Industrial relations worker legislation (end of an era) your thoughts

KEV EB XR8 · 11-10-2005, 07:37 AM

albeit i am not affected directly by the legislation that their trying to bring in but non union for all , enterprise bargaining , . i dont pretent to know all of what they are putting in place for the worker but it dosent sound promising , anybody here shed some light on this subject .

bindi · 11-10-2005, 08:00 AM

People on here are very pro liberal mate, so you will find that alot will agree with it because little Johnny says it's good for us so it must be. I, on the other hand, am pro nobody in particular and hate the lot of them equally lol. :P

It's a bit of a farce really. I don't think he and the gov't really understand how us workers live... I mean, if you and your boss come to an arrangement (in nearly all cases the business/boss will tell you what the agreement is), and if you say "No I don't agree, I'm not going to sign it" then you will no longer have a job, because then there is always someone else WHO WILL sign it. Business knows this. So they can bend you over backwards and apply the vaseline.

RED_EL_XR8 · 11-10-2005, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bindi

People on here are very pro liberal mate.

No! people on here are very pro common sense! We don't have party political debate on AFF see T&C. That said there are lots of small business people here who have worked very hard to get to where they are and are looking forward to an end of some laws that allow employees to jeopardise their business.

Check the facts not the daily telegraph propaganda with some minor exceptions its win-win.
IE: why shouldn't wage and salary earners not be able to turn some of their annual leave into cash those without 6 kids and having a monster mortgage will appreciate the options.

bindi · 11-10-2005, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

No! people on here are very pro common sense! We don't have party political debate on AFF see T&C. That said there are lots of small business people here who have worked very hard to get to where they are and are looking forward to an end of some laws that allow employees to jeopardise their business.

Check the facts not the daily telegraph propaganda with some minor exceptions its win-win.
IE: why shouldn't wage and salary earners not be able to turn some of their annual leave into cash those without 6 kids and having a monster mortgage will appreciate the options.

This is true... but the turning of annual leave into cash is not necessarily going to work like that. It could mean that someone who's single with no time constraints is willing to work 60hpw for $15,000 less than the parent of 6 kids with a mortgage, who needs extra time off and extra cash for the raising of children. As an employer, which one are you going to choose???

This is the thing - we can't guarantee anything anymore. It makes job security a thing of the past.

PS: who says I got my information from the daily telegraph? It was really from Today Tonight, because they are my heroes!

:

RED_EL_XR8 · 11-10-2005, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bindi

It could mean that someone who's single with no time constraints is willing to work 60hpw for $15,000 less than the parent of 6 kids with a mortgage, who needs extra time off and extra cash for the raising of children. As an employer, which one are you going to choose???

A struggling business owner will choose the most cost effective option. I've managed projects in the past that were estimated well under budget. Given the choice of Indian software labour at $7.50/hr and local costing me nearly $40/hr its not a hard decision to make. Although I did use a mix of both labour sources. It's commercial reality.

Your choice of concurrent mortgage and dependants is yours, it was not any employers. From your previous example why should the employer be forced to subsidise your lifestyle? Why should the single worker who is prepared to work odd hours etc not achieve reward for his sacrifice?

I'm not suggesting a pure marketplace employment policy, but the cruel reality is, an overly protected uncompetitive workforce will do nothing but force our industry dollars overseas.

There are parents in china and idea working to feed kids and just survive too!! The answer lies somewhere between regressive over-protection of wages & conditions and regressive over-exploitation of workers.

If we had in this country actual unions rather than the political bodies that act under the guise of unionism we would have a much fairer situation all round.

The MaDDeSTMaN · 11-10-2005, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

If we had in this country actual unions rather than the political bodies that act under the guise of unionism we would have a much fairer situation all round.

Too true, and this is part of the problem IMO.

billyb35 · 13-10-2005, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

A struggling business owner will choose the most cost effective option. I've managed projects in the past that were estimated well under budget. Given the choice of Indian software labour at $7.50/hr and local costing me nearly $40/hr its not a hard decision to make. Although I did use a mix of both labour sources. It's commercial reality.

Your choice of concurrent mortgage and dependants is yours, it was not any employers. From your previous example why should the employer be forced to subsidise your lifestyle? Why should the single worker who is prepared to work odd hours etc not achieve reward for his sacrifice?

I'm not suggesting a pure marketplace employment policy, but the cruel reality is, an overly protected uncompetitive workforce will do nothing but force our industry dollars overseas.

There are parents in china and idea working to feed kids and just survive too!! The answer lies somewhere between regressive over-protection of wages & conditions and regressive over-exploitation of workers.

If we had in this country actual unions rather than the political bodies that act under the guise of unionism we would have a much fairer situation all round.

I might be late but here here.

That is exactly the point. At either end of black or white it is a certainty but political point scoring and just sheer scare tactics with those ridiculous ads achieve nothing; especially not clearing up the grey.

I really don't see the problem here with reforms. Someone explain to me what exaclty is going to change?

Smoke Pursuit · 14-11-2005, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bindi

People on here are very pro liberal mate, so you will find that alot will agree with it because little Johnny says it's good for us so it must be. I, on the other hand, am pro nobody in particular and hate the lot of them equally lol. :P

It's a bit of a farce really. I don't think he and the gov't really understand how us workers live... I mean, if you and your boss come to an arrangement (in nearly all cases the business/boss will tell you what the agreement is), and if you say "No I don't agree, I'm not going to sign it" then you will no longer have a job, because then there is always someone else WHO WILL sign it. Business knows this. So they can bend you over backwards and apply the vaseline.

Ermm.. from an employer perspective if your a hard working employee and do the right thing then I don't think you have a problem. All its going to do is get the people out of employement who don't want to be there in the first place. Businesses today VALUE good staff, as accountants we are taught that staff are the key to any sucessful business, and anyone in a high ranked managerial postion will realize this if they are the right captain for the ship...

Therefore I don't think the majority of people will have a worry, as employees are actually harder to get then most people think, specially good ones.

So, if your a good employee and get along well with your bosses/recruitment managers then there shouldn't be an issue, if your a pain in the *** then they are obviously going to use these new laws to get rid of you which is far enough I think as we all have choices in life and if you can't be happy at work then your probarly in the wrong industry / aren't worth what you think you are.

gtfpv · 15-11-2005, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShockWaveXR6na

Ermm.. from an employer perspective if your a hard working employee and do the right thing then I don't think you have a problem. All its going to do is get the people out of employement who don't want to be there in the first place. Businesses today VALUE good staff, as accountants we are taught that staff are the key to any sucessful business, and anyone in a high ranked managerial postion will realize this if they are the right captain for the ship...

Therefore I don't think the majority of people will have a worry, as employees are actually harder to get then most people think, specially good ones.

So, if your a good employee and get along well with your bosses/recruitment managers then there shouldn't be an issue, if your a pain in the *** then they are obviously going to use these new laws to get rid of you which is far enough I think as we all have choices in life and if you can't be happy at work then your probarly in the wrong industry / aren't worth what you think you are.

as an accountant the chief executive officer of telstra obviously doesn't agree with you . niether does the banks. but i can understand how these 2 industries would be struggling to make a profit . i'd hate to be in the bottom 12 000 or so telstra employees . i'm sure the good ones will have nothing to worry about though.

vztrt · 15-11-2005, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtfpv

as an accountant the chief executive officer of telstra obviously doesn't agree with you . niether does the banks. but i can understand how these 2 industries would be struggling to make a profit . .

Hey! Banks have been doing it tuff! I mean only 3 billion dollers profit a year!

RED_EL_XR8 · 15-11-2005, 11:25 PM

Nah I know I'm right. I'll just watch!!

MO · 15-11-2005, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtfpv

as an accountant the chief executive officer of telstra obviously doesn't agree with you . niether does the banks. but i can understand how these 2 industries would be struggling to make a profit . i'd hate to be in the bottom 12 000 or so telstra employees . i'm sure the good ones will have nothing to worry about though.

OF course they've been considered for a package however small it may be,but that should tide them over for the rest of their life...not...now we have over the next five years 12,000 ppl looking for work.

Yeah Little JH is the best friend the OZ worker has ever had.......when the revolution comes...think about it.

RED_EL_XR8 · 15-11-2005, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John McMaster

OF course they've been considered for a package however small it may be,but that should tide them over for the rest of their life...not...now we have over the next five years 12,000 ppl looking for work.

Yeah Little JH is the best friend the OZ worker has ever had.......when the revolution comes...think about it.

Play the man and not the ball !

b0son · 20-11-2005, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bindi

I don't think he and the gov't really understand how us workers live... I mean, if you and your boss come to an arrangement (in nearly all cases the business/boss will tell you what the agreement is), and if you say "No I don't agree, I'm not going to sign it" then you will no longer have a job, because then there is always someone else WHO WILL sign it.

Employers never like to see good employees go. Good employees are hard to find, recruiting and training staff is a pain. Many employers will do what they can to keep a good employee.

The employees that should worry are those that aren't necessarily great at their job, the ones that dont go the extra mile for their employer and/or workmates, the ones that only do the bare minimum.

Supply and demand cuts both ways. There are plenty of medicore employees out there, and its reasonable for them to compete against one another and hopefully lift their game and increase their productivity. The ones that are already good have no reason to worry.

Why is it always up to employers to offer more? Why cant employers expect more of their employees? The current balance is swung heavily in the employees' favour.

NAK302 · 11-10-2005, 08:28 AM

i'm thinking folks here may not be in a position to reply because they most probably have not seen the legislation. others will offer their opinion on what they heard down the pub.

bindi · 11-10-2005, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nak351

i'm thinking folks here may not be in a position to reply because they most probably have not seen the legislation. others will offer their opinion on what they heard down the pub.

But not necessarily (and you think so little of your fellow Ford friends?!), as everyone is entitled to opinion (whether it be the party line or union rhetoric) and can make up their own minds from what has been published and advertised so far.

The thing is, the govt as always tries to push things through without most of the country quite understanding how it works. Like the GST.

Some people DO read you know.

11-10-2005, 08:51 AM

well im not too fussed about it one way or the other...since the govt has been in power...it has done as it has deemed fit(which is its right), and not really cared about public opinion or concerns. I know like the GST...there are claims and counter claims...and then the govt runs a mostly useless and expensive campaign to convert ppl to its vision. What i find funny is that 90% of the ppl dont change their mind..most ppl will stick to old allegiences, so maybe this advertising money; $60-70mil not the $100mil for this issue that the opposition claim; could be better ulitized somewhere else.

KEV EB XR8 · 11-10-2005, 08:48 AM

sorry guys , it wasnt suppose to be hardcore debate , just a general feeling of the legislation, all opinions are worthy.

bindi · 11-10-2005, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KEV EB XR8

sorry guys , it wasnt suppose to be hardcore debate , just a general feeling of the legislation, all opinions are worthy.

Agreed, I was giving you my opinion... :evil3:

This is the government website: www.workplace.gov.au

Meanwhile I am getting in my car and going for a drive - I just read the latest news!

"A TRUCK loaded with cartons of boxed chocolates has overturned on a highway in southern New South Wales, causing traffic delays."

KEV EB XR8 · 11-10-2005, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bindi

Agreed, I was giving you my opinion... :evil3:

This is the government website: www.workplace.gov.au

geez louise , ya burnt a hole in my computer screen bindi ,

:

bindi · 11-10-2005, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KEV EB XR8

geez louise , ya burnt a hole in my computer screen bindi ,

:

LOL! Sorry darlin... I suppose I just don't like being told that I got my opinion from a mate down the pub (not by you though) and the redhead in me gets fired up!

:

KEV EB XR8 · 11-10-2005, 09:01 AM

so we still in luv then . feel much better now .

MustangNicko · 11-10-2005, 09:24 AM

Im not too fussed at all. Im a private contracting Photographer so it doesnt really effect me.

pauljh74 · 11-10-2005, 11:09 AM

Howard's comment that people who don't agree to conditions in an agreement can find another job. That just shows how far out of touch he is from reality. I have a good work history and it took me a dozen or more job applications before I got a job over 3 months. I did pretty well. A kid just finishing year 12 will have less chances and will have 2 choices - take the conditions that are less than the relevant award, or remain unemployed. An example showed in today's paper shows that in the case of a shop assistant not getting penalty rates and other award conditions could be 40% worse off.
Another actual case showed that workers at a fruit and veg supermarket in Queensland had already surrendered public holidays, penalties and loadings and got a mere 16 cents an hour extra over the award. I'm sure they were in fear of losing their jobs if they didn't agree to the AWA.

mcflux · 11-10-2005, 11:14 AM

The way I see it, if you're crap at your job, you'll get the ****. If you're competant, you stay!

That's my oversimplistic monocolour view of this topic.

**ebxr8240** · 11-10-2005, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

The way I see it, if you're crap at your job, you'll get the ****. If you're competant, you stay!

That's my oversimplistic monocolour view of this topic.

Its NOT like that!! So your saying all those workers at the fruit shop are bad workers...Its the conditions that they work under...

Its all o/k till this sort of thing effects you personally, then the hits the fan...Too late...

The MaDDeSTMaN · 11-10-2005, 10:56 AM

I don't like them from what I've read about them, but the sad thing is that none of us can do anything, it's up to those in canberra to do something on our behalf.

Now, I wonder how long before someone points out the TOC of this site and locks or deletes this thread... :(

**ebxr8240** · 11-10-2005, 11:01 AM

I know of people that work in club industry..
Keep in mind they have several work agreements..Like permanent casual, casual, and AWA workers..The permanent casuals get something like $22[approx] an hour..Casual get $18 an hour [approx] but may not have guarantee of working hours as AWA workers will be used first...AWA workers are on $14.50 an hour, they have a roster, but can be called in anytime at same pay..Now that same pay could be from 6 p.m to midnight through week ends at $15.50 an hour..No sick leave or holliday pay...No guarantee of hours a week....
Just do bloody good at school or you'll end up working like a slave to pay rent and food alone... Most I guess on here are fairly well educated, but I feel for the people who are dislexic, slow learners [but good workers] etc..

Perana · 11-10-2005, 11:02 AM

I haven't made up my mind about these yet since i dont know the FACTS about it, but being in an industry with no award it seems that it won't effect me too much.

The unions have done a good job at scare mungering with little or no facts about it so far though...

KELDO_XR8 · 11-10-2005, 11:55 AM

Im just annoyed that this wasnt presented at election time. not that liberal has control over both houses, it can go through anyway. The way i see it, if it wasnt presented at election time, it shouldnt come up, without a public vote.

The majority of workers who will be forced onto agreements with their boss wont be able to stand on their own two feet because of the drastic power imbalance. take my work for example, i work at a coles supermaket part time, if i disagreed to a new contract, there's a line of 15year olds out the front who'l work for less.

I work my bloody *** of at work and if johnny says i have to do the same job for less, then he can stick it.

Keldo.