Anyone been a victim of the IR laws? - Page 2

**Falcon Coupe** · 18-06-2006, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malakai

I only read upto the $3 vs $14 bit... My question is: How can anyone do the same job for $3 when there are things like minimum wage and stuff? Or do they get around this by being contractors or something.

Somebody explain how immigrant workers can be able to take $3 an hour.

A friend of mine employs 15 Chinese welders, they make the same money as the Aussies, what they take home in a week is 4 times what they earn at home, he says they are very hardworking and take pride in what they do, when the knockoff bell sounds and the Aussies run for the door they stay back and clean up and prepare for the next days work, they bring family members in on weekends to show how proud they are of the workplace.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, i want Australians to have jobs, but he gave me a employers perspective on this issue, after advertising for weeks to fill these positions with little or no intrest he turned to an offshore employment agency, he is so happy with them he has ordered anther 10 workers and is sponsoring their families to join them.

Electric · 19-06-2006, 12:01 AM

The place I work already has a few foreign workers, they all seem to have some sort of "agenda".

For example in my first job there was a Pom, I even went to High school with one of his sons, but when he packed up and went back to England I asked the others at work why.

They said he only came to educate his kids for free, and yes they moved to Oz when the eldest started high school and moved back to England when the youngest finished.

Others at my current place have moved here because of the same reason, or because one of their kids or their wife is sick and they get free medical treatment in Australia, then they send most of their income back 'home'.

Yes they work hard when they are here but all things considered I don't think these sort of people provide much benefit to Australia's society.

OXR60W · 19-06-2006, 01:13 AM

i'm all for the new laws, and ive been on both sides recently.

I have faith that the good remain. There is a guy where i am now, that costs the company about 40% less productivity, just because of his strong union stance, as in do only what you need to do because the company will screw you eventually.

The problem is that he has a strong following and they do as he says. He can't be pinned for anything because he does his work to the letter, his attitude is the issue but because no-one will side with the company, it just continues.

I think i read something recently that of the 46 cases that have fronted the "commission", only one has been upheld, the rest were put back to work. If thats correct, the system works doesn't it ?

SpoolMan · 19-06-2006, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

is so happy with them he has ordered anther 10 workers and is sponsoring their families to join them.

Can they be ordered from EBay?
Mail order workers, we are in a skills shortage because Big business couldn't be bothered taking the kids and training them up, they should be taking on more apprentices.
Tradesman are picky about there jobs because most have more work than they can handle.
My son is 21, his new Boss cant get plumbers to put up roofing he is being trained to do this work.
Apprenticeships need a much higher emphasis placed on them, all Governments should be making it very attractive for business to take on more of them.
Every EB agreement we do we push for a minimum of 2 apprentices.
The Chinese workers maybe paid the same, and it will stay the same for many years to come, they wouldn't dare ask for a wage raise or an upgrade in conditions and the Boss knows it.
Australia needs to be training its kids.

Outbackjack · 19-06-2006, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OXR60W

i'm all for the new laws, and ive been on both sides recently.

I have faith that the good remain. There is a guy where i am now, that costs the company about 40% less productivity, just because of his strong union stance, as in do only what you need to do because the company will screw you eventually.

The problem is that he has a strong following and they do as he says. He can't be pinned for anything because he does his work to the letter, his attitude is the issue but because no-one will side with the company, it just continues.

I think i read something recently that of the 46 cases that have fronted the "commission", only one has been upheld, the rest were put back to work. If thats correct, the system works doesn't it ?

What the hell, its a quiet night..... Can you clear something up thats in your post. Please let me summarise. He is 40% less productive/he does his work to the letter. Its HIS attitude and no-one will side with the company? Perhaps the company has let him down somewhere along the way. Now he works to the letter. What employer would not want an employee that works to the letter??

Looking at it with no knowledge of the company, perhaps the company should take a look at its worker/company relationships. And I would say that based on those figures the "commission" is a dismal failure. People dont put themselves through all the pain of these process's if they dont truly believe they have a valid case. If they are correct, and they're your figures, not mine, it does seem a little one sided,

JG3282 · 19-06-2006, 01:28 AM

Unfortunately good, honest Aussie workers are the minority

A friend of mine had a job interview recently (at a company where he has worked before and knows 90% of the employees) and was told that he was not suited to a job he has 10 years experience in (out of 13 years in the workforce). The interviewer spent the whole hour convincing him he wouldn't like the job and no matter how much he told them all he wanted to do was go to work and do the best job he could, the interviewer knocked him back, even though he had references from two of that company's team leaders.

The person who got the job, has been unemployed since September 2001, can not write or read english, has a basic grip of speaking english, has no car or licence and only applied for the job because Centrelink were going to cancel his dole. He is however getting paid $12.72 p/h compared to the $17.94 p/h that was advertised and is getting subsidised training and free english tutoring.

OXR60W · 19-06-2006, 02:00 AM

No, he is the union delegate and encourages the guys to do bare minimum ( which as dumb as it is , is stated that each employee must do a minimum of 420 repairs/shift.)

If the guys did the repairs that they could do, and quite comfortably, which is about 670, they could get early knock offs, bonuses etc. Instead the majority follow the minority, and the company loses productivity.

he does his job to the letter, encourages others to do minimum numbers etc.
because the guys follow his lead, but when asked is he encouraging them to do less, they say no. So the company can't touch him, even tho its his attitude thats doing the damage.

So even tho technically no-one is doing anything wrong, one person that cant be touched, is costing productivity.

That better ?

Firefox7 · 19-06-2006, 02:13 AM

As a company Director and the CEO of it...I do not believe in the New IR laws.
I can however say that it is a good thing, that does benefit the employer in certain respects. I have very good employee's and they are already well above the award rate..because they work hard & are worth the dollars. All entitlements remain as is, and I have no plans in changing them.

Cheers.

Outbackjack · 19-06-2006, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OXR60W

No, he is the union delegate and encourages the guys to do bare minimum ( which as dumb as it is , is stated that each employee must do a minimum of 420 repairs/shift.)

If the guys did the repairs that they could do, and quite comfortably, which is about 670, they could get early knock offs, bonuses etc. Instead the majority follow the minority, and the company loses productivity.

he does his job to the letter, encourages others to do minimum numbers etc.
because the guys follow his lead, but when asked is he encouraging them to do less, they say no. So the company can't touch him, even tho its his attitude thats doing the damage.

So even tho technically no-one is doing anything wrong, one person that cant be touched, is costing productivity.

That better ?

It does sound like a dumb situation. But I still think that it comes back to comunication. It sounds like there is a real "us and them" mentality in that company. Eventually the company could well fail. If it did fail, both would be to blame. But putting Australians out of work and bringing in foreigners is not the answer. There is always two sides to an argument.

What is it that they fix 470 odd of per shift????

Outbackjack · 19-06-2006, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firefox7

As a company Director and the CEO of it...I do not believe in the New IR laws.
I can however say that it is a good thing, that does benefit the employer in certain respects. I have very good employee's and they are already well above the award rate..because they work hard & are worth the dollars. All entitlements remain as is, and I have no plans in changing them.

Cheers.

We should have you stuffed and mounted.... I wish there were more like you out there. But I fear you may well be a rare specimen.

OXR60W · 19-06-2006, 02:22 AM

No its definately a case of a few being followed by the majority. The stupid thing is that its the followers that lose the "incentives"., and of course the company loses productivity.

I'd rather not say what they repair. It will be to obvious and someone on here may be a shareholder.

I couldn't believe , and still don't, what these guys have been let to get away with. Hopefully things will now change.

Firefox7 · 19-06-2006, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

We should have you stuffed and mounted.... I wish there were more like you out there. But I fear you may well be a rare specimen.

A happy workforce makes big dollars, an unhappy one makes far less. You look after your employee's, their dedication is second to none. Dedication means....big dollars.

Cheers.

Outbackjack · 19-06-2006, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OXR60W

No its definately a case of a few being followed by the majority. The stupid thing is that its the followers that lose the "incentives"., and of course the company loses productivity.

I'd rather not say what they repair. It will be to obvious and someone on here may be a shareholder.

I couldn't believe , and still don't, what these guys have been let to get away with. Hopefully things will now change.

It sounds like removing one person would fix a big chunk of the problems. They can do that now. Just tell him on friday not to come back on monday. They dont have to give a reason anymore. These are the new rules that every Australian works under. Fair enough in this case, but now how many will loose their livelyhood because they dont happen to agree with someone in management or the young receptionist gets the boot for not putting out to the boss. Its open slather now on the most vulnerable in the work force. And as I said it will get worse if the gov gets re-elected.

SpoolMan · 19-06-2006, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

We should have you stuffed and mounted.... I wish there were more like you out there. But I fear you may well be a rare specimen.

You should know not every boss is a bad boss, Its only the bad ones we hear about.

I am not in favor of the new IR laws.

Outbackjack · 19-06-2006, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpoolMan

You should know not every boss is a bad boss, Its only the bad ones we hear about.

I am not in favor of the new IR laws.

I personally would crawl over broken glass for a good boss. Equally not all employees are bad employees. This legislation treats them all as if they are. The pendulum(SP?) has swung too far to the right. I just hope that when the labour party win next election, they only bring it back to the centre.

Cheers.

SpoolMan · 19-06-2006, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

I personally would crawl over broken glass for a good boss. Equally not all employees are bad employees. This legislation treats them all as if they are. The pendulum(SP?) has swung too far to the right. I just hope that when the labour party win next election, they only bring it back to the centre.

Cheers.

No one should walk over broken glass for anyone.
I look foward to reading others thoughts on this subject also.
I am off to watch the soccer...

GreenMachine · 19-06-2006, 10:23 AM

Not entering the debate, but just a small correction -

The IR laws affect everyone. Whilst it's true that if your company has more than 100 employees, you still have access to unfair dismissal provisions, that's not the biggest change that WorkChoices made in that respect.

Any company of any size can sack someone for "reasons that are, or reasons including genuine operational reasons." Operational reasons can be almost anything - economic, technological, structural. It would appear that a structural or economic reason could be that they're sacking you because they've found someone who will do the job cheaper, and that will advantage the company, so off you go.

Other than that, can we get over WorkChoices on AFF? I don't like the changes, some people do, this is not the forum for airing it. That's what the next Federal election is for.

**thefargo** · 19-06-2006, 10:39 AM

two things jump to mind;
"once upon a time" and "goodwill"

OLDFORDNUT · 19-06-2006, 10:54 AM

a friend of mine,just went into Social Security and tore his book up with job applications and told them to stick it,he is with Sorina russo (job network )and he has spent last 4 years saving for a tow truck,finally got one and registered his bussiness name only to be cut off the dole as he has his own bussiness,told them he is not making any money yet so they came back with Sell the truck and deregister company name. wtf,
Sorina Rosso want him to do 3 month course on presentation and office skills, (26 km round trip with $20 extra per fortnight to cover cost of lunch and transport(at $1.29 Lt petrol)8 hour days, told them he just wants a job in Automotive so course is useless to him,
these job finding networks are trying to find work for the long term unemployed only as they collect several thousand dollars as opposed too $1000,for a short term unemployed,and dont give a rats for anyone except there government funding.
when is the Government going to realise these places are just exploiting the unemployed,and put half the money they spend now into paying wages of apprentices so companies can afford to take on all they need with no burden on them.
so job training is back where it belongs with Australian factories and workshops.'

Scott · 19-06-2006, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpoolMan

we are in a skills shortage because Big business couldn't be bothered taking the kids and training them up, they should be taking on more apprentices.

With the incentives placed on taking in apprentices, many large organisations are fighting to get apprentices on board. It may suprise you to know that many apprenticeship advertisements go unresponded. I've been advertising for 2 for nearly 3 months with only 1 candidate..... a poor one at that. A good example was in another thread where a major electricity supplier is paying $40k for apprentices that have completed another trade and want to assimilate to electrical over a two year period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

I just hope that when the labour party win next election, they only bring it back to the centre.
Cheers.

Glad to see you're a little more light hearted today lol.

Outbackjack · 19-06-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMH8TR

With the incentives placed on taking in apprentices, many large organisations are fighting to get apprentices on board. It may suprise you to know that many apprenticeship advertisements go unresponded. I've been advertising for 2 for nearly 3 months with only 1 candidate..... a poor one at that. A good example was in another thread where a major electricity supplier is paying $40k for apprentices that have completed another trade and want to assimilate to electrical over a two year period.

Glad to see you're a little more light hearted today lol.

My nephew in MLB tried for nearly 2 years to get into an electrical trade.And he is far from a poor candidate, a fairly quiet personality, but a very hard working kid that love his Mum!! He has just cracked it for an apprenticship with a security company. Ecery time he has applied for a job/apprenticeship he has been "one of hundreds".

I am not disputing what you say above..... But there might be other factors. With my nephew, the location of the job was a big issue. With the price of fuel (he lives in Mill park) Travel to a far off place of work was un affordable.

Light hearted is a good place to be. I have taken a personal resolution to simply ignore one or two posters. They only post dribble and insults (not that I am squeaky clean in this regard) But it is usually them that get ne wound up. Cant let bully woolies go un checked.

4.9 EF Futura · 19-06-2006, 05:19 PM

Regarding the need for training... i agree 100%!!

But whos responsibility?

Government? Hardly. I agree there is a place for government funding for the apprenticeship system - but its hardly their responsibility to pay the apprentices' wages on behalf of the company. Perhaps the businesses who would request such a service would like the government to train them and show them the ropes as well? It's the business' job to train the apprentice. In exchange, they have the apprentice working for them at a reduced rate of pay.

Big business? They're doing their part IMO. The large retail workshops actively seek and train new apprentices. Walk into any workshop of a large, corporate chain and ask to speak to the apprentice. I'd wager that more workshops than not will send the young lad/lass over.

The slack needs to be tightened by the small end of town. Small, owner-operated businesses and contractors are the lifeblood of industries like construction. This segment of the industry does a LOT of work on behalf of the big businesses (who rarely train their own tradesmen - theyre in the business of planning and orchestrating large constructions... they get contractors in to complete the physical/tangible aspect of a project).

Walk up to the next contractor/owner operator you see stopped for lunch/whatever. Ask if you can have a word with his/her apprentice. I'd wager that not many have time/interest/resources to be putting apprentices on - they only bother hiring qualified staff.

The new IR system makes sense. A lot of small operators could not afford the RISK of taking on an ineffective employee - knowing damn well that if they're crap, they will be stuck with them (to a certain extent).

Give the boss the option to fire a shyte apprentice and he'll start putting more of them on!

BENT_8 · 19-06-2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpoolMan

Australia needs to be training its kids.

And Australian kids have to want to be trained!

After all you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink!

You have a valid point but the issue has two sides and kids these days have no respect or discipline.
Teachers all over this country are turning to other fields by the droves, Work cover stress claims are through the roof and schools are run by vigilante bullies.
The sooner we realise we have failed our kids in their early years and are reeping our own crops now the better.

BENT_8 · 19-06-2006, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

I just hope that when the labour party win next election, they only bring it back to the centre.

Cheers.

Just so long as they dont bring back inflated interest rates and high unemployment aswell!

Outbackjack · 19-06-2006, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Just so long as they dont bring back inflated interest rates and high unemployment aswell!

Its funny how when international conditions are giving this a country a "free ride" (comodity prices etc) Lots of people say that the gov is doing a wonderful job. But they look back at the late 80's and 90's when there was no free ride and blame the gov of the day. It is an undisputed fact that the economy was getting back on to its feet two years before the current lot got in. They are now riding the wave of high natural resources prices, thanks to china and india.... You know, the two places that we are also exporting our jobs to..... And there is employment and there is employment. All the poor sods that can only get part time with no holiday pay, no super, no sick leave.... They are hardly proper jobs. And not ALL of them are doing it for the flexibilty. I read an article the other night about the concerns of the super annuation funds in this country. With the curent trends of bringing in workers from OS that work for less and dont have time to build up retirement nest eggs.... They fit a percieved need now, to drive down wages, but will be a burden on the tax payer come retirement time...... There are long term isssues with the new laws that Johnny simply wont talk about. Why is he avoiding a public debate on this????

4.9 EF Futura · 19-06-2006, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Just so long as they dont bring back inflated interest rates and high unemployment aswell!

These two factors are symptomatic of poor economic management. Whilst y'all know where i stand politically, its worth noting that niether party is immune to getting the numbers wrong.

Outbackjack · 19-06-2006, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

These two factors are symptomatic of poor economic management. Whilst y'all know where i stand politically, its worth noting that niether party is immune to getting the numbers wrong.

Ditto dude, but high oil prices and huge natural resources only make it easier to get it right.

FordFan86 · 19-06-2006, 06:10 PM

I've just completed a 1500 research essay for this topic in legal studies (only a small easy and only a 1st yr legal course)
Main findings where that they are a very utilitarian and blase approach to reforming the workplace.
Everyone will be, or has the potential to be affected by the IR laws, independent contractors probably least of all though.

Outbackjack · 19-06-2006, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FordFan86

I've just completed a 1500 research essay for this topic in legal studies (only a small easy and only a 1st yr legal course)
Main findings where that they are a very utilitarian and blase approach to reforming the workplace.
Everyone will be, or has the potential to be affected by the IR laws, independent contractors probably least of all though.

Hey I'd be interested in reading that.

Outbackjack · 19-06-2006, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FordFan86

I've just completed a 1500 research essay for this topic in legal studies (only a small easy and only a 1st yr legal course)
Main findings where that they are a very utilitarian and blase approach to reforming the workplace.
Everyone will be, or has the potential to be affected by the IR laws, independent contractors probably least of all though.

Independant contractors will be some of the last to be affected.

Here is a simple example. Joe bloggs is a happy chappy working in his jobs as a "sock maker" he has just about paid off his house and has just been to the bank to arrange finance for some renovations and an extension. He gets to work on monday and his boss takes him aside and tells him, sorry Joe, we can get Mr Kai Se Mings factory to make our socks now for a third of what you can do them. We have to let you go. Aprt from the human factors, what must Joe do?? Go to the bank and cancel his loan arrangements, ring the contract plumer, chippy, sparkie and tell then sorry no extensions. The contractors dont give a tinkers kuss today because they have work coming out of their ears and they can pick and choose.

But over the nest 5 or 10 years there will be thousands of Joe's, with very little prospect of getting a job of any substance because their industries have been moved over seas.... Or they are now run in Australia by Mr Kai se Mings relatives. And of course Joe expects to be paid too much.