establish while voting Liberal out of an unlearned concern for the economy, interest rates and threat to personal wealth.

Well how is this for threat to personal wealth?! Now we will see how readily you flock to the Liberal standard when holiday and overtime loading are determined on the whim of your employer, rather than being set at a state standard.

Only once unionism is gone, will the negligent workers learn to value it for what it truly is. Then we will see who comes crawling back in 2007!

So I urge you, Prime Minister Howard, charge onwards with your ideological indulgences! Show the Australian worker the true face of Liberal Party ideology! Show them what it means to be flexible in the workplace!

Conclude.

Asquithain, what the fuck is Labor doing? Why can I not clearly see Labor aligned with the unions? The grandest moment yet in Howard's reign, and we fail yet again to take a clear, publicly visible stance.

 

[Generator]

The Government's publicity campaign is to be brought forward rather than accompany the legislation, it seems.

Govt to counter union IR campaign with advertising blitz
PM - Tuesday, 5 July , 2005 18:10:00
Reporter: Alexandra Kirk


PETER CAVE: The Federal Government has responded swiftly to the growing community concern over its looming shake-up of industrial laws by bringing forward plans for its own multi-million dollar advertising blitz.

Two opinion polls out today suggest the Government's agenda is not as popular as the Coalition had been hoping.

In one poll, a clear majority of voters opposed the changes, and in both polls, Mr Howard's personal standing has fallen significantly.

The Government says the ACTU's scare campaign is to blame, and it's keen to neutralise the public's reservations as soon as is possible.

Alexandra Kirk reports from Canberra.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: After a week of union protests around the country against the Government's industrial blueprint, one poll has found 60 per cent of people aware of the reform package are opposed to it, including many Coalition voters.

Just 21 per cent support the changes.

The Workplace Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews, is brushing off the backlash, saying polls come and go.

KEVIN ANDREWS: We are not concerned about a poll from time to time. We are concerned about ensuring the economic future of Australia, so that Australians and their families can have the living standards that they want.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: Labor leader Kim Beazley says he's not a commentator on the polls, but;

KIM BEAZLEY: The Australian people are now saying one thing very clearly to John Howard and his Government, and it's this: back off, and back off now. We did not elect you to undermine our standards and to take away our rights.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: As the Government labels the ACTU campaign "very negative and misleading", the peak union body has opened up another line of attack, warning the new laws may allow employers to cut workers' annual holiday entitlements from four weeks a year down to two.

The Minister acknowledges that under the changes some workers could have as little as two weeks' annual leave.

KEVIN ANDREWS: The minimum statutory requirement in terms of annual leave will be four weeks leave. That will be in the legislation and that won't be able to be changed unless an employee, him or herself, requests some flexibility in relation to that.

But I've had people saying to me, well I work in a two week on, two week off job. I don't want to take the four weeks annual leave that everybody else gets, because effectively I'm getting leave every couple of weeks. I want some flexibility in that.

The ACTU are party to agreements in the Industrial Relations Commission where, as a matter of principle, there is some trading off of annual leave. The employer cannot trade off below the four weeks if the employee doesn't wish to do so. If the employee doesn't ask for this and doesn't request it, then that's too bad for the employer.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: ACTU Secretary Greg Combet says currently no one can cash out the entitlement to four weeks' leave. He says workers can only cash out accumulated leave above that.

GREG COMBET: We all know, and blind Freddy could tell you this, that when an employee is in a weak bargaining position, it's not going to be the employee asking for that to happen, it'll be an employer coming along and saying here's your individual contract, your AWA, by the way it's only got two weeks' annual leave in it and we've included the other couple of weeks in your hourly rate of pay.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: Kevin Andrews says that will be illegal, that employers won't be able to do that.

GREG COMBET: Oh well I'd love to see how that's going to be prohibited because this sort of tactic from employers is an experience we've had in relation to penalty rates and other things historically, when these individual contracts are used and there's no protection for employees.

You know, the whole process with individual agreements, these AWAs, individual contracts, is a farce.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: Kim Beazley's echoed the union concern.

KIM BEAZLEY: Four weeks' annual leave is what makes work and family sustainable. Reduce this to two weeks, the American levels, and you will materially affect family life in this country.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: The Minister Kevin Andrews is urging people to ignore the union movement's campaign.

KEVIN ANDREWS: At the moment you've got a campaign out there which is untruthful, which is not telling Australians what the situation is.

I can understand, in those circumstances, that some people might be concerned about what this really means for them. But as I say, what this means for them is about ensuring that we have a country that will continue to provide jobs for Australians, both now and for their children in the future.

REPORTER: So will you be bringing the advertising campaign forward?

KEVIN ANDREWS: Oh look, we will make decisions about that in due course.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: Liberal Senator Gary Humphries, an avid supporter of industrial reform, acknowledges the Coalition faces a significant challenge to bring the community along with it.

GARY HUMPHRIES: No government in a Western democracy wants to be overriding the fears and concerns of its citizens. But we need to act and we need to persuade the electorate that these changes are absolutely necessary to make Australia a dynamic and effective industrial democracy.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: Senator Humphries says the Government should bring forward its planned advertising campaign, which the Minister has foreshadowed once the legislation is made public in September or October.

GARY HUMPHRIES: What we're seeing is a sustained campaign of misrepresentation and deception on the part of the opponents of reform. They have a vested interest at stake and they're doing their best to try and elevate that interest to the point of fear and loathing in the community generally.

But that's why the Government needs to move swiftly to counter that, and to indicate why these changes are necessary and will produce, in the longer term, opportunities, economic growth and jobs.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: PM now understands the Government's advertising blitz is set to begin shortly, well before the legislation is released.

PETER CAVE: Alexandra Kirk reporting from Canberra.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1407519.htm

 

[Generator]

An interesting day of news. I'll just provide the links from the SMH for now, though I'm sure that the Australian, the Age, the Courier mail, etc. and ABC wireless programmes will have something else to add.

Sell your vision, bosses tell PM
emocrats offer carrot on industrial relations
Employees short-changed by justification

And two opinion pieces.

United they'll stand and let chance go by (Focused on the unions rather than the IR reforms)
Employers must push their case for workplace relations changes

Personally, I'm not entirely sure what to say when it comes to the issue of a single system. In my opinion, a single federal system alone makes sense and is possible, but only when it is created with the blessing of the states or the population at large, and at the moment that's only going to happen if each state's model becomes the national framework for IR (or so it seems, anyway) or if a referendum to amend the constitution is held (according to a piece posted on the SMH's web diary, created by a member of ALP). The current proposal, to 'abuse' the constitution to force through a single system at the federal level in place of the current two-levels that exist, seems to open up quite a few avenues of concern regarding the issues of States' rights and federalism in general, issues that go beyond that of IR.

Oh well, I'm tired and not making much sense, so I'll let this go for now.


Edit:

Holidays at risk: ACTU
Vacation? I'll take the money

 

[Generator]

Andrews blasts 'lies' over holiday threat

The performance-based minimum wage was covered by the ABC this morning, but the AM site has not yet been updated. Then again, I should have just looked at the ABC's regular news site for a version of the report. Here's the link - http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1407807.htm

Edit:
Howard backs beleaguered Workplace Minister
IR minister's department to walk out

No economic case for IR changes: ACTU

I know that you are all quite capable of looking through each paper (and any other information source listed) at your own leisure, but I like the thought of this thread being BOS' own IR repository.

 

[withoutaface]

Why on Earth would anyone have a problem with the holiday thing? It's giving the employees choice!

 

[Generator]

Why on Earth would anyone have a problem with the holiday thing? It's giving the employees choice!

With the legislation still being prepared, one may consider the idea of your holidays being shortened by force rather than choice to be a more than valid fear given the employer friendly nature of both the reforms and the current government. At the moment, though, it's nothing more than a presumed fear based on a probable piece of legislation. Storm in a teacup, possibly.

 

[Generator]

Woo another update (I gave up, even though I'm still reading about it each day). Thanks for the link, because I normally skip the business section of the Herald.

 

[Generator]

Given that the thread was bumped, here's another update.

Phillip Aspinall elected as new Anglican Primate

And this morning the Prime Minister defended the Government's industrial relations changes, in light of the criticism from Dr Aspinall. Mr Howard says he'll detail the intellectual and economic cases for his workplace shake-up in a speech tonight to the Sydney Institute.

The next few days should be interesting.

 

[Sarah]

...its a good article. In particular if you are against the workplace reforms.

That's not surprising coming from Gittins.

The govt doesn't seem to be doing a very strong job in highlighting the benefits of proposed reforms

 

[Generator]

I should be sleeping.

Howard pledges to unleash prosperity
By David Humphries
July 12, 2005


The industrial relations changes the Federal Government was pursuing would give jobs to the nation's unemployed and boost the productivity of the economy, the Prime Minister, John Howard, said last night.

In a speech to the Sydney Institute defending the controversial changes, Mr Howard set out a detailed "intellectual and economic case" that he said was imperative to "unleash a new burst of productivity growth to secure our future prosperity".

He also praised a new breed of worker that was increasingly embracing the "independence and flexibility of working for themselves". He said: "There is no more important economic development in Australia in the last two decades than the rise of the enterprise worker.

"They recognise the economic logic and fairness of workplaces where inititiative, performance and reward are linked together."

Mr Howard said critics of his changes seemed "intent on giving hyperbole a bad name". His responsibility differed from union leaders' because he had "to take account not just of the interests of the labour market insiders but those of the outsiders as well".

He said no regulation would protect jobs and high wages in a weak economy, and "standing still is always riskier for Australia than going the extra mile on economic reform".

Asked after the speech if he was concerned about the apparent success of the union campaign against the changes, he said: "When you propose a significant reform, the negative arguments always win the first round."

Dismissing polls showing widespread community opposition to the changes, Mr Howard pointed to the New Zealand experience, where 85 per cent of people opposed labour market changes before they were introduced. Eighteen months later 73 per cent of employees were either satisfied or very satisfied with their working conditions and terms of employment, he said.

"To trust employers and employees in the workplace is to trust the Australian people," he said, and also suggested a future Labor Government would leave the changes in place.

The Treasurer, Peter Costello, tried to counter the criticism of the new Anglican Primate, who suggested he might join union picket lines to defend "the weakest and most vulnerable in our community".

He questioned Archbishop Phillip Aspinall's qualifications to comment on industrial relations issues. "Just because he has a theological degree doesn't mean he is an IR expert," he said.

Archbishop Aspinall, who has a science degree, a PhD in education and a master's in business administration, said the repeal of the unfair-dismissal law for companies with 100 or fewer employees was among the issues of concern. But Mr Howard said the law failed its intention and "stopped jobs being created".

Labor and the unions plan to continue their campaign against the legislation. The Australian Council of Trade Unions will shift its emphasis to marginal federal seats, and federal Labor MPs plan a direct mail campaign. State and territory governments - all Labor - will host the "Fair Goes or Anything Goes?" conference in Sydney tomorrow.

with Nick O'Malley, AAP

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...eash-prosperity/2005/07/11/1120934188934.html

PM's new breed of workers
Brad Norington
July 12, 2005


JOHN Howard has identified a new class of "enterprise workers" willing to put Australia's long-term economic needs before their own, and foreshadowed even more workplace reforms.

The Prime Minister said last night that a large number of these enterprise workers understood businesses needed to be successful for their jobs to be safe.

Brushing aside opposition to his workplace agenda, Mr Howard spoke confidently about a "new breed" of Australians united by "an attitude of mind".

"They recognise the economic logic and fairness of workplaces where initiative, performance and reward are linked together," he said in an address to the Sydney Institute.

"They understand the need for firms to strive for better ways of doing things, that each workplace has to meet the competitive challenges in its own way."

Mr Howard's belief that he can bring many workers with him in his Government's industrial relations reforms is the strongest indication yet that he has no intention of making concessions or retreating in the face of opinion polls showing 60per cent of voters reject his plans.

In a chilling message to union and church opponents who claim workers would be worse off, Mr Howard signalled more changes lay ahead -- even before the release of detail and relevant legislation for the current round of change -- because Australia's performance was still "a long way shy" of the world's most productive economies.

Singling out the need to counter the rise of China and India as great economic powers, the Prime Minister endorsed continuous change, saying laws and institutions needed to be "regularly assessed".

Mr Howard said perseverance with workplace reform was essential in a global economy that increasingly valued specialisation and flexibility, if Australia was to narrow the productivity gap.

"A common error -- one that my opponent Mr Beazley always makes -- is to regard workplace reform as a one-off," he said.

"Have a few meetings of 'the industrial relations club'. Remove a few 1950s work practices, and the job is done.

"He could not be more wrong. The job is never done."

According to Mr Howard, Australia was on the cusp of a great demographic transition with the retirement of the baby boomers. "This will require evolutionary change where laws and institutions are regularly assessed against the needs of the workplace."

While Mr Howard's present reforms would not abolish awards or the Industrial Relations Commission, a further round could see them scrapped and more curbs placed on unions as interfering "third parties".

Mr Howard said the rise of the "enterprise worker" was Australia's most important economic development over the past two decades.

"These Australians do not fit neatly into categories based on age or geography, occupation or industry, income level or formal qualification.

"They are white-collar and blue-collar. They work each day in our factories, our small businesses, our great service companies, our farms and our mines."

Mr Howard said enterprise workers included "knowledge workers", who made up about 40 per cent of the labour force, and almost 2million Australians working for themselves as independent contractors, franchisees or consultants.

Labor industrial relations spokesman Stephen Smith last night slammed Mr Howard's speech for lacking any coherent economic rationale for how the Government's "extreme, unfair and divisive changes" would increase employment or increase productivity. He also criticised Mr Howard for complacency on skills, infrastructure, research and export performance.

The Prime Minister said that enterprise workers grasped that high wages and good conditions in today's economy were bound up with the productivity and success of their workplace.

"Those of us who have long made the case for freeing up the Australian labour market always felt that the most important change would be a cultural one."

Mr Howard effectively confirmed that his plan to exempt businesses with up to 100 employees from unfair dismissal claims - covering up to 99 per cent of firms - meant the demise of the regime.

"We will end the Keating government's failed experiment with job-destroying unfair dismissal laws," he said.

Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews last night supported the move by West Australian Newspapers, publisher of The West Australian, to force journalists it is hiring to cash out two weeks of annual leave.

He said it was his understanding that the journalists would still have the statutory minimum of four weeks' leave after they cashed out two weeks. "I've only read the report and I can say as a matter of principle that four weeks will be the standard and any cashing out will be entirely at the request of the employee."

Additional reporting: Richard Gluyas

Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15900511%5E601,00.html

It is as though Howard believes that if all is 'well' (economically) in the workplace, then society is just fine. Given his ideological stance, that's to be expected, though. It's also good to see that there was a suggestion that further reforms favouring business interests (rather than those seeking to create a workable balance between the stakeholders) may well be in order down the track.

'Been working most my life
without rights in a business paradise'
As you can see, I'm ever so creative.


I'm assuming that an edited version of the speech will appear in a paper in a day or two. If I don't quote the piece, then I'm sure that someone else will.

 

[Buggdogg]

Sleep is for the weak.

The changes all come down to ideology. Howard, like all right-wingers remove the idea of people as people and talk of and treat them in terms of production, commoditites and units.
And the point is if Howard is trumping up how low unemployment is and how economically prosperous we are, then why make the changes at all. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Of course while Howard can say he has over seen pay increases to higher before he neglects to mention the govt fought tooth and nail every time against any wage rise. He also counts employed people as those who work one hour a week. When you do that figures start to look pretty good.

When you remove job security and deregulate everything in the name of a buck people get pissed off. And if the people turn against the govt for this, then in all likely hood labor will have to clean up the mess and then be blamed for the problems of it.

 

[Generator]

AM - States gather to debate IR changes
The World Today - States want Govt consultation on IR changes
SMH - IR reforms 'won't create jobs'

From the 'States want Govt consultation on IR changes' link.

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: The Labor State and Territory governments say they were forced to host a industrial relations forum in Sydney today because they can't get any information about the proposed changes from the Federal Government.

The New South Wales Minister for Industrial Relations, John Della Bosca, opened the forum at the plush Wentworth Hotel in inner Sydney.

JOHN DELLA BOSCA: We have not been able to have this discussion with the Commonwealth Minister and the Prime Minister, who for some months now have been declining various opportunities that Michael and myself and our colleagues have proposed for a discussion about some of these radical changes.

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: Mr Della Bosca says a meeting of State and Territory Industrial Relations ministers has been cancelled three times

JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I can recall even Minister Reith, who was not known for being terribly conciliatory always had regular meetings, and detailed briefings of the workplace minister's council.

And that, even conducted and continued through the regime of Minister Abbott, who was exactly, again, not known for pro-labour sentiment, and not necessarily known for being terribly relaxed about consultation.

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: A spokesman for the Federal Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews says the normal meeting has been cancelled because the industrial relations issue has been on the agenda at COAG and discussed by State and Territory leaders. He says formal discussions haven't taken place because the legislation is still being drafted.

But Mr Della Bosca isn't happy with that.

JOHN DELLA BOSCA: To demonstrate, I think the power drunk nature of the stance that the Commonwealth Government is taking – the Shadow Ministers, the Shadow Minister in Michael's State, the Shadow Minister in my state, the Shadow Minister in Western Australia, and I think in Queensland, have all been briefed in detail… well, allegedly briefed in detail by the Commonwealth Minister. So far none of us have seen a piece of paper.

Edit: Reforms to 'cut women's pay'.