Sneekeepete,

Would we need Chris Corrigan types if a well structured industrial relations plan was in operation? The only reason that such drastic action was required was because wharf union workers held a monopoly over the employment of workers on Australian docks. While the old wharfies may be held up by union supporters as the battle between workers and the establishment, indeed it highlights the inequities in labour monopolies - and promotes the very need for the suggested reforms.

Laurie,

No where in the current IR format has it been suggested that contracts can't be renogotiated, whether that is for maternity leave or any other entitlement. That is a great opportunity of the reforms, is that they allow workers to change working arrangements as their own circumstances change. In regards to your brother- union officials may still advise and negotiate contracts for employees. This I believe is another benefit of the system because now union officials are aimed at maximising employee conditions and not simply about entrenching the power of belligerent union structures. For anyone who has had anything to do with Building Construction unions you will understand this problem.

Laurie, I will ask you a question: would you prefer your brother going to work on a building site where he is intimidated by union officials to join a union or else, forced to partake in illegal industrial action and be rewarded not for his skills but his alligiance to his union, or give him the choice to make his own decisions on his own future and employment conditions which is regulated by an accountable and efficient government structure?

I dislike politicians and government burecrats but they beat the hell out of trying to negotiate with a union officials.

No, Marlo, what I am saying is, say he does not think about kids until he is 35 (quite likely really)- that is a long way off. I worry that the gains made in these areas will be forgotten by the vast majority of people, simply because they will no longer be expected. I worry he will not even know to ask for that sort of entitlement, because it wouldn't be thought of as a 'standard' condition anymore.

Also, the workplace he is currently at is not in any way unionised, it is a small private company. But they rely on the award rates as a way of ensuring they are paying the correct rates, and giving the correct conditions. My brother finds this reassuring, as he knows he is not being stuffed around. How with everyone on individual contracts could he have any confidence that he is being paid on par with others in his industry? That is where the anxiety that this article brings up really comes in. There is nothing more unsettling than the sneaking suspicion that you are being paid less than someone doing the same job- it is such a disincentive to producitivity. (I mean less in terms of standard base rate, not in terms of 'oh, that person has done great, give them a bonus').

I just worry where all this will take us.

Like I mentioned, I think I will do well from these laws- I am highly qualified, fairly confident, and quite articulate. And I have good language skills, I can actually read contracts. But what about people who do not read well? Who don't have english as their first language? I really worry about them, and I really worry that our society is basically saying that these people do not deserve to have a decent wages/conditions base, that their lack of opportunity in life is somehow entirely their fault.

while renegoatiation is not embargoed there is no obligation to do so;

workers can be offered an AWA with all the bells and whistles you like - except for those provisions outlawed - when the period of the AWA lapses and after 90 days have passed with no requirement to renegotiate at all, the minimum conditions kick in automtically.

Now there are some who argue workers will vote with their feet but the notion of worker mobility is some what of a myth.

you can ask for the terms to be rolled over or ask to negotiate adjustments but there is no obligation on the employer to do that - even in the united states in most jurisdictions the old conditions stay in place until revisions can be agreed on - here it is a slide straight to the bottom.

This provision could be used to secure long term gains or short term cash objectives; some one will try it on.

the corrigan vs union abuse is a chicken and egg argument - you could equally say unions sprung up due to managerial excesses and exploitation.

All I am saying is there are firms that will test the law and the market and see how far they can go and under these laws they can go a very long way.

As I said, I wish marlo well and good luck to any one who can exploit the new way - some may be deserving, or lucky, or over valued due to the vagaries of the market as is often the case - they will trumpet the success of the system - but others through no fault of their own who work as hard as the next lad or lassie are at risk of being screwed.

Laurie, sneekepete and Marlo, I look on with relief that two of the three of you actually do care about employees who will be unable to negotiate a contract on their own behalf, and I am also concerned that maternity/paternity leave along with other family friendly conditions will disappear completely. If this happens, it will change our whole social fabric, and deny parents family time with their children, who will then be left to their own devices, to run wild, increasing the crime rate. Unfortunately this new IR policy seems to be sckewed toward the employer, without proper consideration of our society in general, which could lead to a disasterous situation socially, I hope this does not happen, but am unable to see anything to prevent it. Could you please give your opinions on this aspect, as these children will be our future, and if left to run wild, while their parents work, as a society we may find the benefits are outweighed by the disadvantages.

To Shonga:
this legislatin has the potential to effect families in several ways - firstly it will make employment less secure. You will be exposed to dismissal with no or limited redress even if your performance is satisfactory. This will be the case irrespective of the business size - the 100 employees plimsol line is a furphy and easily manipulated.

Your take home pay can be reduced ; labour hire firms are already signaling penalty rates are a thing of the past; so if you have structured your budget - mortgage, schoold costs, food, health insurance based on the assumption of a bit of over time and may be some weekend work you might get a bit of a shock particularly in retail and hospitality.

Current agreements can be abandoned a firm can restructure, dissolving the employing company and re hiring the same staff under renewed and lesser conditions - or you can be transferred to a subsidiary - conditions can be altered and redundnacy provisoin could for example be lost.

If you work in an industry where shift work is common you might have your shifts altered - maybe you are directed to work on weekends or do night duty - those arrangements might clash with your child care or your partners work patterns. You might refuse and you might be sacked. Or you might want to negotiate a compromise - you could still be sacked

Will this kind of thing be wide spread? I doubt it at first. But if one company does it and creates a competetive edge others will follow at the expense of the worker.

Will these measures create new jobs - no; if you are in the widget making business and can make widgets cheaper you will - you will only employ more people if your market expands not becuase you can hire and fire easier or you can pay those left less money.

Will workers get a cut of the gains made - no

I am ashamed to admit that despite my university degrees I will be adversely affected by the IR legislation.

Currently I work as a casual and get called an hour before the shift so I was called 3 times in November. The pay is great supposedly $204 for 6 hours but I see about $150.

I look with horror at the single mother I know, who trained as a nurse, but was unable to get enough shifts to live on, so she started work as a cleaner for a large supermarket chain. She works 7 nights per week as a subcontractor, earns $500 per week and was told if she marched on Nov 15th she would be sacked.

Question for the forum - What's the advantage of cleaners working as subcontractors? No holiday, sick, super or tax problems for employer