Why not get the ACTU to start and run a few businesses. They could leverage their popular image to get a marketing advantage.

Imagine how popular a car marketed under the name ACTU instead of Holdon or Ford would be. And imagine how harmonious the worksites would be if the ACTU was the owner/manager of enterprises.

:-)

Howard IR legislation is like his bowling....

How on earth will the ability to sack some poor indivdual who doesn't have the skills to do a job help to resolve our skills shortage!

Since Australia fell off the sheeps back we seem to have wandered around in circles, looking for another back to ride on. Sadly in our new speculative global economy the backs have become fickle things. Howards changes to IR will not make any difference to the economy, when the world economy dips the Australian economy will dive. And when the world economy picks up, so will the Australain econmy.

The IR reforms will be detrimental to those who have no empowerment, the already disadvantaged. The beneficaries of the reform will be those who have the power, but these benefits will make them poor managers of their resources- people will become consumables...just like your VCR, any problems....just throw it away, and get another one for a cheaper price!

People rarely get sacked for being unskilled unless they misrepresented their skills when hired. The two main reasons people get sacked are:-

1. Poor attitude.
2. They have become redundant to business requirements due to a downturn in business or a change in the nature of the business.

At the moment anybody can be sacked due to item 2. People can also be sacked due to item 1 but it is procedurally difficult and leaves the employer open to time consuming litigation.

Sacking people with poor attitude generally lifts moral and hence productivity. Few people want to work along side slackers or trouble makers.

Terje
you have a remarkably good point there !

How ironic it would be for the ACTU to begin manufacturing, and find they encountered:

a) Pressure from employees to pay high wages for short working hours.
b) Pressure from the market to be competitive on price and quality.
c) bankruptcy court as they discover that a) and b) are not compatable. (neither are they necessarily mutually exclusive in a perfect redeemed world)

I just wonder how they would justify the redundancies to the workers ?

Then, I suppose they would do what most left oriented groups do, 'whine' for money to be allocated to 'save workers jobs' ....but from where.. well it doesn't really matter because they don't care.
Ideology (rather than reality) always comes first ...right ? :)

The biblical concept of "don't muzzle an ox while its treading out the grain" (so it can eat + work) does not mean "let the ox loose in the wheat field" without it doing any work, which seems to be the mentality of some attitudes.

A fair days pay for a fair days work is a basic principle. Pushing the boundaries of 'fair' seems to be the messianic calling of both employer and employee groups. I think its called 'selfishness'.

I don't think anything will resolve that conundrum apart from renewed hearts and minds on both ends of the spectrum, along with a dose of national repentance, in the context of market forces and in house development and innovation, which determine the survivability of any business.

Actually, for those who don't recall the ACTU has had previous involvement in business back in the 70s. It bought a department store in Melbourne which it then used to help break the practice of retail price maintenance. Under RPM manufacturers and suppliers would dictate to retailers what price products were to be sold at - any retailer trying to udercut the price didn't get supplies. The federal govt was forced to ban this practice.
The ACTU also ran independent petrol stations under the banner of ACTU Solo. Again this helped break down the cartel of the major petrol companies.
Staff employed in ACTU business enterprises would have employed on award conditions of course but the main beneficiaries were ordinary consumers whether they were union members or not.
I was happy to shop at the ACTU store and to buy Solo petrol.
Under Howards rules even the ACTU would have to employ staff under AWAs if they were try the business route again, so can't see it happening.

Terje / BD,

Perhaps it is necessary for you to examine your own failings as manager’s?

I have extensive management experience and some qualifications (with more on the way) and I believe that while the majority of employee related issues come down to either [i] Attitude or [ii] Aptitude (& only one is completely solvable), all issues or problems arising in th ecourse of a business’ operations etc. are attributable to the manager(s) of that business. The raisin de etre of a manager, is to solve, or more importantly prevent problems when and if they occur.

I have found that manager’s may be divided generally into two major categories, which are differentiated between by their response to problems. One is the pro-active, competent manager that automatically identifies the problem, seeks the cause of the problem, and solves the underlying cause thereof. The second identifies the problem, and makes excuses, explaining how the problem that occurred is neither their fault, nor responsibility. These two responses are mutually exclusive, in that time spent doing one, is time spent not doing the other.

Perhaps this explains the saying of an infamous Corsican, that ‘there are no bad men [sic], just bad officer’s’.

Perhaps BD / Terje, your employee’s would respond better to leadership than direction or threats?