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 > How not to negotiate with workers > Comments

How not to negotiate with workers : Comments

By Jim McDonald, published 21/11/2005

Jim McDonald argues the WorkChoices Bill favours employers.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Of course the legislation favours the employers: that is what it was designed to do!

A number of legal pundits have described the bill as poorly written and indeed written in haste - theye have likened it to the overbearing tax act in its potential complcations.

The marginalisation of the unions was put in place to offset the impact of growing membership when the legislation bites - they can have as many members as they like but will remain essentially impotent.

I can not recall legislation that has ever been put in place to curtail the activities of a group in the way these laws have.

They are bad laws plain and simple;

Some commentaotr are now using the rather clever assertion that to claim many workers are powerless to negotiate is an example of intellectual snobbery - and it may be in a few isolated cases; but at the end of the day these laws put in palce a structure that can effectively eliminate the scope to negotiate - as Jim points out.

With the cessation of an AWA the default option kicks in - most contracts operate under the implication the status quo remians in place until new terms are set; this law throws that concept out.
Posted by sneekeepete, Monday, 21 November 2005 12:46:17 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
If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys
Posted by aspro, Monday, 21 November 2005 12:49:57 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 like the way you begin Jim:
"John Howard’s WorkChoices Bill reflects an authoritarian, undemocratic approach to workplace industrial relations."
All you have done is expanded on your opening statement. The IR bill is about power over the people in the workplace, and out of the workplace and over the people who are unemployed. With no senate we live in an undemocratic country.
Posted by GlenWriter, Monday, 21 November 2005 12:49:58 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
One can hardly expect Mr Howard (et al) to show any regard for the average employee. Corporation's are the only citizens with sufficient wherewithal to keep coalition MP's in the style to which they so quickly become accustomed. Fortunately, individual companies have experienced signicant savings, in that now they can contribute multiple amounts of <$10,000 to campaign funds, therefore removing the need for them to make so many more <$1,000 transactions as in the past, think of the reduction in bank fees.

On another note however, it is in fact true that employers' will still be entitled to maintain their freedom of association with unions / associations (small business council, Australian Industry Council?, etc.). They will also be able to use their financial and legal resources to batter individual employees', impertinent enough to take them to court, into the ground.

However, the solution is for the union's / ALP to out those who egage in anti-employee behaviour (SCABS/Black-listed business). Quite frankly, individuals are always less confident, and far more prone to doubt, when they are identified, as this removes them from the protections they enjoy as members of the group.

see my previous post:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13#20614
Posted by Aaron, Monday, 21 November 2005 2:10:59 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
The facts in practice will tell the story. These changes will prove to be beneficial for all in the workplace whether it is employers or employees.

The reality is that employers depend on satisfied and committed employees if their businesses are to be strong. And strong businesses mean better rewards for all concerned.

Reading the main article and the comments posted to date, one would come to the conclusion that employers must be terrible people and they they make money hand over fist by being nasty and mean with their employees. These changes will make it easier for employers and employees to work together for their mutual benefit.

The time for class warfare is well and truly over.

It needs to be remembered that it is not compulsory to belong to a union. The 80% of working people who don't join unions clearly are quite happy to work things out with their employers or they would join a union. That is they are quite happy to organise things individually rather than collectively.

You know the vast majority of people are really nice people, and that includes employers and employees.
Posted by Sniggid, Monday, 21 November 2005 6:12:28 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
You do not need to be Einstein to work out that the IR legislation is to benefit employers only. It is mainly semi-skilled workers who will be burnt by the legislation. That has been the case in New Zealand, and Western Australia. The Court Government introduced similar legislation; and cleaners were particularly hit hard. NZ and WA provide examples of what has actually happened; rather than the academic push by Mr.Howard.

The clear aim of the IR legislation is to cut wages/salaries over a period of time. In the view of Mr.Howard the Arbitration system as it stands has been too generous to workers.
Posted by ant, Monday, 21 November 2005 9:22:19 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 find it really odd that John Howard has gone down this extreme path of IR reform that puts the employer in a position of total power.No mention of reducing regulation,red tape or taxes.This is electoral dynamite.

While John Howard is a great political tactician,I don't think he has a clue about the economy.Could it be that Peter Costello has laid the ultimate plan for John Howard's demise.Let John paint himself into the corner of extremist IR reform and then rescue the electorate from his evil clutches by becoming our new Prime Minister?

Stranger things have happened.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 21 November 2005 10:09:54 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
Sniggid, I would have to agree with some of what you had to say, I believe there are some good employers, in fact I have met one. However the overwhelming majority I have had the misfortune to work for in my 50 years of life have been exploitative, greedy people, concerned only with the size of their bank balance, at the expense of their employees, and I don't expect anything to change for the better, for employees with these draconian laws taking us back to the 19th century of the Master/slave days. The employer will have the right to unfairly sack the employee, without redress, offer to buy the employees holidays [2 weeks] at whatever price they feel like paying for them. If they ask an employee to work unpaid overtime, and the employee refuses, they can just sack them, and get another one who is so subservient, that they will work overtime for nothing, it is a complete breakdown of wages and conditions, hard won over 100 years, at a time when unemployment is low, interest rates are low, inflation is low, and the economy is good. Imagine how hard the employers will screw the employees when the economy is "BAD", no thanks Mr. Howard, you are gone at the next election.
Posted by SHONGA, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 5:47:25 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
Sniggid,

I of course agree, most employers are good employers. However, there are a minority of profit above all, and whoa betide anybody that gets between them and their profit.

My proposal will not effect good employers in any way, however the bad will be outed, to their shame amongst their peers and to their detriment in the market. As for scabs, did you not see what happened with the MUA/Patricks Stevedoring dispute? The time for class warfare has not ended when this government launches such extreme attacks on workers.

Employers' are predominantly good, SCABS never are. They should not be able to take advantage of the unions/ALP lack of organisation to mount a pretence that it was not them, with my proposal, once branded they are branded for life, and as such it is a deterrent.
Posted by Aaron, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 6:23:19 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
Aaron
I’ve been wondering just ‘where’ you have been coming from, but now its pretty clear.

Your use of ‘SCAB’ and reference to the MUA are clear evidence of a particular mindset which requires drastic verbal surgery.

SCAB
Let me say at the outset, if I as an individual, employed by any company, and not being a member of a union. OR.. being a member of a union where the leadership style was one of intimidation, brute force and terrorism, I would not only return to work if I wished, I would do it as openly and as ‘in your face’ to any smart mouth who thinks they can run my life or terrorize me !
If anyone came and tried to stop me physically, they would be either charged with assault or be the unhappy victim of their own folly in underestimating me, or both.

MUA
That was probably the absolute worst example you could ever find to use in a discussion of this nature. My feeling is that the Government were WAY too lenient on the entrenched corrupt terrorists who tried to blackmail this fine country. I find that the police not charging many of the thugs of the MUA with ‘the book’ to be a travesty of justice unparalleled in our time.

Anyone who has even half a brain and does not need to read by ‘brail’ will know the disgusting abuses and corruption and nepotism which characterized the MUA for so many years. “Inherited jobs” ? come on mate..which world are you living in ? Read up on the Painters and Dockers to grasp the mentality of these people.

TROOPS
You appear to be about a millimeter away from some Nazi group, who believes in power by thuggery. The MUA tried to impact Australia’s whole economy world wide through union links.
All this to protect lifestyles and incomes for the ‘chosen few’ that even yuppies would envy.
That, is when I’d bring in the troops with zero apology.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING actually preVENTS individual talent from being rewarded, but ensures highly paid union officials are employed !
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 8:39:39 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 am somewhat confused Aaron. Who are the SCABS you are referring to? Are they the people who are not members of a union and go to work when the union says they should be on strike?

You are clearly one of the 20% of employees who choose to belong to a union. It is not compulsory you know. And the 80% who are not are not affected by union tactics.

The IR changes don't seem too popular at the moment. However, the test of the pudding is in the eating and once they become Law and are enacted the taste of the changes will start to be experienced. That will be the ultimate test. And the future of the coalition Government will depend upon exactly how it pans out over the next 2 years.

I'd suggest that you and other contributers to this topic are Labor voters just as I am a Coalition voter. It will be the "swinging" voters who will decide the issue, not the noisy minority that we are.
Posted by Sniggid, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 8:50:31 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
Sniggid I am sure is aware that even today with low union membership manyof the conditions under which non unionists work are there through the action of the unions in earlier years.

And I agree there is little thats sets employers apart from the rest of us; by and large they are probably reasonable people too.

But under the new regime the reasonableness of many will be tested; some employers will jump at the opportunity to exploit the new arrangements and that will in some cases be enough to change the dynamic of an industry - the board of a major company is at great risk of having the reasonableness sniggid refers to eroded by its pre eminent motive to maximise profits.

And again sniggid opens with a few assertions the scheme will ultimately benefit every one - but like the government there is no causal link - no mechannism describing the link betwen these changes and growing employment or increased profitability.

There is a vast shortage of workers within hospitality according to both the governemnt and the industry - clearly a sellers market; under the principles espoused in these laws the would be waiter holds the whip hand - there is no impediment to companies paying above the award but I see no evidence that conditions in that industry are being sweetened to attract workers - if anything the reverse is the case.

There is no evidence of the unseen guidignhand of market forces here - just pre scription, regulation and arbitrary ministerial and mangerial prerogative
Posted by sneekeepete, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 9:20:56 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
It is good to see that Boaz has a friend in Sniggid.They are tough and clever. Look out anyone who calls them a scab, they will biff them and then turn the full weight of the law on the thugs.I thought Boaz took the cake on these postings for intellectual dishonesty, however its clear that Sniggid is going to give him a run for his/her money. Will you please set out on your next posting, any errors in Jim McDonald article. I myself found it well researched,cogent and accurate. Please note ;
No law currently exists that prevents an employer paying an employee more than a minimum award condition. Therefore it is patently obvious that these new provisions are not required, to facilitate wage increases and/or improvements to conditions.
Posted by hedgehog, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 10:55:59 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
Sniggid, its no secret that Melbourne had a turnout of 200,000+ people to protest about the proposed IR changes because all Victorians were hurt by the changes wrought by the Kennett government in 1992. The Kennett government changes are seen as the forerunner of these IR changes.

The effects of the Kennett IR changes in 1992 were
- reduce size of Vic public service, 55% of those retrenched have never worked again
- lay off workers who serviced the public service
- reduced visitors to ski resorts
- average time spent on holiday in regional Victoria reduced from 7 days to 4 days
- reduced income in regional Victoria from tourism
- Victorian government departments use outsourced contract labour for cleaning, IT professional services, engineering services - hence the hole in the Burnley Tunnel as City Link was a skip free zone
- increased use of casual labour from university trained engineers, teachers, IT
- retrench Australian workers so we could import trains and trams from Europe
- replace ticket collectors and tram conductors with non-Y2K software and expensive ticket machines supplied from overseas thus reducing safety on public transport and increasing fare evasion that lead to the introduction of facist transport police

Now IR reform may have worked in WA but it really hurt in Victoria, which is why most people who lived in Victoria in the 1990s look at the IR reforms in fear.
Posted by billie, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 12:50:58 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
Sign the petition urging Barnaby Joyce to cross the floor at http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/campaigns/takeastand/takeastandpetition/cat_process
Posted by anomie, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 2:17:46 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
Sorry people they are my personal views,

however, I do advocate the setting up of the website / journal of employee freindly employers', and anti-employee employers, which will be freely available to all. Perhaps this could also provide a selling point to those GOOD employers (eg Buy Australian - something along the lnes of ACTU approval), as consumers (predominantly employees) could make an informed decision which suppliers and products they choose. Obviously this would have a detrimental effect on those without such a mark.

Then of course, anybody dealing with these black-listed employer's would be banned from being approved, then perhaps those that are approved could be de-listed if they employ known scabs?

Thank you lil john, the Unions are comin back.

PS That IS market forces at work, bankruptcy anyone?
Posted by Aaron, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 12:43:16 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
Just a note: the IR reforms in WA have recently being roundly criticsed by one the architects and by one who oversaw their implementation.

They were instrumental in a fall in womens wages together with a broadening of the gap between women and mens rates in particular.

The government has failed to show any one how their assupmtins will work: no business has indicated how a revision to unfair dismissal laws will lead to employment growth - most have indicated the changes in that regard will
not induce them to hire.

I have dismissed two employees in the past three weeks - it was niether hard (procedurally) nor unfair - because there was cause:

The new age will see dismissal rooted in whim, prejudice and probably managerial incompetence.

Dont be surpised if, once in place, these laws see a rise in what I would describe as managerial delinquency - like a pimply 18 year old with a drivers licence and the liberty to drink - managers will get carried away with their new found freedom; previously too gutless or capable to mange a work force they, some, will go crazy with power.

Far from reforms these changes are laws, bad laws, prescriptive and a gift to the mean spirited.
Posted by sneekeepete, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 7:12:50 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
Most of the contributers to this page would have us believe that the new IR Laws will unleash horror and terror on employees as their employers suddenly become terrible people who want to kick them around and sack them at the drop of a hat.

With all these disenchantered or sacked employees how on earth will these terrible employers prosper? The fact is that productivity and profitibility is only enhanced if there is workplace harmony where employers and employees get on well and work together for a common cause. If the business does well they all do well.

Jim McDonald's article takes the overall position that the only path for employees is to be protected by unions or otherwise they will be exposed to the "natural" nastiness of the hated class known as ëmployers". The vast majority of employers are not like this. They risk their capital and prosperity by being in business and know that working together with committed and happy employees is the way to having a successful future.

Unfortunately unions have staked their future on division and conflict in the workplace. As their membership numbers have plummeted they have learned none of the lessons of business. If your customers base is in decline you need to change the way you do business. In WA under workplace agreements unions could have offered to represent members in individual Workplace Agreement negotiations. But their obsession with collective bargaining prevented them from being relevant for most employees. There are new opportunities for unions under these new Laws. But if they continue to sing the same old song their continued decline is guaranteed.
Posted by Sniggid, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 8:59:50 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
Sniggid, hello, all recent media reports suggest a new growth in Union membership. When the vast bulk of non union workers begin to realise that their wages and conditions did not fall out of the sky,they may also contemplate joining. Unions are perhaps victims of their own success.Their ability over the last 100 years to enshrine in law minimum wages, meal breaks, super etc etc has resulted in freeloading by todays me society. The obssesion Howard, Boaz and Sniggid have with Unions also demonstrates that they are far from irelevant. Destroy the Unions, break down wages and conditions.This is class warfare at its most base, and its perpatrators do not have the courage or moral fibre to be honest about it. Hands up everyone who recalls the Boss coming into work announncing a pay rise?
Posted by hedgehog, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 9:24:34 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
Sniggid,

Granted the majority of employers may not act as you suggest, but can you honestly suggest that only an insignicant minority will?

If so you are DELUDED. (See Boeing ACT/ Leighton QLD/ BHP WA/ etc.)

Mate, if you are so very anti-union - you go back to working a 60 hour week if you want (for no extra benefit). UNIONS earned you the rights that you appear to think employers got together and agreed to grant. THEY DID NOT.

If you wish to understand the problems caused by lockouts i suggest you read some of the submissions to the senate inquiry into AWA's. They ARE rude and they are barbaric.
Posted by Aaron, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 12:41:59 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
Aaron

What absolute rubbish. I belonged to a union for 30 years and got the best salary and condition increases by far after I left the union and negotiated a workplace agreement for myself and other colleagues.

You are still on the "them and us" union view of the world. It has changed. Of course there is a role for unions in the future. There will be employees on collective agreements and employees on AWA's. The trick for the future of unions is how to provide a service to individuals who want AWA's. That is the message.
Posted by Sniggid, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 1:26:09 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
Sniggid, your experience was that the union held you back but in my experience non-union workplaces have

- not paid equal wages for equal work I.E. women earn less than men
or the best bargainer earns the most money , this has nothing to do with competence
- not paid overtime
- not had minimum call out times
- not had maternity leave
- fired workers who are almost due long service leave
- fired workers who are almost due to retire
- pressured workers families to accept small compensation payouts immediately after a severe industrial accident
- directed their employees to undertake political acts that further management's objectives when those objectives were contrary to employees best interests. OK, in plain English, Brian Quinn director of Coles Myer directed all supermarket staff to go shopping in Myer when CML was pressuring the Victorian state government to introduce Sunday trading.
[ What's wrong with Sunday trading? Customers spend the same amount of money but over a longer period. I.E. it takes more time to sell the products ]

Many families will discover that the family Christmas lunch will disappear.
Note in Dickensian London, only the middle classes had Christmas lunch. Also at that time half the textile workers of Manchester contracted crickle and died during a very severe depression. [crickle = starvation]

We have seen hoteliers welcome this legislation so they will no longer have to pay penalty rates for public holidays.

In a civilised society the weaker members of the workforce are protected from rapacious employers and unfair work practices. The IR bill remmoves all protections.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 1:56:15 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 no issue with the concept of AWAs, I'm sure many people do very well out of them. In fact, as the law CURRENTLY stands, that is the point- the 'no disadvantage' test means that if you negotiate individually, you MUST have a better outcome than if you were on a standard agreement.

But that is NOT what the Government is wanting- they are wanting to reduce and remove entitlements, to make people worse off. I find that an unconcionable action by a government. I am clearly naieve and foolish, but I thought the role of Government was to work towards making it's citizens' lives better. Removing hard-won entitlements does not make people's lives better, it makes them more stressed, less happy, and more suspicious of each other (hmm, is James getting more than me for less work? Is Lisa getting maternity leave when I dont?).

I just fail to see any logical rationale for these changes. We already have indvidual agreements, and they are working fine with a strong award 'base line'. That said, the system was complicated and the ambit claims system was combative, but in trying to streamline systems, we should not throw out both baby and bathwater!
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 2:01:01 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
Sniggid, please tell us excactly how the Union held you back for 30years. Then tell us about this fantastic deal you did for you and your mates. I am sure we are all desperate to learn your tricks, so we can prosper under CHOICES.
Posted by hedgehog, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 2:10:04 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
These IR laws are an absolute kick up the bum and go to bed without tea for the average worker. If you are in the right industry with a skills shortage your all right...for now anyway. The bloke earning award rates or the meager casual equivalent has already lost and will continue to lose his buying power. He is already paying his mechanic well above award to fix his car as well as the power workers, construction workers and paying silly amounts for shelter. It all feeds into the cost of living which is determined on an extraordinary average wage.

No job security and an unreasonable amount of debt. Notice how Mr Howard has increased the cost of living through the GST, housing and so on then decides to chuck out your overtime so you have to work longer and harder to get by?. Must be nice for big business and the tax coffers. The unions arn't doing much better for anyone except the skills industries. I've been on both sides and the pay increases are much better on the construction side.

No votes to you from me Howie!
Posted by bear, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 3:23:28 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
HedgeHog
I rether resent you lumping me in with Howard etc....

When I was middle management at a manufacturing company, my goal was that workers would be REWARDED according to their contribution !

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING HOLDS BACK
What stopped it ? Simple.. 'collective bargaining' mentality.
"good for one good for all" kind of thing. I was constantly trying to think up ways where more productive workers could actually FEEL the benefit of their labors in their paypackets, because I had some absolute 'gold' workers. I also had smartmouths and slackers !

THE ESCAPE
The simple way OUT of 'class warfare' is to leave the 'mentality' behind, stop thinking the world owes you a living, and get on with the job of becoming as financially independant as u can as fast as u can go, which might mean mowing a few lawns on the weekend, and giving up the cancer sticks and the booze etc... the largest PRISON in Australia does not have walls apart from the 'mental' ones imposed by those who mention 'class warfare'...what absolute crap ! How dare anyone 'insult' the average aussie by suggesting he cannot lift himself out of your artificially constructed 'class' system by a bit of get up and GO !

MARKET FORCES ?
You can be sure of one thing, as more an more Aussie become self employed, the demand for 'working class' as you seem to regard many people will be so HIGH that the market forces will force employers to give attractive condtions no matter how they feel about it.

THEY CANNOT TAKE OUR FREEEEEDOM ! (Braveheart)
I left 'your' world of 'class warfare' and $36k a year, and went self employed, and while it was a bit nervy watching the "J" curve of my bank balance sliding into negative at first, it then went up to an average of $20k/month for a couple of years. Then things changed (international circumstances) and now we are rebuilding and growing again, but no one tells me what to do except the police and the tax man
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 4:33:23 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 Kennett Government introduced similar IR legislation in the past as is being offered now. As a result, unskilled and semi skilled workers were severely burnt; the same had happened in WA and New Zealand. Workers in Victoria went backwards in their pay and found they were being paid less than their colleagues in other States.
These are facts corroborated by a number of sources found through using Google.

All we have had from Mr. Howard is hollow promises at huge expense that IR will work well for Australia. He might as well try and convince us that pigs fly.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 24 November 2005 7:04:16 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
When Kennett reorganised the Victorian public service 50% to 75% of public service jobs disappeared.
The ACTU estimates that 10% of retrenched workers are better off, 55% of retrenched workers never work again, the rest 35% are worse off.

All of the manufacture of train and tram carriages was moved from Dandenong to France.
Tram conductors replaced by ticket machines.
Teachers were fired, and Victoria has no teachers in their 30s and 40s.
Telstra and vic gov departments outsourced IT - about 100,000 programmers lost their jobs
Electricity supply was privatised and in 2003 had 3 apprentices, Country wide in NSW has 700 apprentices.
The engineers employed by Vicroads and Board of Works were retrenched and when Transurban built the Citylink tunnel they used Canadian and South African engineers and Kiwi labourers. The slow leak in the Burnley Tunnel results from overlooking Melbourne's geology.

Most of these retrenched workers have never worked again, in some cases the retrenchment methods used led to mental breakdowns, loss of status, family breakdowns and homelessness. Catholic social services can tell you how many middle aged non-drinking, non-smoking ex-public servants were provided with emergency accommodation.

I have found large 'brand name' businesses can be more moribund than government.

I agree with Ant that the unskilled and semi-skilled workers are vulnerable but so also are back of house technical staff - watch out accountants - the newspaper Technology pages have stories about trials of outsourcing Australian tax returns to India. Sounds sensible - isn't that where the ATO computer systems and programming is done now?

A civilised society should look after the most vulnerable members of its society, which is not what these IR changes coupled with tightened social security requirements will do.

Let the Visigoths and Vandals lose and let small time "businessmen" believe the capitalist myth. Large business lobbies government to create a climate conducive to their interests.
Posted by billie, Thursday, 24 November 2005 7:44:06 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
Why should anyone get paid extra to work on weekends if that is the only time they can work.

How many of these people who bleat about weekend penalties pay double the price for their beer or milkshake they buy on a Saturday afternoon.

So why should the employer pay double for the labour if the labour does not produce double the amount.

If you work as a journalist you get paid more for working nights and weekends when these are the slowest times for news. That is you get piad more for doing less. (As part of my AWA, i tried to negotiate working weekends and late shifts for no penalties, but the union got wind of this and weren't happy. Why, because it meant I would have got all those shifts and no-one would have got their penalties because I was working. In reality, though I was doing them a favour because they hated working those shifts so much they needed extra money for doing them.)

And all these people getting morally indignant about workers being exploited - do a check throughout your house and see how many items were made in China, India, Korea or Taiwan. If your willing to pay $500 for a TV on the back of some poor Asian, instead of the couple of grand it would cost in Australia, you are a hypocrit.

Wages and conditions will never be that bad in Australia, but you are willing to profit with cheap goods through exploitation.

Get off your high horse.

t.u.s.
Posted by the usual suspect, Thursday, 24 November 2005 4:21:30 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
Real wages have dropped in Australia since 2000. To list a few examples

ANZ bank retrenched workers, then hired them back 18 months later to do the same work at 20,000 per year less.

Coles Myer advertised for staff to perform a specialised technical role that they were prepared to pay 66% of wage paid in 2001.

IT project managers who were earning $100,000 in 2000 only work if they will accept $65,000 salaries.

I am considered employed and earn on average $150 per week. I have another friend who has just finished a nursing course at TAFE and can only average 5 shifts a fortnight so she must rely on social security to top up her income so she and her daughter can get by. She has a HECS debt and needs to buy a reliable car. I think her employer a church group is cynically exploiting the Australian tax payer by not offering her enough work to earn a frugal wage.

Many people who work weekends are only prepared to work those unsociable hours because the penalty loadings allow them to earn enough money in fewer hours.

I remember my elderly neighbour who was job hunting in the 1920s when economic conditions were very similar to today. After years of searching she got a job as a domestic servant in Hawthorn and earned so little money (5 shillings) that she couldn't afford the train fare to see her familiy on her day off. Her family lived in Oakleigh where Chadstone is today.

Mum of course was paid 66% of the male wage for doing the same job. One of her colleagues had to rear children on 66% of the male wage.

Grandmother worked in a professional capacity but wasn't paid, she had to run accounts at stores and her father would pay the accounts.

From where I stand I can see the giants of corporate Australia reducing the standard of living for average Australians. As a banker said "the middle class is disappearing, 10% of the population will be very rich and the remainder will be very poor".
Posted by billie, Thursday, 24 November 2005 5:07:10 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
Yes I do have cheap taiwan and china products in my home, so what?
I also have to pay my mechanic well above award, Western Power workers stupidly inflated pay packets, over inflated health insurance, food, fuel,education and a silly mortgage payment all brought on two incomes because these basics in life cost this.
Now if I was getting a wage that could pay all the basics in life I wouldnt buy cheap exploitation I would rather Australian made and save longer. I would also work overtime without penalties to pay for these extras in life. Much like my father and my girlfriends father did. It doesnt matter anyhow because soon enough our work till you drop lifestyles will catch up and then where will all the workers be?
Employers will offering free pick me up tablets next.
Posted by bear, Thursday, 24 November 2005 5:24:16 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 just look at the new BCA adds surely its clear they are a union? the bosses union?
Prison doors will swing open for workers and unionists as a result of this bill.
Not in the childlike dumb and dumber way the left smashed windows in Canberra years ago.
That action and other militant actions like it harmed the workers more than helped.
And focused Howards already existing plans, but a fair go for the average worker one national system if you wish.
A fair system, a strong fair union movement not militant will come Australia will feel the divisions and unfairnes of this bill.
And without doupt as workers and unionist are imprisoned we will use the tragic devisions to remove this goverment.
Surely its clear this is the first step in putting the conservative goverment in the same impotent position the ALP was in untill this bill fronted up?
Posted by Belly, Friday, 25 November 2005 5:38:43 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
The usual suspect, tells us he tried to undermine his workmates by trying to work for less than the minimum award rate. Blames the union for stopping him. Does he understand how a race to the bottom works?Does he understand the concept of a living wage? I believe the union term 'scab' pertains to this type of action. Shame on u usual suspect.Boaz is still e-mailing away from his tin shed, and Sniggid is yet to tell us how the union held him back, until he negotiated a great AWA for himself and his mates. Wondering if his negotiating was similar to TUS efforts. "Let me work i will do it for less than the law mandates". Brilliant strategy. Can u tell us, what your next tactic is when Billy from workchoices fame comes along and offers to undercut you?
Posted by hedgehog, Friday, 25 November 2005 8:51:53 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
Poor old hedgehog. Keeps banging on about how the unions are the best thing since sliced bread. And if you do things for yourself you must be offering to work for peanuts.

After 30 years of belonging to a union in WA and being unhappy with their efforts, we suddenly were presented with the opportunity to negotiate for ourselves thanks to the Court Government's Workplace Agreements Act. At last we could represent ourselves without being held back by the union. Now the Gallop Government have repealed that legislation and the IR scene is once more dominated by the unions.

Well, all this is about to change and people will be able to belong to a union or work things out for themselves through AWA's.

Perhaps hedgehog might let us know if unions are planning to broaden their effectiveness by offering to help members who want to negotiate an AWA. That is the real challenge.
Posted by Sniggid, Friday, 25 November 2005 12:18:46 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
Ah, Sniggid,rhetoric. Is that it? Why not answer the question? The Court Govt., what happened to them? Voted out when the population woke up to the draconian labour laws.Give us the facts Sniggid, tell us about your great deal with the boss, that u couldnt get until Richard Court created a workers paradise in WA.
Posted by hedgehog, Friday, 25 November 2005 12:58:30 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
Sniggid, like all Tory's is unable to answer the questions, they throw one liners instead of answers. e.g. 80% of the workforce is not unionised, so why belong to a union? Brilliant, 80% of the population does not have aids either, so why do we continue to research for an antidote? 70% of the student population attends public schools, so why does the Howard Government provide these schools with only 30% of its Education Budget? Why did the Howard Government cut health spending in last years Federal/State Health funding agreement by a billion dollars over the 5 year life of the agreement? If you have all the answers to these questions Sniggid, I can start on a new set of questions for you, no doubt you will answer all these questions with a cynical one liner, without a shread of credability, as usual.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 25 November 2005 10:31:22 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
Sorry Hedgehog - what I did was not a race to the bottom - it was convenient for me and would have saved the company money. That is called flexibility.

At the time, I had two very young kids (not school aged)so when I worked 9-5.30 plus any overtime, and getting to work, I only got to spend two hours max with my kids each day before they go to bed.

If I worked the late shift, I would start work at 3pm and work until 11.30-12 with very little overtime.
But I got to spend all day with my kids and still dropped home for dinner, read them books and tucked them into bed.

What's more, if I worked weekends and had days off during the week, my kids weren't at school so it was like a weekend anyway. Even better, I could take them to the local swimming pool on say a Wednesday when it wasn't packed like a Saturday.

But the union decided this wasn't best for me, what would I know?
I'm a scab because I want to spend time with my kids.

Shonga, just a note about the education budget - look at the total amount spent on public v private schools - the private schools get less money per student. Class warfare, Class warfare, Class warfare.

t.u.s.
Posted by the usual suspect, Saturday, 26 November 2005 11:27:43 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
Sniggid,
Yes i believe that the unions are going to be involved in negotiating AWA's for MEMBER'S. However, thankfully this will not provide a flow on benifit to non-member's. As to whether the new laws can prevent industrial action - for half of the last century strikes many strikes were in fact illegal, however this salient point has evaded lil dimwit/ICA/BCA/SBAA/Andrews.

TUS
Anyone who works under the award rate, and in doing so undercuts their workmates is by definition a SCAB. Suggesting that there is mitigating circumstances is like suggesting that it is alright to cross a picket line for ANY reason. There is NO such reason, show some respect, or be taught it!
Posted by Aaron, Saturday, 26 November 2005 11:52:10 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
Aaron, your attitude is exactly what is wrong with the union movement.
Trying to bully your ideals on to other people who don't even want to be part of your organisation and then using threats when people don't oblige.
Did you ever think that is why the majority of people don't want to join a union anymore.
I'm sure your threats, hysterics and blacklists are going to change people's minds

t.u.s
Posted by the usual suspect, Sunday, 27 November 2005 2:43:44 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
TUS,

What threats, hysterics & blackmail?

All I suggest is that people who enjoy the benefits provided to them by union action, then spit on those that provided them, should be refused membership in the future.

I also suggest that the ACTU should register and copyright a logo, which is to be provided for use on the packaging of applicable merchandise. Businesses would apply to use this logo, and authorization would be conditional upon their treatment of their employees’. As the requisite standards would be entirely voluntary, they are unable to be regulated by the Federal Parliament.

As all employees’ are by definition human, they are also consumer’s, and as such capable of exerting considerable leverage upon producer’s – which are very often also employer’s. Therefore if employee’s make use of their market power, by CHOOSING to purchase products, and patronise stores with the aforementioned logo, they will bring considerable market forces to bear upon those employer’s who fail to qualify for this logo, whilst rewarding those who do. The effect of this is that many, particularly large employer’s, will be forced by their shareholders (if nobody else) to comply with these requirements for the sake of their bottom line & investment.

This proposal does not seek to intimidate either employee’s or employer’s, it seeks to harness the latent market force that is the Australian employee, not to punish offenders, but to reward those who act well. Fortunately, the indicia for qualifying for such a logo, will be based upon a businesses treatment of its union members only, therefore there will no longer be any need for non-union employee’s to be treated the same as unionists. These non-union employee’s may therefore freely determine and choose the hours, wages and conditions that suit them.

Therefore TUS, Sniggid, BOAZ etc. my proposal is neither intimidatory or threatening, it seeks to bring about regulation of employment through the coalitions much vaunted market forces, and as such you would support it, right? Anyway, I feel that knuckle-dusters and clubs are soooo last century, don’t you?
Posted by Aaron, Monday, 28 November 2005 12:31:04 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
TUS Your children seem to sleep a lot. What a fanciful story. You are not the only parent that wants to spend time with your kids. Undermining your workmates wages and conditions is not the way to to do it. It is also ridiculous for you to give such an example, in the context of this debate.These proposed new laws, will directly undermine an employees ability to structure work and family life. The employer will determine when and where u work, not you. I notice you on every stream concerning the IR reforms, as an unashamed apoligist for Howards extreme agenda. Your shallow contributions expose you for the propagandist you clearly are.
Posted by hedgehog, Monday, 28 November 2005 9:44:16 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
Ask your coalition senator to oppose the IR legislation in the senate tomorrow by supporting the

A Short Walk to Do the Right Thing campaign

at http://www.yourrightsatwork.com.au/campaigns/
Posted by billie, Monday, 28 November 2005 10:09:57 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
There are a number of contributers to this page who either think that John Howard is a nasty person who hates workers or is a political fool. The fact is that he has shown himself to be neither of these.

For anyone to think that he would introduce legislaton that he thinks will hurt the very people that have voted him into office 4 times demonstrates a total lack of common sense.

John Howard is pushing ahead with these changes for the reasons he has given. That it will increase flexibility, help the economy and benefit employers and employees.

When I started work in the 60's I joined the union. Everyone did in those days. Things have changed. People are more discerning. They will belong if they feel that they get good value for their money. Otherwise, they will choose to not be union members.

I left the union when they took actions that actually worked against us. Fortunately at a time when state IR legislation gave us the opportunity to negotiate workplace agreements that included "trade offs" or in other words paid us for taking on responsibilities that we were already doing anyway. We got the best deal ever.

The Federal IR changes may or may not work. Personally I am quite confident that they will work. However, it will be up to the electors to make the judgement at the next election.
Posted by Sniggid, Monday, 28 November 2005 11:14:19 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
Are u saying that we should all just shut up untill the next election?John Howard is a liar and a scaremongerer. Core promises, what tripe.He is smart, he has tapped into the me society nicely. However its not much good having cheap intrest rates, when you cant get a home loan.Many of Johns battlers are about to learn the truth about this man, and they wont like it one bit.
Posted by hedgehog, Monday, 28 November 2005 11:28:13 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
Hedgehog - I don't know how often your kids sleep, but mine go to bed around 8pm and get up around 7.30-8am.

Of course you would know anyway, you seem to think you know everything about me anyway.

Why is an example of how a flexible arrangement was stifled by a union not relevant to a debate about industrial relations. Don't you like arguments which paint certain aspects of unionism as bullying and not family-friendly.

I stand by my (unsuccessful) attempt to work more night shifts and weekends to spend time with my kids. If other worker's so despise these time slots, they should be happy that they would have had fewer to work. 9-5 work doesn't suit everyone, so why should I be dictated to by anyone.

Aaron - I know what your proposal involves and if it remained uncorrupted it would be a good example of people voting with their feet. However, the company should be judged on how it treats all its workers not how it treats it's unionised workers, otherwise it wouldn't recognise workers deservingly earning more than award wages or working under conditions which they find beneficial.

t.u.s
Posted by the usual suspect, Monday, 28 November 2005 1:34:46 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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