The official IR reform thread! (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter townie
- Start date
taco man
don't know don't care
Heres how i see it, John Howard's selling out employees for the benefit of businesses so that he'll be able to buy a few votes next election bragging about how he improved the economy. I think his reforms are bloody disgraceful.
Backer's reversal on new IR laws
Day one in a brave new world divided
The first day in the rest of your working life
John Howard: Reform now or go backwards
Greg Combet: Blind Freddy can see laws will hurt working people
Kim Beazley: We need skilled, not cowed, workers
Peter Hendy: Historic changes will benefit employers and employees
Day one in a brave new world divided
The first day in the rest of your working life
John Howard: Reform now or go backwards
Greg Combet: Blind Freddy can see laws will hurt working people
Kim Beazley: We need skilled, not cowed, workers
Peter Hendy: Historic changes will benefit employers and employees
bustinjustin
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 371
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
Today should be a national day of mourning.
Shame...
Shame...
withoutaface
Premium Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 15,098
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Indeed. Yet another missed opportunity on the part of a Liberal government.bustinjustin said:
leetom
there's too many of them!
Yeah, I'd be bummed. Here it is, a rare oppurtunity to design and implement policy modelled almost entirely on your party's guiding ideology only to end up with a half-baked, confusing mess. What do you think of the criticisms that the new laws concentrate too much power in the hands of the federal government, to the extent that even leading employer advocates have decried it as soviet-style?withoutaface said:
Lateline: Debate continues as IR laws take effect
Lateline: Andrews denies IR changes too complex
PM: Australian workplaces implement new IR laws
Some workers sacked following introduction of new IR laws
ACTU targets Melbourne business firm for sackings
Govt stands by IR laws
Andrews rebuts IR laws-sackings link
Lateline: Andrews denies IR changes too complex
PM: Australian workplaces implement new IR laws
Some workers sacked following introduction of new IR laws
ACTU targets Melbourne business firm for sackings
Govt stands by IR laws
Andrews rebuts IR laws-sackings link
Last edited:
Minister says workplace laws may need refining
Finally, the Aus speaks!
Boss embraces freedom to sack
Finally, the Aus speaks!
Boss embraces freedom to sack
In my opinion, the safety net of 4 conditions should be extended to 10. Apart from the fact thats its a nice round number, it provides government with the added ability to keep the conditions simple but remotely protective..
The problem lies not in the concept of what has been implemented but rather in the accountabilty and enforcement mechanisms. I don't think that there is enough to ensure that employers abide by the binding requirements of the legislation such as loadings, minimum pay, conditions (which should be extended as I said to 10) and legitimate dismissal. The government should be providing a 'legal aid' based service, or mediation mechanism to ensure that the employer can legitimately justify any particular actions. Previously unfair dismissal has been too favourable to employee's, and now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, due to the weak accountability mechanisms. This will definitely prove their worth as a government, as to whether or not they can listen to the concerns and act accordingly...
On a side note though, as the ACC said, how can the unions prove that these dismissals are directly related to the laws, when sackings and the like are a regular occurrence each week...My employer sacked an employee two years ago because she 'did not fit in with the image of the store'. That was long before these changes were implemented; the fact is that there will always be a minority of employers who disregard parts of the system despite any conditions that may be placed upon them. Whether or not you can attribute them to the 'new system' is something for debate..
The problem lies not in the concept of what has been implemented but rather in the accountabilty and enforcement mechanisms. I don't think that there is enough to ensure that employers abide by the binding requirements of the legislation such as loadings, minimum pay, conditions (which should be extended as I said to 10) and legitimate dismissal. The government should be providing a 'legal aid' based service, or mediation mechanism to ensure that the employer can legitimately justify any particular actions. Previously unfair dismissal has been too favourable to employee's, and now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, due to the weak accountability mechanisms. This will definitely prove their worth as a government, as to whether or not they can listen to the concerns and act accordingly...
On a side note though, as the ACC said, how can the unions prove that these dismissals are directly related to the laws, when sackings and the like are a regular occurrence each week...My employer sacked an employee two years ago because she 'did not fit in with the image of the store'. That was long before these changes were implemented; the fact is that there will always be a minority of employers who disregard parts of the system despite any conditions that may be placed upon them. Whether or not you can attribute them to the 'new system' is something for debate..
Last edited:
leetom
there's too many of them!
Regardless of how many sackings there are weekly, the new laws legitimise employer behaviour that was previously prohibited under the ancien legislation. As you said, employers routinely flaunted workplace laws in the past. I can only suppose that many of those sacked couldn't be bothered concerning themselves with the process of taking their employer to the AIRC or the State equivalent; and instead would just rather go and find another job.frog12986 said:
I was myself was sacked unfairly from a job some weeks ago and could well have had a case against my employer. I didn't bother because any superficial examination of the business would have revealed that the employees were being paid cash in hand, and I didn't want to endanger the income of my old colleagues. That, and there's plenty of work for young, able-bodied and exploitable people like me.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
I think what we have happening here now, is what we can expect after VSU. Whenever anyone... has any trouble at work now, they're blaming it on the new workplace legislation. After VSU, whenever anyone... has trouble at uni, they'll blame it on VSU.
It's just silliness.
Now first of all, he got dad to meet up with him and a guy from the union to talk about why he was sacked... dad did it and it all went ok, then after this guy complained that he wasn't paid his full redundancy (for lack of work it's meant to be 8 weeks)... so dad had to pay that, for the sheer fact that he didn't disclose the real reason for firing him because he was trying to be a decent guy.
Now the guy is suing for unfair dismissal, claiming that his sore back was the reason he got fired. Now, the interesting thing is... a) the doctors had cleared up his bad back, b) able bodied people were also fired, based on performance, and c) the guy that hurt his back at the same time did not get fired and is still employed.
Now alot of bullshit has to be gone through to deal with this guy, just because he's a jerk? And what punishment will he get for being such a jerk? None.
My dad really is a good employer as far as I can tell (I know i'm bias, but one of my school friends and a couple of other guys i know close work for him, and they seem happy). He gives them bbq breakfasts on mondays... and brings beer to them on fridays... he gives them all company cars, and often pays for their speeding fines/parking infringments... he gives out christmas bonuses, has annual christmas parties (out of his own pocket, full alcohol etc)...
But he has to get hastled out by some druggy dickhead, being led around by his mum, who has not had a job since, just because he wants to cry foul. It sux, and it's expensive. So yea, there are bad employers, but there are bad employees too - There will always be people out there, in it for themselves, screwing people over, and I think it's a mistake to see it as confined to employers.
It's just silliness.
Ok, now let me give you the flip side. My dad employed a guy who was kinda fucked up by being addicted to heavy drugs, he wasn't exactly the best worker, but he kept him employed. He was employed for somewhere up to 4 years (a fairly long time), now in this time... he first injured his knee and required 6 months off work, he got workers comp etc, when he came back - had his job of course... then later he also hurt his back (along with another employee). Now just before this time dad was planning on firing him, he wasn't a very good worker (the kpi charts had him doing very bad), the workers didn't get along with him, and it was a hard time (cuts needed to be made). However, he kept him on for a while, and when he hurt his back he told him to go get workers comp, now this lasted for a bit over a month, then after the doctors told him that he was ok to go back to work, 2 weeks later, he was fired due to lack of work (it wasn't just lack of work, it had more to do with how terrible a worker he was, but he put down lack of work so he could get another job easier).
Now first of all, he got dad to meet up with him and a guy from the union to talk about why he was sacked... dad did it and it all went ok, then after this guy complained that he wasn't paid his full redundancy (for lack of work it's meant to be 8 weeks)... so dad had to pay that, for the sheer fact that he didn't disclose the real reason for firing him because he was trying to be a decent guy.
Now the guy is suing for unfair dismissal, claiming that his sore back was the reason he got fired. Now, the interesting thing is... a) the doctors had cleared up his bad back, b) able bodied people were also fired, based on performance, and c) the guy that hurt his back at the same time did not get fired and is still employed.
Now alot of bullshit has to be gone through to deal with this guy, just because he's a jerk? And what punishment will he get for being such a jerk? None.
My dad really is a good employer as far as I can tell (I know i'm bias, but one of my school friends and a couple of other guys i know close work for him, and they seem happy). He gives them bbq breakfasts on mondays... and brings beer to them on fridays... he gives them all company cars, and often pays for their speeding fines/parking infringments... he gives out christmas bonuses, has annual christmas parties (out of his own pocket, full alcohol etc)...
But he has to get hastled out by some druggy dickhead, being led around by his mum, who has not had a job since, just because he wants to cry foul. It sux, and it's expensive. So yea, there are bad employers, but there are bad employees too - There will always be people out there, in it for themselves, screwing people over, and I think it's a mistake to see it as confined to employers.
Last edited:
withoutaface
Premium Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 15,098
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
I personally hope that the High Court challenge suceeds, because it's clear from notes that were made when the constitution was drafted that the corporations power was not intended to be used in this way. So near as I understand it the most centralisation occurs by the creation of one IRC, so if the act were amended to read that the IRC was being scrapped altogether then I'd be happy.leetom said:
Gangels
Member
Re: The official IR thread
I've only just realised the full power of this new legislation when i was talking to my grandma, and everything that the unions have worked for since the 1950's has been demolished and so has their power. I used to be Liberal but this has changed me, if Labour claim they will stop this legislation then i say bring on Labour. I'm so pissec that i wont get double time and if i get fired when im out of school what the fuck do i do then.
What do you guys think?
I've only just realised the full power of this new legislation when i was talking to my grandma, and everything that the unions have worked for since the 1950's has been demolished and so has their power. I used to be Liberal but this has changed me, if Labour claim they will stop this legislation then i say bring on Labour. I'm so pissec that i wont get double time and if i get fired when im out of school what the fuck do i do then.
What do you guys think?
Last edited by a moderator:
iamsickofyear12
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2004
- Messages
- 3,960
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Re: The official IR thread
People are acting like all employers are going to stick everyone on the lowest possible wage and get rid of all benefits that they aren't forced to give. There has always been a minimum standard, and plenty of people have always been paid above it, this will continue to be the case.
And they aren't going to all of a sudden fire everyone just because they can. People are just going to have to actually work and not hide behind bullshit unfair dismissal laws.
People are acting like all employers are going to stick everyone on the lowest possible wage and get rid of all benefits that they aren't forced to give. There has always been a minimum standard, and plenty of people have always been paid above it, this will continue to be the case.
And they aren't going to all of a sudden fire everyone just because they can. People are just going to have to actually work and not hide behind bullshit unfair dismissal laws.
Last edited by a moderator:
withoutaface
Premium Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 15,098
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Re: The official IR thread
Just do your job well and don't sleep with the bosses wife and you'll be fine in 99% of cases. Unions should still exist, but they should exist as a freemarket entity with no special legal rights, and perhaps we could also have competing unions. Employees should then choose if they want to negotiate their own flexible contract, or one that one of the unions has negotiated for people in their position.Gangels said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: The official IR thread
2. I don't mind the odd swear word, but I will not tolerate titles that include profanities.
3. It's Labor, not Labour.
1. Use the search function (or just open your eyes and look).Gangels said:
2. I don't mind the odd swear word, but I will not tolerate titles that include profanities.
3. It's Labor, not Labour.
Last edited:
loquasagacious
NCAP Mooderator
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,636
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
Re: The official IR thread
I suggest searching (or opening eyes) there is an exhaustive thread on this topic.
I also suggest engaging your brain before opening your mouth (or ranting in NCAP), you are not going to magically loose double-time, annual leave, sick-leave, etc etc. It is a market if people are willing to work without some benefits then why shouldn't they??
More likely we will see a system of bartering enter the equation much like the AWA I was employed under when i worked on a mushroom farm - I did not recieve overtime, sunday or public holiday penalty rates etc... however in return for this the hourly rate was a significant ammount higher.
The benefit to this from the employers perspective being it simplifies book-keeping because on the one hand there is less to deal with in the pay office and on the other costs do not fluctuate - afterall mushrooms picked on sunday arn't worth anymore than those from saturday.
And as a recap, humans are rational creatures we choose the best possible option given our circumstances thus if someone chooses to work for $5 an hour this is not exploitation but an expression of the value that individual places on their labour. And realistically speaking as rational creatures we will not sell our labour below cost value.
In fact economically speaking in perfect competition we would all make a normal profit, that is the ammount that covers exactly both our implicit and explicit costs. eg we would make an accounting profit suficient to cover our oppurtunity cost.
I suggest searching (or opening eyes) there is an exhaustive thread on this topic.
I also suggest engaging your brain before opening your mouth (or ranting in NCAP), you are not going to magically loose double-time, annual leave, sick-leave, etc etc. It is a market if people are willing to work without some benefits then why shouldn't they??
More likely we will see a system of bartering enter the equation much like the AWA I was employed under when i worked on a mushroom farm - I did not recieve overtime, sunday or public holiday penalty rates etc... however in return for this the hourly rate was a significant ammount higher.
The benefit to this from the employers perspective being it simplifies book-keeping because on the one hand there is less to deal with in the pay office and on the other costs do not fluctuate - afterall mushrooms picked on sunday arn't worth anymore than those from saturday.
And as a recap, humans are rational creatures we choose the best possible option given our circumstances thus if someone chooses to work for $5 an hour this is not exploitation but an expression of the value that individual places on their labour. And realistically speaking as rational creatures we will not sell our labour below cost value.
In fact economically speaking in perfect competition we would all make a normal profit, that is the ammount that covers exactly both our implicit and explicit costs. eg we would make an accounting profit suficient to cover our oppurtunity cost.