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 > Industrial relations reform: pros beat con jobs > Comments

Industrial relations reform: pros beat con jobs : Comments

By Peter Hendy, published 12/7/2005

Peter Hendy argues the unions are in engaging in a con job over the new proposals for industrial relations reforms.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
I wonder if Peter Hendy has ever tried to feed a family on a Adult min wage job? Next question does he think the min wage in the US (Federal Adult min wage is $5.15hr) as enable it the compete with china?
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 11:45:28 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
Peter Hendy misses a crucial point about the current IR changes being suggested by the Government. The Howard Government has no mandate for it. They did not give voters a chance to decide their elected representatives based on the legislative agenda currently being debated in the public arena: the only forum left for those who have been justifiably horrified by the suggested reforms.

Had the Government done so, perhaps the outcome of the last election may have been different. In any event, the case made by unions currently would not have the vigour it does now.

I actually agree with the concept of industry consensus about changes to industrial relations: this was the basis of the Accord system of the 1980s. I don't think that's what we have here.

Also: it appears that industry groups have forgotten the crucial factor in this debate...without labour there is no industry.

I wonder if John Howard will be cashing in the holiday time he lost in having to come back to work after discovering that the unions were beating him at his own game: the PR wars.
Posted by seether, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:02:51 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
Peter Hendy is of the deluded view that "flexibility" in workers contracts must be a good thing. Being forced to cash in your leave is not flexibility most workers would necessarily want. Secondly, Peter Hendy also believes that an unlawfully dismissed worker is just as likely to begin costly and time consuming legal proceedings through the courts as they are unfair dismissal proceedings through the IRC. Somehow I doubt it.
Posted by Jude, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:06:31 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
John Howard has now defended changes to the rights of workers by declaring that 'a new class of "enterprise workers" willing to put Australia's long-term economic needs before their own.

Single mothers and struggling Australian families are much too busy putting food on their kitchen tables and paying the bills to ever think about 'being enterprise workers', they are much to busy to indulge the ideological nirvana that this Primeminister and his disciples have dreamt up for our nation.

Peter Hendy makes NO reference to the dozens of broken non core promises, lies and deceit of John Howard on a number of issues and levels. But then again you'd expect this from someone who was chief of staff for Peter “kids overboard” Reith.

The truly tragic aspect of this development is that when these reforms do not work and Australians endure hardship and sorrow, you won't find the likes of Hendy apologising for getting it for instigating a con job here and now. These are evil evil men with evil evil plans.
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:36:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe there should be one federal award for the whole of Australia, it is only sensible this alone will gain some small amount of productivity. But it should be taken from the highest standards in each state. The government is there to protect Australians rights not business profits. With this legislation the rights of a worker with a company with 80 employees will be different to a company with 110 employees how can that be fair?

In a recent report Australians work more hours than anyone else in industrialized countries. The reason for this and part of the gains in productivity is from people working overtime to be able to earn a wage to live on and deal with the crippling taxes, health costs and afford a family home thanks to the Liberal Government.

I would think that Australians would want to strive for the best life possible nationwide not who can bargain the best with there own situation. Look around you how many people do you know that are workers and how many are business owners? Don’t swallow a Government and Business con job about dire economic consequences. If the Government and Business were serious about wages blow outs and tying wages to productivity they would have addressed the skills shortage long ago. From doctors to carpenters there are current or looming shortages and all this will do is increase wages. Its simple supply & demand.

The Government has been riding on the back of high resource prices and a over heated housing sector which added to increases to domestic growth in the past few years, take that away and our growth & balance of trade figures go out the window. In the long run these can not last there will be a point when interest rates will raise world wide demand will slump where will we be?

Also I wouldn’t be comparing Australian industry regulation with other countries in Asia. (Yes lets work for $10.00 a day like so much of Asia) We should be comparing industrial regulation with Europe & America.
Posted by sydney_sergei, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:36:57 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
"second, unions are claiming that employers want the right to force workers to take less than four weeks annual leave. False. Laws and agreements (including union agreements) already exist that allow workers to choose to cash out portions of leave. That existing flexibility should be retained. "

turns out west australian newspapers is forcing new reporters on individual contracts to sign away 2 weeks of their leave. no sign no job. and they keep on telling us that its an employees market.
Posted by its not easy being, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:44:29 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
Two important words:

'Choose' - as in, you can have your time off OR you can have your cash. Do you honestly think that this will remain a choice under the new system? When they have the legal backing to say "don't like it - there's the door!"

'Should' - as in, what is supposed to happen but may not.... when you are allowing the top end of town to decide how fair they feel like being after they consult their profit margins I think 'should' is entirely too wishy washy.

We are talking about people's lives here!!

I don't want to see a return to the class system and that's what this is ALL about....soon those who have more principle than to work for half of what they used to, or thought they could find better conditions elsewhere (we all know trying to find a non-greedy rich person is like trying to find a needle in a haystack! so that's not going to happen.... and to give them the credit of logic - why pay more?) will be the ones cleaning the toilets of the rich for board and lodging.

Howard has been asked to give an assurance that workers will not be worse off - it makes him squirm and he can't in good conscience answer. When we're talking about HOWARDS' conscience - that says a lot....

Real Enterprising!
Posted by Newsroo, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 1:45:53 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
Unfair dismissal. What is the evidence that unfairly dismissed workers are clogging the system,costing money and unfairly the flexibility of the firm. Mr. Hendy there must be some evidence on this topic. Are there many appeals that are turned down? Is not fairness supposedly one of the hallmark of an educated democratic citizen in Australia i.e. Australian?
Posted by untutored mind, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 5:02:43 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
John howard and peter hendy seem to forget that our industrial relations system evolved over a number of decades to suit the needs of industry and workers. current conditions were either negotiated or arbitrated by independant umpires that sought to obtain a balance between needs of workers, employers and the public interest.
The system proposed by howard suggest that there is no role for the public interest in the contract between a worker and the employer.
They forget that the arbitration system had an important role to play in stabilising labour conditions during times of full employment.

Under the current system with the deepening skills shortage we are going to see rising labour unit costs. Companies that can simply flow the costs on to their customers or other businesses will do so. This in turn will have a negative impact on the economy.

During award restructuring there was a known pay increase coming, companies could not hide from it and it was up to the industry to and enterprise to ensure they achieved productivity gains with the assistance of the arbitration commission.

Under the proposed system some employers can choose the easy and lazy way out by not looking for changes and avoid making any wage increases. This is why labour productivity is not increasing as fast as it did during the centralized wage fixing system. Employers can effectively hide from wage increases and not embrace change, thus stagnating. In New Zealand during their enterprise/individual contract experiment labour productivity was 14% behind the growth in Australia's labour productivity, I would suggest because some employers could simply hide from facing claims for wage increases and hide from change/reform.

Who is protecting the public interest under Howard's system?
Posted by slasher, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 7:13:28 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'm glad to see that everyone commenting here is damning what Peter Hendy has said. I'd like to add two other shortcomings.

His belief that there are the employers, the employees and the unions is flawed. He thinks they are seperate entities and that unions act independently. The employees are the Union! Without the employees the Union means nothing. Nor does the employer for that matter. It is the employees who have the democratic vote to elect council, delegates, officials and executive. How can they be seperate?

Also he says that unfair dismissal laws will still be effective. They won't. Without Union support the average employee will not be able to afford a representation to the IRC, on his or her own. He is dreaming!

It seems that our Govt listens more to industry, the OECD, and countries with ever-growing foreign debt, than to the views of it's citizens.

ciao
Posted by AndrewC, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 10:31:27 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
Peter Hendy is a classic example of a union leader. He represents a union of employers. And like many union leaders, he has no idea about what is in reality in the best interests of his members.

If Mr Hendy had bothered to consult his lawyers, and if his lawyers told him the facts, he would realise that unfair dismissal is a cheap and efficient remedy for both parties.

But if unfair dismissal is done away with, employees will be forced to use far more difficult remedies which are more expensive for employers. And there are plenty of bored personal injury lawyers in Sydney and Melbourne who will happily represent employees on a speculative basis, especially given that in many of these remedies the court has the power to order employers to pay workers' legal fees (such a power rarely exists in the unfair dismissal remedy).
Posted by Irfan, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 12:17:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you believed all the above comments you would observe that paranoia is reigning supreme. Everyone is afraid of change - as if it is all negative.

try to apply some logic to all the arm waving emotionalism being displayed.

If an employer decides he wants to save money by no longer giving salary increases how long will his work force stay with him when his competition is paying more? And by the way - his competition is probably growing faster and therefore creating more jobs.

On the other hand if you are the bludger at the bottom end of the productivity scale maybe you don't deserve the same pay scale as the person turning out twice as many widgets per hour.

An employer needs the flexibility to offer more creative pay packets to reward top performers. With the current award system the employers creativity is hobbled by the unions demand that what is given to one is given to all - wether they all deserve it or not.

I have always worked under an individual workplace agreement and it has always served me well, both here in Oz and in the US. My contract always stated that the more successful I was at meeting or exceeding key performance measurements the greater my salary increase and the greater my annual bonus. The bludgers or unmotivated found jobs better attuned to their work ethic while the high performers helped the company grow and succeed
Posted by Bruce, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 12:38:25 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
Oh certainly there does need to be flexibility to reward top performers, but the worry with individual contracts is that people who are shy and quiet and who feel they could be easily replaced (which the removal of unfair dismissal will enable) will not benefit from these contracts. They need a 'champion' to negotiate for them, not because they are physically unable to negotiate, but because their position of a lack of power and confidence ensures they feel they cannot.

People who are able to negotiate will do beautifully out of new arrangements. People who are quiet, shy, unsure of their rights, who struggle with legalistic language etc, will be distinctly disadvantaged. Which seems deeply unfair.
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 12:55:54 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
Bruce's attitude presents the core of the argument for those 'self-reliant, hard, and smart enterprise workers', that this Government wants and against those they characterise as 'bludgers'.

Bruce seems to make the assumption that if you are a hard worker you will certainly be noticed and rewarded. However, this is not the case in many workplaces where lower-level managers act as filters between the semi-skilled workers and the higher-up managers.

It is a mistake to assume that these low-level managers will always act in the interests of the business and give credit where it is due - to a hard worker who is, as Laurie points out, shy and retiring and/or otherwise unable to make as case for improvement in their wages and conditions.

Hayek, the economist who many neo-liberals cite as their source of wisdom, puts it this way; strength of character and independence of thought is rarely found among those who are not confident that they can make their way by their own efforts.

Well, that puts me in my place as someone undeserving of being part of the new neo-liberal society.
Posted by Mollydukes, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 1:55:52 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 is a bit of a shame that those who support such changes aren't in position where they could be exploited by such reforms, or be able to put themselves in the shoes of such people. If they were to do so, these plans would not be so strongly supported.

It is a huge shame that those with a senate majority are in this category.

Tim Carter.
Posted by Timmy83, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 2:48:08 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
All this talk about the 'bludgers' getting what they deserve is fine - IF we're all starting from a level playing field.

What the advocates of these changes fail to recognise is that some people just don't have the raw materials it takes to be a doctor/lawyer/CEO - are they less valuable humans because they are not as smart? Do they not work as hard?
Did they ask to be born or have any choice in what their mental/physical capacity was going to be when they were conceived?

In this way it IS deeply unfair (as L put it a few posts above...LOVE your post by the way - good point!) because this brave new world doesn't acknowledge the difference, maintaining that it is all effort.
Sounds like the well worn myth that any American citizen can be President - works in theory but we all know that in practice it is a totally different ball game...

Yep - I'm sure all the brickies labourers out there *could* have been doctors if they'd just tried a bit harder, eh?

When we are born equal and educated equally (that includes the meany rich kid lessons about how to dodge tax....) THEN call it fair competition and - sure - every man for himself.

You can't have a race when one jockey has a Thoroughbred and one has a Donkey....
Posted by Newsroo, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 4:38:14 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 think that the Liberals won't rest until we are on a par with our first-world business competitors in the third-world and Australia's work force is reduced to the same over-exploited level of third-world workers. A truly competitive frame of mind aims at the highest possible result whilst treating your team fairly. We can reduce our standards downwards; or we can aim higher and retain our fair-go attitude. Western workers need to learn from the mistakes of past and not get sucked into the cultural supremism of the past and blaming overseas workers for their lot. Off-shore workers have a right to work and conditions just as we do. We can can get caught up in a downward spiraling competition, that is, we reduce our living wages and work conditons so pressure is on to reduce theirs and soon all workplaces are "reformed" down to third-world levels and the only ones who benefit are employers, especially, the multi-nationals. All workers need protection from over-exploitation and unfair work-place laws.
Australian empolyers need to take a more positive and truly competitive approach and force the competition to new heights rather than just scapegoating their workers and falling into the Liberals old, very old ideological attitude of employer to be rewarded must ensure employee deprived. Do we really want to go back to that old capitalism (bosses vs worker) that caused such political and social unrest of the twentieth century. Old saying referring to that old way: "As someone has pointed out, when economic theory addresses capitalism, it says nothing about morality." (From the book 'Death in the Locker Room'.)
In this century a successful business must bring morality into its workplace relations. Over-exploitation is wrong.
Posted by rancitas, Thursday, 14 July 2005 4:22:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Also, not all of us live in cities where there is a ‘business down the road’, as Bruce suggests. Some of us live in small towns where there is only one business that requires our skills, so there is no competition to keep this employer honest.

Sure we can all move to a big city, but even if we can afford the financial costs of such a move, what about the emotional costs in terms of disrupting our kid’s schooling, losing all our social supports and resources such as, doctor, dentist and mechanic, that we know and trust
Posted by Mollydukes, Thursday, 14 July 2005 10:20:14 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
Bruce has managed to insult the intelligence of every poster here with his "I'm alright, what's your problem" blinkered view.

Late last year I changed jobs from a large (public service department) to a small private business (less than 100) and now I find I am to be employed on a different basis than I would be had I stayed where I was.

I am currently happy with my job, but I am fully aware that the company for whom I work would not hesitate to 'slash & burn' if they are not making sufficient profits. Therefore I will be joining a union, because I know that as an individual I am not on an equal playing field with my employer.

I am a skilled and reliable worker but this means nothing to company owners who are profit driven and with the IR loaded in their favour, completely unaccountable. I may be skilled, reliable and hardworking but so are many other people. I am fully aware that I am dispensible.

Paranoid? Hardly. Realistic - have to be.
Posted by Trinity, Thursday, 14 July 2005 2:24:57 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 issue this challenge to Peter Hendy.
I challenge him to answer these fundamental questions

Will a worker be able to refuse a direction to perform unsafe work?

If they do and work for someone with less than 100 employees will they be allowed to lodge a claim for reinstatement, if dismissed?

Will a worker be allowed to refuse an unlawful direction?

If they do and work for someone with less than 100 employees will they be allowed to lodge a claim for reinstatement, if dismissed?

If other readers like watching spin doctors squirm then wait for Peter Hendy's answers. I love watching innovative spin and I await with interest Peter Hendy's answer, that is of course if he is brave enough to answer.
Posted by slasher, Thursday, 14 July 2005 8:40:11 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
There is a price for having cheap Chinese products on our shelves you know.Our balance of payments will continue to worsen if we don't compete and that means working longer for less which is what we have been doing over the last 15yrs as tarrifs have been lowered.

The alternative of raising tarrifs,keeping wages high will see us in a worse situation of high cost consumerables and being unable to keep with the latest technology.

The thing I don't like is big business and multi-nationals that condense wealth through the share market into fewer hands.This is a recipe for revolution.People must be paid enough to live beyond a subsistence level and profits need to go also back to workers and not just shareholders.

I think that unfair dismissal has been poorly administered and must go, however the worker must be paid beyond the level a subsistence existence.

Multi nationals should be forced to pay people in poor countries higher wages since we lose our jobs.They produce a pair of Nike's for $5.00 that we pay $150.00 for .Who is benefiting?The same pair of shoes may take $50.00 to produce in Australia but will still sell for $150.00.

It is a reality of whatever the market will bear.By creating more poor people in Australia multi nations are actually reducing the seize of their market.

If people cannot afford to consume the products they are consuming,then we are all losing out.Poverty always ends in destruction.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 14 July 2005 9:47:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking as an EmployER who has a business which depends for its very survival on being competitive... who has also worked for others, with a wife currently working in a factory, I'd like to add some thoughts.

The view from 'workers' perspective alone is inadequate, ranting about 'the poor workers getting hard done by' is incomplete. All of us HAVE to get the big picture, which is one of a complex mix of many factors which are in a state of continual flux.

The primary factors we must contend with are:

-Globalization, drawing more and more into the black hole of 'big is better' (this is bad in my opinion)

-Power hungry Union leaders who make unrealistic/unsustainable promises of conditions which will do nothing to maintain competitiveness in a vicious merciless dog eat dog world.
Which are more aimed at remaining 'relevant' than actually helping the country.

-A balance of competing interests between Employers/Employees, which seeks a flexible yet competitive (on a world scale) and rewarding for all sides. i.e. a rejection of 'Them/Us' and an embracing of "We're in this together"

I wish posters would try to leap OUT of their small circle of personal interest, and come to grips which these things, such that there actually WILL BE jobs for people on both ends of the scale in years to come.

The idea that all segments of our community (specially manufacturing) can sustain our lifestyle in the face of China is to be deluded.

Our 'lifestyle' came by and large from the empty short term promises of the 'we will retain power and relevance at any cost' Unionists of a left wing position.

Now, as the 'crunch' comes from such approaches, and factories lay off thousands and outsource manufacturing to China, IT and 'Back office Services'to India, (globalization) .... they are reaping what they sowed. And "WE" are paying the price of their self-serving folly.

If we don't adjust our attitudes to how things 'are', we will end up as a huge 'hole in the ground' which used to contain 'iron ore' into which we will all fall.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 15 July 2005 6:36:31 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
bd

Please explain how paying poverty level wages will make Australia prosper?

Please explain how lifting unfair dismissal laws will create more jobs? How many extra staff will you be hiring?

Please show proof that current dismissal laws were ruining our economy.

Please extrapolate just how producing goods at the same cost as in China will make us more competitive?

Please offer your prediction on the outcomes of court challenges that will occur when someone is unfairly dismissed who is in a position to fight back - funded by the dreaded unions perhaps.

Please explain how a single employee negotiating a workplace contract on his/her own is on equal footing to an employer?
Posted by Xena, Friday, 15 July 2005 7:48:57 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
BD I also speak from a perspective that encompasses the employer and nobody that I have read in this forum, has ‘ranted’ about the poor workers being hard done by. I have pointed out real circumstances in which a hard working employee will find themselves disadvantaged by the new IR regulations.

You say we need to reject the them/us position but ‘the employers’ need to do this first. You yourself perpetuate this divide by referring to ‘power hungry union leaders’ as part of the problem. Provide some examples where power hungry union leaders have been a problem in the past 10 years.

Furthermore, as the most powerful operatives in this debate, it is the responsibility of business and people like Peter Hendy to make this move first. They need to call for policies that will hold businesses and corporations to account for the negative results of their activities overseas and mitigate the increasing inequality of incomes.

As you say, we all need to get the big picture and perhaps you need to put your personal biases to one side in order to respond to the big picture issues. The point I make here is that you refuse to vote for the minority parties, the Greens and the Democrats who are the only parties who do have policies that will address the issue of globalisation and the growing inequality in Australia.

It is you who needs to leap out of your small circle of personal interest and come to grips with the problem that some workers *will* be worse off with the new IR regulations and why should they give up their standard of living to ensure that your business will survive?
Posted by Mollydukes, Friday, 15 July 2005 10:46:08 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
24 hours are almost past since the challenge to Peter Hendy

I will repeat the challenge

I challenge him to answer these fundamental questions

Will a worker be able to refuse a direction to perform unsafe work?

If they do and work for someone with less than 100 employees will they be allowed to lodge a claim for reinstatement, if dismissed?

Will a worker be allowed to refuse an unlawful direction?

If they do and work for someone with less than 100 employees will they be allowed to lodge a claim for reinstatement, if dismissed?

If other readers like watching spin doctors squirm then wait for Peter Hendy's answers. I love watching innovative spin and I await with interest Peter Hendy's answer, that is of course if he is brave enough to answer
Posted by slasher, Friday, 15 July 2005 8:03:41 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
Slasher,just keep the lawyers out of it.Are we going to get down to legal definitions of safe work places?If you want more employment make it easier to employ people.The casualisation of the workforce is due to lower margins,high taxation,Govt red tape,workers comp.,super contributions etc.

If it so damn easy,why don't you become an employer?When most employers do their sums and divide the hours they do into their salaries,they are earning less on an hourly basis than their employees.Add the stress of failure and possible litigation to this and it can all become just too hard.

The real rate of unemployment is much higher than 5%.I'd say at least half of those on DSP[700,000] are the long term unemployed.Add to this all those who can only find a few hrs a week and the real rate of unemployment is much greater.The Public Service has also expanded over the last 30yrs to care for the unemployed and socially disadvantaged.This has meant higher taxes for all and thus less for the workers.Hence both parents have to work just to survive.If everyone works ,both you and the rest of society benefits.

We have to make easier to employ people.Good workers are hard to come by and are paid well above award wages.

Let's not get too alarmist,since if John Howard's IR reforms hurt the worker,he knows full well,that his next election will be his last.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 16 July 2005 6:26:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Molldukes,to quote you "...some workers will be worse off with the new IR regulationsand why should they give up their standard of living to ensure your business will survive."

Well if David Boaz's business and many others don't survive there will be no jobs or living standards to maintain.

What do suggest,print more money so no one has to work?Alas Mollydukes ,it's been tried before.Maybe you could get the Public service to fix your plumbing at five times the price.

You see this is the fuzzy logic that John Howard and others have to confront with many like you,who cannot grasp economic realities.

Sure there is a lot wrong with multi-nationals and big business,but the bulk of our popluation is employed by small business on low margins.We have to deal with the economic realities that confront us now and work within that frame work.

Just read my last post in this section and you will know my reservations about Global economics.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 16 July 2005 6:56:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
arjay,
you would rather allow businesses to kill people just to keep the lawyers out. What sort of sick morality have you got. This is the crux of the issue some people value their overseas holidays, rolex watches more than the lives and welfare of other people.

I am aware of many situations where employers have removed safety guards of machinery to increase profitability, end result worker loses three fingers, but thats ok according to you as long as you get a buck in your pocket you do not care
Posted by slasher, Sunday, 17 July 2005 9:13:49 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
Arjay, it is Howard’s IR reforms that are going to bring the lawyers in. That is the way they propose that individuals dispute an unfair dismissal.

As you note, it is not easy for small businesses in this society and the Howard government policies over the past 10 years have not helped. They see multinationals and large employers as the basis of a growth economy.

If small employers are ineffient and having trouble paying a decent wage then they need to get a job with effecient employers, surely?

Stop focusing on welfare and look at some of the other inefficient practices of this government. After all, the bludgers have children who do not deserve to suffer for the parental shortcomings.

Howard is not motivated only by his desire to stay in power. He wants to go down in ‘history’ as the one who made far reaching changes that kept the economy ticking over and the negative results of the IR reforms will not be immediately apparent.

You say that currently both parents need to work to survive in this society. I fail to see how you think that earning less will make things better.

As a side issue, it seems to me that if you need two incomes to ‘get by’ you probably want more than you really need. It may help to compare what you have with the rest of the world that don’t live in Western economies.

In some cases, good workers are paid well, but not all. As you point out, good employers are unable to pay well in many circumstances. Your arguments contradict each other.

So take a good hard look at what this government is doing, rather than relying on your fuzzy logic to tell yourself that whatever the Liberals do is for the good of us all.
Posted by Mollydukes, Sunday, 17 July 2005 11:03:04 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
Slasher and Molly.

It seems that you are allowing emotion and 'irrational hysteria' to be your guide.

The simple fact is that NO 'system' will be perfect for both sides, because you cannot legislate for every permutation of human behavior, agreed ?

Now.. classic example of the 'weakness' of the current legislation as I (rightly or wrongly) understand it.

If you have a worker who is underperforming, (i.e. turning a profit into a loss simply by their work habits, taking 2 hours to do a 40 minute job) you have to do something. If they are EMPLOYED to do THAT job, i.e. at the interview, you say "I have THIS job available,... etc" but they are unable or unwilling to perform at the required level EVEN for simple break even. ... THAT is the person these changes are aimed at. There is one such person at my wifes work, and they alllll know what she is doing. She deliberately AVOIDS the job she is given, and tries to occupy herself with simple easy time-wasting jobs, now, she was working on one particular product and that factory has now LOST that contract. (slowness of supply)

If one had to 'warn, x3 counsel, write to, re-train, shift around' etc such a person, the result will still be the same "bludgeville".

If we go too far the other way, making it ultra easy to dismiss people
we will be rewarded with SOME heartless and opportunistic employers.
But as Arjay says, 'word travels' and trust me, it travels for employERS and for employEES.

So, in the final analysis, it will depend on what kind of PEOPLE we are and what VALUES we promote in our society. You can thank the 60s and the 'me' generation for most of the problems of today, and without 'new people' it will not just 'not change' it will decidedly worsen.

Sadly, the 2 views I see expressed here mainly seem to be still 'its our way or the highway', yet there IS a moderate middle ground. If we can only put hysteria aside.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 17 July 2005 11:17:40 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
BOAZ_David, in your last post you say put aside hysteria. Thats a good commonsens approach; however, how do you trust a government that has been deceptive? One example from the last election was Medicare, during the campaign we were told that there would be no changes to the safety net. Evidence now coming forward indicates that the Coalition government had knowledge that it would not be possible to sustain the Medicare safety net prior to the last election. They were saying one thing, but had evidence to suggest the opposite.

Already there are complaints from working people about having been forced to sign Australian Workplace Agreements and as a result lost hard won entitlements without gaining extra financial consideration. Such a working agreement was read to a group of Unionists on 30th June at a demonstration. There was nothing ambiguous about what was read, the employing company had abused it's power.

Big business wishes the IR changes, shouldn't they be setting an example? The CEO of the Commonwealth Bank gaining a payout of $28 million is obscene to say the least (reported on Saturday 16 July 2005). There has been a very apparent trend in the last few years,to screw down the little person, while those in power are advantaged. The recent tax cuts promised by the Coalition Government give very litle support to those who need them, those on the minimum wage.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 17 July 2005 1:38:06 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
Arjay, BD if you can't afford to pay a decent living wage to your employees - then sell up now; our economy cannot afford to sustain unviable businesses.

If you are continually hiring problem employees then you need to reform your hiring policies.

Good employees need good employers.

The current IR charade is Howard's last stand to set himself in history - however history will judge him harshly for installing a divisive two tiered system of employment. He knows this is his last term. There is no justification for these 'reforms' just political ego.
Posted by Trinity, Sunday, 17 July 2005 2:23:16 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
Well Trinity, I'm rather glad you showed your true colors :).....

We call for 'middle ground which will benefit all"

and you say -paraphrasing.
-"Your hiring policies suck"
-"You don't know enough about business to survive, you should be CULLED"
-"You are the newly appointed guardian and all knowing one concerning the economic future of our country"

Myyyyy God, I'll resist the EXTREME temptation to ascribe about 20 juicy adjectives to your 'wisdom' :) I feel others can see for themselves.

One of my newly decided "hiring policy" questions will now be

"Do you feel the world and my company owes you a living ? and can you accept that as the newest member of the team, you may have to be let go if things take a nosedive" ?

Trinity, you work for others, yet you have the 'all knowingness' to decide their suitability to run and manage the business that (in my case) they took a punt on with all their super, long service and gut feeling), and how much they should pay their employees. This is amazing :) If I don't pay enough, they will walk or not even start. duh.

You have a fully comprehensive handle on all factors effecting their global and local competitiveness, thus, you can make sweeping pronouncements about them, from your desk ... this is almost too good to be true. I've been hoping someone will take you to task for your obvious bias and you DID IT YOURSELF :) thanx.

There is something quite unsettling about your way, if we disagree with you WE KNOW NOTHING , if we disagree with Islam "WE HATE MUSLIMS"

We advocate middle ground and WE SHOULD BE CULLED from the economy.

Err, something about the 'meeeeee meeeeee meeeee' generation comes to mind :
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 17 July 2005 4:16:34 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 only extreme views being expressed here is the utterly false claims you make regarding my post.

Your call for moderation only applies to others and not for yourself. This is apparent through out all your posts be it your religion and your attitude to anyone with a different perspective.

I presume then from the extreme hysteria of your emotive reaction above that you do not wish to pay employees a living wage and therefore, would rather exploit them as the new IR laws will enable you to do.

As for your hiring policy - I work in HR and am well versed in assesing aspiring employees. Perhaps I could assist you so that in future you won't find yourself stuck with problem workers. Please let me know I am happy to provide literature on the psychology of work place interviews - clearly you could use some help here. After all we do not want your business to fail.

Cheers
Posted by Trinity, Sunday, 17 July 2005 5:04:50 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
BD do not be silly, how can word get around about bad employers? Maybe in a few cases, this could be true but not in the majority of cases. I have a daughter-in-law who does temping work and has much experience of how different business can be. There are many ‘bad’ employers out there.

You provide an example in which you have a dud employee and I agree that this is a cryin' shame. However, I can provide an example in which my mother, one of the worst employers I have ever known, got rid of a perfectly good hard-working employee simply because the person was overweight and she did not 'like' her. She got rid of her by being so nasty that the girl resigned. Perhaps you could try this.

But the complaints in this forum are not about the unfair dismissal part of the reforms. Did you miss that point? I speak from knowledge and experience and cold hard reason, not from emotion and irrational hysteria and I am quite sure that we are already too far toward the employer side of the road.

I agree that what is important is the values we promote. Valuing material wealth and conspicuous consumption come from the capitalist ideology that greed is good, that consumption keeps the economy ticking over nicely. It was not the 60’s that brought about this bad attitude; it was the 80’s. It was the backlash against the so-called socialist, bleeding heart, policies and they were initiated by the Labor governments and being promoted mercilessly by the current government.
Posted by Mollydukes, Monday, 18 July 2005 1:49:46 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
TRINITY
P.O. Box 843 Bayswater, 3153 :) thanx ("The Owner" will work for addressee.)

-"then sell up now"= 'your business should be culled' ? (am I missing something?)
-"our economy cannot afford.." ="You are the 'master economist" :)

Your had a point about "If you are continually hiring problem employees" (no, don't have that problem myself) so I withdraw my 'stone' aimed at that one.

But, I desire to have a productive business, hence I want happy motivated employees, who will not be so if they are underpaid. I've always paid at the TOP end of the award structure in contrast to my own former employer who paid at the bottom end. I chafed under the feeling of 3 yrs without a COL index increment, it sucks.

ANT...
they are ALL a slippery opportunistic deceptive mob mate.
The Libs deceive about such and such, Labor/ACTU decieve about 'forcing' only 2 weeks leave, (when its a CHOICE)
Greens and Dems about something else.

So, I'm not prepared to cast my vote for anything but a 'message' .ie. I would probably vote for Family First at this stage. Some of the Christian parties are on another planet, like one I saw which had as part of its platform "Queen Elizabeth is our sovereign".. It just struck me as anachronistic and flawed from a 'Christian' point of view, unless your C of E.

MOLLY
I appreciated the nice tone of your post, (except for the mean "your silly" :) In our area,
(actually yes, I did miss the rest of the stuff, I was focused mainly on the unfair dismissal procedure which is VERY unfair to employers in its current form. To be honest, it WOULD stop me from employing in anything other than permanent casual, which is needed anyway under the current business climate to remain viable. (paying people to stand around doing zilch has not, to my knowledge helped business success/survivability :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 18 July 2005 6:01:07 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
"But, I desire to have a productive business, hence I want happy motivated employees, who will not be so if they are underpaid. I've always paid at the TOP end of the award structure in contrast to my own former employer who paid at the bottom end. I chafed under the feeling of 3 yrs without a COL index increment, it sucks."

BD if the above statement of yours is actually true, then what the *!#+ were you on about in your hysterical rant previously? You do carry on a bit now don't you?

-"then sell up now"= 'your business should be culled' ? (am I missing something?)>> I repeat if your can't afford to pay employees then you should maybe become one again - 'culled' is your hysterical response.

-"our economy cannot afford.." ="You are the 'master economist" :) No I am not a master economist - never claimed to be, once again you run to extremes. Common sense says that the ecoonomy cannot support unviable businesses - its not rocket science BD.

Now come down to earth you flighty little man and read the following link, because small businesses have more to fear from big business than from employees wanting to earn enough for a roof over their heads and food on the table.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/kenneth-davidson/the-ir-facts-behind-the-pms-truth/2005/07/13/1120934299261.html?oneclick=tru
Posted by Trinity, Monday, 18 July 2005 7:23:32 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
Small businesses are constrained with unfair dismissal laws - whereby they cannot replace an employee with someone who they think will do a better job.

What would happen if there were similar laws for employees leaving.

Lets call it an unfair resignation law.

With the unfair resignation law, an employee would not be allowed to resign from his or her position unless they had given there boss three written warnings that they were not happy with their job.

They also wouldn't be allowed to use the excuse that they had been given a better opportunity elsewhere because employers are not allowed to sack people just because they think someone else would do a better job.

Of course, you cannot resign just because you don't like your boss. this is grossly unfair.

Would the unions support such an evening up of unfair dismissal laws.

t.u.s.
Posted by the usual suspect, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 1:42:31 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
peter hendy has failed to respond to the challenge after some 18 days to two simple questions will a worker if employed at a workplace with less than 100 employees be able to seek reinstatement for either refusing an unsafe direction or an unlawful direction.

surely everyone must support the rule of law. does anyone support the notion that someone should lose their job and be dependant on welfare for refusing to comply with an unlawful direction.

Examples of which are as follows:-

driving a truck or heavy vehicle for longer periods as prescribed in various Transport Legislation (designed to protect road users)

dumping waste or hazardous material outside of prescribed areas

working in a non-exempt shop and trading outside of lawful hours

why won't peter hendy reassure everyone that workers will be able to have an independant umpire review their case if dismissed for refusing unlawful directions.

if an employer removes a safety guard from machinery to improve efficiency will the worker's job be safe if they refuse to operate the equipment.

or under john howard and peter hendy's system will they have to lose a limb and sue for compensation

oh what a wonderful world we would live in
c'mon pete you must have a view on this.
c'mon liberals or nats what's your views?
do you support the rule of law?
Posted by slasher, Tuesday, 2 August 2005 8:33:04 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. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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