The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > IR reform - these are not radical changes > Comments

IR reform - these are not radical changes : Comments

By Mike Nahan, published 12/10/2005

Mike Nahan argues the industrial relations reforms are not radical but aim to accommodate changes in society.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. 10
  10. All
What mythical world do these people live in. Mike the people who have the power to take advantage of a flexible system already do. The majority of workers will be forced to except worse condition then they currently enjoy. You need to get out of your office a bit more and talk to real people you those people who left school at 17 and have only even had semi skilled jobs, non working wife two or three kids. Australia families will be worst off and the lower class's will swell with working poor. US min wage $5.15 two weeks leave here we come. The Howard gov should do the right thing and take this to the next election as they didn't tell the people what their plans where at the last election.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 11:35:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't understand how it can mean higher wages AND allow industries such as manufacturing to compete with China.....isn't that a contradiction in terms? Isn't the very reason they CAN'T compete with China the fact that we (Australians) don't want to live on a bowl of rice and a rotten fish a day, sleeping in a crawl-hole with fifteen relatives?

I think you make the point very clearly when you say that the current system is about distribution of wealth (so everyone is looked after to a certain degree) rather than wealth creation (for those lucky enough to be born at the top of the tree).
Surely you can't be thinking this means wealth creation for all? And if so - how? Not the old chestnut of a trickle down effect we all know doesn't work...?

I think, regardless how big or small the changes, it shall remain to be seen how radical the fallout is...whether it means the best and brightest employees are advantaged or there's a lot more of who-you-know-not-what-you-know to get (or keep) a job, no matter how bad you are at it.

It's certainly going to be an interesting year ahead....
Posted by Newsroo, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 11:45:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All the criticism of the IR reforms has been based on one totally false assumption. That is, that an employer who may be tempted to shaft his employees faces minimal cost in replacing staff who opt to "leave it" rather than "take it".

As a former Vice President of the Recruitment and Consulting Services Association (Qld) I can confirm that the average cost of replacing an employee is $4,000 to $6,000. This cost comes as either a fee for an agency's time, the cost of the HR people's time, or the actual time the employer spends away from his normal productive duties to complete the recruiting task.

This cost of replacement can amount to 15 to 20% of annual wages and is not a cost that any sensible employer would like to incur if they can help it. This cost does not include the value of the lower productivity of people in the last weeks before leaving and the first few months while the new employee is getting up to speed.

These combined costs are the primary driver of the need to retain staff for as long as possible. Incur it twice in one year, over and above the normal on-costs like annual leave etc, and they have a serious cost blow-out. It goes to the very core of the staff management function. And it is also the reason why some under-performing staff are retained for a lot longer than their performance might justify.

So all these scare stories that assume that employers are all salivating for the opportunity to put the squeeze on their own team members are either based on a total ignorance of management reality or have been shaped by that very, very small portion of the labour market whose performance would not justify their place in most workplace teams.
Posted by Perseus, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 12:17:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have yet to read one convincing piece that justifies the need for these changes or describes the apparent raod map these represent to either higher wages or increased employment or productivity.

Analyses I have read argues rather than propagandises ( if that is a word ) contradcits all of the assumptions.

Australian employers ( 82% of them) were reported in the Financial Reveiw that the changes would not effect them significantly.

The same paper reported that WA workers under AWA were lower paid than workers under awards, in direct contradicition to the Governments claims.

No one has articulated the link between increased employment and removal of unfair dismissal laws - And all of the rigorous academic analysis - see www.econ.usyd.au/WOS/IRchangesreportcard - suggests that the changes will not benefit workers - I guess thats the point isnt it?

And the churches are unhappy.

Employers are not inclined to share profits with the workers; the assumption seems to be as the changes mysteriously improve productivity and profitability the benefits will be transformed into new and higher paid jobs - essentially it is a fallacious argument particualry in an economy based on primary production with a limited manufacturing base.

Ireland - having outstripped Australia retains a fairly controlling wage and IR system - but they have what industrial captains of industry do not have - drive, imagination, courage and a vision that extends beyond the emblem on the nose of their BMW.

THese changes will not draw more people to restaurants, they will not enable a widget factory to produce more widget per hour, they will put a premium on the price of raw materials - they will reduce costs to employers; if there is no market for new goods there is no prodctivity gains or employment growth. These changes are evil.

These changes were not what the Governmeent was voted in for: they have talked up IR changes in broad terms and lack the guts to detail their proposal becuase it would be upalatable to the electorate.

Lets hope the Nats see some sense and exercise some muscle on this front.
Posted by sneekeepete, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 12:50:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You make a good point about the costs of hiring however many jobs are now casualised or the hiring function is decentralised and the hiring costs effectively hidden from the auditors.

My casual jobs involve me being rung and asked to fill in at 1 hours notice.
For 1 job I signed an AWA, no coercion about it, after they received the signed AWA I was rung up for work.
The copy of the AWA sent to me for signature, is the abbreviated AWA that says that standard hours of work are 38 hours. The AWA lists my obligation to advise when I am unable to work and acceptable standards of dress and behaviour.
I work until the demand for my labour ceases, generally I work a minimum of 1 hour but some supervisors think that 90 minutes is a reasonable mimimum.
Once I appeared for work and was told they didn't need me.
No where in my copy of the AWA is there listed the minimum call out time.

If pensioners have to tighten their belts why shouldn't workers? Well society expects our young people to keep Australia prosperous and secure, look after us in our old age and give us grandchildren. If young people are so weighed down by HECS debts and low wages then they won't have ttime or money to rear our grandchildren properly.
Posted by sand between my toes, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 12:52:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The major employer in my small country town has recently restructured its internal workings such that its employees have found themselves divided amongst several smaller entities, all of which now have less than 100 employees.

They are now pressuring workers to move from 8 hour shifts to 10 hour shifts, which the workers are resisting, citing safety issues and disruption to families.

I suppose that's a coincidence, Perseus?
Posted by mahatma duck, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 12:58:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. 10
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy