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 > Negotiating the work contract > Comments

Negotiating the work contract : Comments

By Rebecca Huntley, published 9/11/2005

Rebecca Huntley argues work contracts directly affect spouses, parents and siblings, not just the employee.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Glenwriter you sound suspiciously like one of those medieval Islamic fundamentalists who thinks giving birth to a girl is the fault of the mother.
Posted by minuet, Thursday, 10 November 2005 2:33:09 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 agree maternity leave should be a God-given right.
Employers would then not employ women because they cost too much and only employ men.
Has anyone met an employer who does not look anywhere but the economical bottom line? Economics and "being the most economical against a competitor" runs the nation.
That is why full-time employment is going down and part-time employment is going up.
Posted by GlenWriter, Thursday, 10 November 2005 2:33:55 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
It seems that someone does not believe what employers do.
Don't you believe in truth. Do you believe that employers actualy think of people and their welfare and look after their employees and their families and babies yet to be born more than they do shareholoders, profits, the sharemarket and expansion of their own wallet and business.
We have a man on $10million plus another million dollars a year looking after Telstra and all he seems to be doing is sacking people.
Maybe you should go to him and plead the maternity leave case that materrnity leave should be increased. i bet Telstra shareholders won't want it increased even though a lot of them are women.
When Telstra is sold more employees will be sacked as there will be more shareholders trying get their shares to rise.
Posted by GlenWriter, Thursday, 10 November 2005 3:25:38 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
For those who were not fortunate enough to have a proper caring father in their childhood, the answer is a good psychologist or alternative therapy, because your boss is not your father, nor is he a welfare agency or a milking cow - he is just a person with whom you conduct business.

Imagine you paid the plumber to fix two taps, but he took your money and fixed only one, claiming that he has mortgage and young children to take care of...

An employee should respect themsleves by asking for a decent wage to begin with and not working overtime when that is not part of their contract - doing otherwise will damage not just themselves, but also their familes, other employees and their families and the unemployed who will not get a job because the one is working as two. One should not, however, ask to be paid for something they did not do and time they did not spend working - that is not just and would only serve to lower their self-esteem.

The situation should never arise when one has to compromise, accepting employment with unreasonable pay and conditions (such as safety and hassle-free work environment): and for that, desperation must be removed from the equations!

It is the employee's responsibility to live within their means and save for a rainy day and future plans (such as a baby or holidays), but it is also the government's responsibility to ensure a minimal, though frugal, standard of living unconditionally for everyone, regardless whether they work, can work or wish to work [within the prevalent employment conditions], so that desperation is never a factor and employment is only pursued for one's extras and luxuries, not for the basics.

The way to do this fairly, is for EVERYONE to receive a basic living-allowance from the government (either as cash or tax-offset), creating the solid base of safety on which free and healthy business and employment relationships can be built.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 10 November 2005 3:39:58 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
Yuyutsu your last post paraphrased the sentiments of Mr Justice Higgins when he heard the Harvester Case in 1907. This eventually led to our arbitration system. Its briefly described at http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1386432.htm as

"STEPHEN LONG: Australia's most famous wages decision didn't stem from an industrial dispute. It was the product of protectionism. To escape the imposition of an excise, HV Mackay, maker of the Sunshine Harvester, had to establish that he was paying a fair and reasonable wage.

The task of deciding what was fair and reasonable fell to the first president of the then arbitration court, Justice Henry Bourne Higgins. And he decided that the market price of labour couldn't set the standard.

Instead, Justice Higgins said the only appropriate yardstick was a basic wage fit to "meet the normal needs of the average employee, regarded as a human being in a civilised society."

As marriage was the "usual fate of adults", Judge Higgins said a fair and reasonable wage should provide enough to keep a family in frugal comfort."
Posted by sand between my toes, Thursday, 10 November 2005 5:15:59 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
Sand Between My Toes,

Thank you for the very interesting reference!

Justice Higgins was indeed among the most advanced social-thinkers of his time, but now we are a century ahead, more experienced and more open to new ideas, and our environment also is no longer the same.

Today's employers and shareholders no longer enjoy a wall of tariffs, they already pay taxes like anyone else (if not more), and in any case, there is no reason to hold them (or any other particular group) responsible for solving the world's injustices and creating a humane society.

The human right to basic, frugal comfort, has nothing to do with employment.
One rationale to justify it is as follows:

Due to the changes of the modern era, it is no longer feasible to live simply on the land without using money, say as hunter-gatherers or even farmers: civilization is everywhere without escape; all land (and waters) is titled and/or fenced; land taxes are imposed; and if you enter somebody else's land, you will be arrested for tresspassing. Even if you do find a patch of land (where? Antarctica? the middle of the outback in 50C heat?), the degradation of the environment due to the accumulating industrial greed and folly will not allow you to subsist from that land without modern tools, materials and equipment, that cost money.

There is no way back of course, but society, which is represented by governments, is therefore responsible to compensate individuals for their current predicament, and provide them with the alternative means without which life is no longer possible - money.

This government handout, to every human - regardless of their employment status, should therefore be viewed nor as a wage, neither as a compassionate favour, but as legitimate and deserved compensation.

This rationale of fair compensation is on top of the obvious social benefits mentioned in my earlier post and of reducing the levels of stress, anxiety and crime.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 10 November 2005 6:45:55 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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