So here we go, out with work choices and in with the new, oops, this can't be right, some workers will be much worse off under the new Ir system. There must be a mistake!

Meanwhile us tax payers have to foot the bill so Krudd and his crusade of fools can go back to the drawing board and start all over again.

If it wasn't so serious it would be funny!

Oh!, it's ok. If you think you will be worse off, you can always take legal action against the commission. Remember, these poor workers are the very people who apparently were unable to negotiate for themselves under work choices.

Wow, I wonder how they will go instigating leagal action.

Boy am I glad I had nothing to do with placing these fools in power.

rehctub I am amazed that you still think workers were better off under WorkChoices. Loss of penalty rates, unfair dismissal, unpaid overtime, reduction in conditions, no breaks - the Workplace Ombudsman was inundated with complaints during this period like no other time.

Even with award rates employers have the power and authority to pay more to their employees. Unions won't be out striking in the streets howling screams of unfair work practices should employers pay over the award. It is always in the power for employers to pay more.

Governments can only set suitable standards and regulatory controls for which employers must adhere. It only becomes an issue if the balance is skewed horribly toward one group over the other.

I know your big beef is unfair dismissal but it is only "unfair" dismissal that is illegal. Where there are legitimate grounds, employers have always been able to dismiss.

Some people can see no wrong in their favorite political party no mater what they have done. Its more like someone suporting a football team that has not won a game all year.

Maybe its just as well, I knew as soon as I saw the title rechtub had started this thread.
Hitting the key board rather hard I lost my first post.
However we can learn much from such as rechtub, true.
What type of world do we want?
One that say a fair days work for a fair days pay.
One that lies and says all men are equal but some must work for survival while others feast?
Here to me at least is evidence of why I can never be other than ALP.
I however am truly distressed by Rudd's and Gillards fixation on pleasing bosses unions.
On struggling out of commitments.
On ideas that say some must suffer so wealth can Be cerated.
I may, properly will not, be around in ten years, Rudd will be, his government will be.
I think ALP state governments will pay for federal watering down of work choices reforms.
And that one day a new left coalition will come to be a balance to an ALP hearing too much of bosses unions and increasingly deaf to its place of birth unions.
No workers heaven, not on my list but an Aussie fair go? yes Kevin have you ever sat down with your wife on Wednesday knowing your last few bob could buy a loaf of bread or a bottle of milk?
asking her what she wanted?
For some it is an every day thing bloke, if we need rechtubs ideas to stay in business lets fold our tents and give it away.

Once again you have missed my point,I did not say that WC was fair. Although having said that, very few who were good at their jobs were adversly effected by WC as at least there were plenty of jobs out there if they got screwed, and not one of you can deny that!

And yes UFD is my beef.

You say that employers can follow steps to dismiss and this is my beef.

Employees can leave at will, yet employers have to jump through hoops to terminate. Once you can explain how this is fair, I will stand down on UFD.

My point on the thread however is, that how can anyone (the fair pay commision) get something so important, so very wrong.

Then Krudd simply changes the rules to riggle out of their commitment. More an election promise than a commitment I would think. (the word 'objective' is what I recall he used.

Now all was well right up until the point where all of a sudden the worker found that they would in fact be 'worse off', rather than the anticipated 'better off'.

Until that point, all was sweet!

Krudds answer, take legal action!

As I said, if it wasn't so serious it would be a joke!

I can explain exactly how it's fair.
any businessman worth his salt will seek the very best market for his product. In the absence of a binding contract, the businessman is free to sell his product to the whoever is prepared to pay the most, or offer the best deal.
An employee's product is his skill, his experience and his willingness to work.
Why should he not have the same rights in a free market, as the businessman?

Grim; I agree fully with what you have said, however, as there is no 'binding contract' as you put it, between the employer and the employee, the employee is free to leave when they choose. I have no problems with this. They simply give the approriate notice.

How though does this explain how it's fair?

Is it fair just becasue it suits the employee?

In any case, employers have turned to 'casual labor' as at least there is some relief here. However, it offers little comfort to those staff wanting to borrow for say a house.

My point that you still have not cleared up is why is it deffernt for the employer?

Why do we have to jump through hoops?

But this is not a thread about UFD, rather about the failure of yet another policy/promise from this inexperienced lot of fools.

And to think that they are supposedly the best we had to choose from is quite frightening! and remember, every bluder is yet another few million that has to be funded by the tax payer.

Now that's fine if you're one of the ones who don't pay posative taxes, but from my point of view it simply stinks!

I create several jobs, collect thousands each year in taxes for the governments, pay taxes myself then watch these incompitent fools piss it away like this.

Give them another three or four terms as belly says and I doubt there will be enough workers left to pay the bills. Then what?

I think we may well see an early election, becasue the longer Krudd and his crusaders have, the more damage they will do to their own credibility.

I say again, they are a joke!

You are so out of touch with reality rechtub you do not understand an early election or late, your side can not win.
Rudd will increase his majority.
Or you seem blind to the result of strong pressure from bosses unions to keep some on very low incomes.
In fact some face loss that is massive casuals in of shore drilling ext.
I gain huge happiness in the simple fact you have no idea of the dreadful but unavoidable hole your side is digging in to.
Do you truly not know?
Not understand?
If the next election was a raffle and your mob bought every ticket, they would not win.

In fact some face loss that is massive casuals in of shore drilling ext.

Yes belly, you are quite right, MASSIVE LOSSES!

BUT! once again you have not told the full story.

In most industries, casuals get paid 'a loading'. Now this is to make up for the loss of sick days, holidays, including leave loading and so on. In fact, they are financially 'better off' than if the were full time as they get paid for 'all sick days' whether they take them or not.

Usually, this casual loading is calculated at around 20% of the 'full time ordinary rate' of pay. And it's fair.

Now the off shore riggers are on a,,, wait for it,,,, 225% loading. That's 225%, or more than 10 times the normal loading!

What makes them so special and any more deserving than regular casual workers belly?

Do you really think they deserve this 'over the top' pay rate considering the normal rate of pay compensates for the work they do?

Typical one eyed union thug!

As for politics, I just hope there is something to save once your lot have run their race and, just remember where they started from and who gave them that start. Although, obviously it still wasn't enough!

rehctub,
Perhaps the offshore drillers get a higher casual loading than most because unlike most casual workers, they are away from their families for six months at a time living on a rig isolated from all the modern conveniences we take for granted. There are also considerably more safety risks on a rig and longer shifts.

The oil companies don't seem to be losing much in profit because of these high wages. If you are so into free market forces for prices why not for labour?

Wood for the trees.

The day rechtub I hide anything from you in debate I will stop posting in OLO.
I am confident I can play verbal tennis with you on most subjects.
Casual loading is given for just the reasons you said, and I know of no casual award or agreement that has not got the loading.
You have told us you treat your workers well, are your casuals getting the loading?
Yes construction workers get what was once site allowances now productivity.
Casuals at sea get loadings on top of better money, because the job takes them away from homes, living away from family's for months and years.
Do you understand casuals can not live normal lives? never buy a home if credit is called for.
The job can go over night no holiday pay just super and a thing banked every week, called assert in construction.
rechtub bosses know workers values they understand such jobs need skills and pay for them.
You will not understand but this impacts on them, most casuals in of shore work will not return to sea under these new wages.
Are you happy to see such jobs taken by over seas workers?
It is you bloke who fails to understand, who armed with half the story and half an idea what it is all about Mount the horse back wards, so very often, and wonder what happened to the head.

Rehctub in reply to belly and Pelican, and any other knockers of Workchoices

Was the 225% loading negotiated as part of 'work choices'?

If not, why didn't the oil bosses use WC do reduce their pay. You continue to say that bosses were unfair under WC and used WC to reduce wages and conditions.

What happened here?

I suspect you will not answer this. Prob not even return to the thread.

rehctub,
Perhaps the offshore drillers get a higher casual loading than most

We're talking 225%. Do you think this is fair?

Belly
You have told us you treat your workers well, are your casuals getting the loading?
Yes!

Casuals at sea get loadings on top of better money, because the job takes them away from homes, living away from family's for months and years.

Permernat worker 'at sea' would also be on high money, am I correct?

If so, why is 20% on top of a huge rate to start with not fair?

In fact, they are being offered 125% on top.

Why 225% instead?

Do you understand casuals can not live normal lives? never buy a home if credit is called for.

Crystal clear! Blame the unions, labor governments and UFD!

Remember, our country boomed once the UFD laws were watered down around 2000 and nobody can deny that!

As soon as labor mentioned UFD again, WE STOPPED!

Are you happy to see such jobs taken by over seas workers?

Well, if the workers only motivation for the jobs was 225% loading, on top of an already huge wage, then yes. They and you live in a fantisy world if you think this is the norm. As I say, typical union thug. Out trying to protect unrealistic wages again.

I can see no value in debating with you.
You never ever stop blaming Labor for every thing blindly and unfocused.
Now what is this about 225% loading?
Surely you do not think on top of 100%?
Our standard of living/spending has risen along with wages.
Wages, worker incomes are the oil that drives your butcher shops.
rechtub you should think harder before blaming the ALP for the world financial crisis.
I do leave the thread, others do too, you baffle me , you seem unable to see the world as it is, planting spuds but expecting to harvest water melons is unwise cheers

rehctub
I personally think 225% is probably a bit high but I could not comment on overall salary as I don't know what sort of base salary drillers enjoy.

You know very well that jobs in the mining industry and in IT were the only areas where individually negotiated work contracts increased wages. Yet you who support WorkChoices are complaining about the fact they are too high.

If you want to compare the fairness and efficiency of any IR system developed by any government regardless of leaning, you have to use the lowest paid workers as a yardstick.

Using the highest paid workers as a measure is like trying to work out if cake is the most popular dessert by offering black forest cake or carrot cake as the only two choices.

So we are all grateful that we have Kevin 07 and Blood Nut at the helm. This pair are only interested in remaing in power. By appealing to the Middle Class and the Big End of Town.

1. Under the watchful eye of the ABCC you can be prosecuted for displaying the Eureka Flag on any building site.
2. If you belong to a Union such as CFMEU, you will find that any employer has the right to choose to discriminate against you by choosing a person less qualified but from a Union who is less likely to stand up for your rights. By the way its legal.
3. By reducing the number of both Federal and State Awards, your income maybe reduced without the matter going to abritation.

Kevin 07 has forgotten the Working Class and those who brought him to power.

Kevin 07 & Blood Nut for me are Anti Australian, Anti Working Class and have denied us the right to Freedom of Associaton. The right to belong to a Union of our choice.

But most of all they have desecrated the memory of the Diggers who stood under the Eureka Flag in 1854 and Peter Lalor. Without them would we enjoy the Working Conditions we have today?

You never ever stop blaming Labor for every thing blindly and unfocused.

Belly, we have had two recessions in modern time.

The early 90's, and most recently, 2008. Both time labor have been in power, both times they have made major chages to IR laws.

Facts, not fiction!

Pelican
Yet you who support WorkChoices are complaining about the fact they are too high.

Sorry, I didn't support workchoices, in fact, not one of my staff have ever been paid less than the award, often more infact in the 20+ years I have been an employer.

How did brickies earn $800 per day + during the WC era. Concretors on $450 per day, the list goes on.

It's a pitty these 'big buck' earners are today often waiting for the phone to ring.

WC mostly effected people who were either poor at their jobs, or under skilled and what was wrong with that I ask.

Top shelf workers simply would not have copped a pay cut, up until now that is, cause the 'wheels have gone wobbly'.

Thanks Kev!

I am back only to talk to DamBlack.
Lies are no longer currency in IR bloke.
I have handed out hundreds of southern cross hats that are being warn on construction sites caps and stickers.
500 ban the ABCC stickers, most are in lunch sheds.
Yes Rudd and Gillard have not kept their promises.
Yes we demand a fair go for all workers.
But move your seat closer to rechtub.
Up the back of the class.
Here we see two who will not see.
In fact Rudd never promised a union Paradise.
The chant GST get square time, was is and remains blind rhetoric.
I will not name names you did, but some actions of some unions bought work choices on us all.
Extremism and miltism in IR is the past not the future.
I see week after week union members who never see an official , of a union you highlight, unions exist only for members not any other reason.

Belly, it is unlike you to run.

What FACTS are unclear to you?

Is it this;
If not, why didn't the oil bosses use WC do reduce their pay. You continue to say that bosses were unfair under WC and used WC to reduce wages and conditions.

What happened here?

Or;
Permernat worker 'at sea' would also be on high money, am I correct?

If so, why is 20% on top of a huge rate to start with not fair?

In fact, they are being offered 125% on top.

Why 225% instead?

or;
Do you understand casuals can not live normal lives? never buy a home if credit is called for.

Crystal clear! Blame the unions, labor governments and UFD!

Remember, our country boomed once the UFD laws were watered down around 2000 and nobody can deny that!

As soon as labor mentioned UFD again, WE STOPPED!

or this FACT
Belly, we have had two recessions in modern time.

The early 90's, and most recently, 2008. Both time labor have been in power, both times they have made major chages to IR laws.

Facts, not fiction!

In fact
How did our country BOOM during WC if it was such a bad system?

Of cause, if you don't wish to debate me, you can always relay your message through DamBlack, as it appears that is the only person you wish to speak to.''Either way, you should at least give answers other than to blame the GFC. Krudd has the dibbs on that line.

rehctub,

Our country "boomed" because of a surge in international demand for our resources - not because of Work Choices - just as the most recent recession was caused by an international financial collapse plus a decline in demand for the same resources. Work Choices had nothing to do with it. That was introduced during the closing stage of the Howard era and that was the reason most people voted the way they did.

If workers were being shafted under Work choices during the "good times", how much worse would things be now?

As for the 225%, how little would you be prepared to accept to do that sort of work?

This is what is known as an entitlement and would have been agreed to by the employer at a particular time.

It's actually built into the cost of the product being produced.

Do you really think that any money the employer saves by cutting it back to say, 200% would be passed onto the consumer?

If rechtub you look without bias at my last post, please do so.
You will see I believe in balance.
Not a workers heaven.
Not a bosses hell.
And let me be clear.
I will never run away from you.
I do not dislike you.
Do not understand you.
Can never support you.
But you are the reason I am me.
I see in you blind unfocused anti union.
Anti worker.
Anti Labor.
And bloke , in truth, I see the same refusal in you to see truth as I see in Malcolm Turnbull.
The silly oppose every thing.
The shouting, near screaming Gillard memorial halls rubbish.
The idiocy that tells you and your mob, if we say it often enough some will believe it.
Run away?
You do not know me! never, I have a weakness.
I like a debate but find it imposable to talk to people who close their minds and chant mindless rubbish.
Look at the time of my posts.
My day starts as early as yours butcher, no one does my work for me.
I provide a service for people who need it, some work for bosses who have closed minds and wallets.

rehctub,

re the oil rig workers: It seems to me that your reasoning is somewhat ideologically (party politics) skewed.
On one hand you're saying that the workers should be able to sell their labour for what the market can bear yet on the other it appears you object when that is what happens.

Three points, the oil companies pay those outrageous levels because they must to get continuity of workers. Think about it, would you go to a god forsaken place to work with the threat not having reasonable continuity of employment (if put off you'd be stuck) for say minimum wage plus 20%...get real.

Have you ever been on a rig? the work is generally hard, potentially dangerous conditions,did I mention the heat,wind, noise, boredom etc. They are ok to visit but... live? Contrary to your impressions it not a nice life.

As for the towns well Broome etc needs a certain type of person to live there (not a lot of alternative employment there).
Second, Companies wouldn't pay those figures if they could get away with not.

Thirdly, do you really believe that if big oil could pay standard wages would reduce the cost....pigs they would its call capitalism...you remember that sell it for the most they can get regardless of the end consumer and the mythical silent hand of balance.

UFD...well that's another case of two competing interests. As once a small business person the law was inconvenient. However as also as a victim of an unscrupulous boss, 30 years later I still suffer from his employment practices. It all depends on where you stand.

Employers aren’t there to just employ staff based on how much they can afford – it’s a matter of how few they can employ for the least possible cost.

Imagine I own a Widget factory. I employ 10 staff who each make 2 widgets per day. How do increase my profits?
If it was just a matter of production I could simply double my profits by doubling the number of staff but the market only needs 20 widgets per day and I can’t increase demand.
My only alternative is to cut costs and the easiest cost I can control is payroll.

With Work Choices I could sack half of my staff and get the 5 left to manufacture 4 widgets per day under threat of dismissal, by increasing the number of productive hours per day or offering incentives.

I will pay them more - but not 100% more - because I want that extra profit for myself. I can also cut their benefits or trade them for other incentives but the bottom line has to be that I am better off than I was before. The 5 left are financially better off too but may be working under more demanding and insecure conditions. Nobody cares about the 5 that I sacked.

Alternatively I could make my casual staff full-time employees and pay them at the (lower) full-time rate with the knowledge that I can sack them easily at any time. It also looks better for the national employment figures - turn McJobs into real jobs but with a bigger turnover.

Another popular option is that I just move my factory off-shore. Nothing personal here – business is business.

The irony of this approach is that I am increasing my profits by effectively cutting the purchasing power of my own customers so eventually I may need to cut the price of my widgets to maintain the same sales.

(continued)

(Continued)
Remember that minimum working conditions aren’t set by the best employers – they are set by the worst ones and those changes gave them a lot more leverage.

Work Choices was never about directly creating more employment. It was about giving more power to the employers by emasculating the Unions. It wasn’t about Work Place reform it was about Industrial Relations reform. It was more concerned with restoring the Master-Servant relationship and giving too much to one group at the expense of the other.

The current changes are about restoring fairness, not dismantling everybody’s rights and obligations. After years of dogs and balaclavas and ever-decreasing “allowable matters” it was time to restore some balance.

Some say the fairness changes go too far, some say not-far-enough. History will decide that.

Despite accusations of Union scare-mongering before the last election, there would not have been many people whose families had not been adversely affected by those laws in some way and the government paid the political price.

A real life story
Tomorrow I meet with workers, good hard honest workers.
Male and female, who have nearly got to the end of a project.
one that has taken 2 and a half years.
Weeks never less than 60 hours work, often far away from home and family.
In times of rain delays many gave up RDOs and that meant time with loved ones, for weeks.
After too much rain, these folks forced to yes forced to work RDOs
wanting that rain money for this coming Christmas without a job, have been forced, to take those RDO, because it rained.
I can not tell you how much it hurts.
but under an agreement useing Howard's work choices this firm has taken a basic entitlement away.
Because they can.
Today I had agreement, IT IS UNFAIR, from the people taking it away.
tomorow I have to be a shock absorber, it is my job to ask then not to do their block, not to stop any chance they have of getting another job in the construction industry.
Black lists exist, unfair biased not based on truth but unbeatable black lists.
I deliver tomorrow the dreadful news to people who will not have a job by months end.
Their claim is just, fair, but the cash is gone.
To my Friend up the thread, singing the praises of a union, these folk are served by another union.
One that is dieing in rural Australia.
One that has forced me to be mum dad and mate to their orphan members.
I will do my best tomorrow but rechtub workers bloke are Aussies too your customers too human too please do not use others sins against the movement or yesterday sins.
Unions There Is a Difference.

As for the 225%, how little would you be prepared to accept to do that sort of work?

Yes but you're missing my point.

Why do casuals, doing the same jobs as full timers, get 225% loading?

Does this mean the full timers are under paid?

This is what is known as an entitlement and would have been agreed to by the employer at a particular time.

Good point. So now that demand has dropped, no doubts profits to, why can't the wage drop back as well? Or is it just a 'one way street'?

On one hand you're saying that the workers should be able to sell their labour for what the market can bear yet on the other it appears you object when that is what happens.

Another good point. So can the market still aford these wages, set during 'boom times'?

With Work Choices I could sack half of my staff and get the 5 left to manufacture 4 widgets per day under threat of dismissal, by increasing the number of productive hours per day or offering incentives.

Yes, but if one was a 'good widget maker', they would simply take their widget making skills elsewhere.

I do not know one single person effected by WC!

By the way, I say again, I did not support WC

So belly. Why do unions try to protect unrealistic wages and conditions?
If demand rises and wages rise, that's fine. Isn't it?

Now if demand drops, why can't wages also drop? At least back to where they started + CPI.

And I am not closed minded. I think Krudd is a great bloke. I have no such feelings about his team.

Good to see you back again. Go the broncos!

Casuals get a loading (typically 20%. I think the 225% is a significant exception) over full-time employees to compensate them for -

No holiday pay
No sick or other leave entitlements
Usually no penalty rates or other industrial allowances
No guarantee of continuing work
No long service leave and
No severance pay.

Since the employer bears no financial obligation for this type of staff if he/she decides to sell the business or declares bankruptcy it's a really bit of a bargain. Casuals get turned on and off like a tap whenever they are needed.

I've been forced onto an AWA and don't get several entitlements that are paid to ECA employees doing the same work. There's compensation in other areas but it still falls short of the award, despite all the political assurances that were made when they were introduced.

As for changing circumstances, is it also fair for Corporations to expect to make ever-increasing profits and pay rising executive salaries in bad times as well as good while not increasing payment to their workers? They were all crying poor during those magical boom times and wages went backwards in real terms.

However I agree that there should be room for negotiation in difficult times but it should be genuine and not just a way of boosting existing profits. Unfortunately this would be difficult without a central negotiating party (like a Union) to represent the employees so it's probably back to the Law of the Jungle as far as that's concerned.

For the widget analogy, the other widget manufacturers would be forced to drop their wage rates too, just to remain competitive. In a tight market the workers would be bidding against each other for available jobs.

A view of me this morning would see smoke coming out of both ears.
Well steam really Broncos? good luck on the weekend rechtub I share your love of the greatest sport of all.
Dragons go.
Now back to that steam, seen how banks and big business pay top people top money?
Think they do that to be nice?
225% loading?
Come re read the story, it is not a loading , base wages plus 125% making 225%
of full time wages.
why
they can be finished that day, may work only 3 months of the year get no other pay, are very much needed ,by the boss.
in paying this wage he/she may in fact save money, a full time worker is full time will work full time.
Can any see the blind anti union anti workers theme here?
Facts tell a different story, look deeper into it, them express a view.
much of the rubbish about unions is just plain lies.
rechtub bloke, look at our sport, do you think Broncos should have matched the Dragons offer to our coach?
In an open market is it any of our business what the great man gets paid, market forces not slack management bashed into submission by evil unions controls wages.

No holiday pay
No sick or other leave entitlements
Usually no penalty rates or other industrial allowances
No guarantee of continuing work
No long service leave and
No severance pay.

Yes, all accounted for with the usual 20% loading.

You obviously have little knowledge of what is involved in 'bankruptcy'. A very expensive option if used only to avoid employees entitelments.

In my opinion, casual employment was forced on to employers in the 90's. It is actually cheaper to employ someone as a 'full time' than a casual.

Now if you have been forced onto an AWA and don't like it;

Why did you sign?

Why don't you leave?

Now as for 'big business' and 'huge salaries', you have no argument from me.

However I agree that there should be room for negotiation in difficult times but it should be genuine and not just a way of boosting existing profits.

Most things in day to day life fluxuate. Why not wages?

I have always maintained that wages should be linked to productivity and or profits.

Belly

So why then are these workers given huge loading rather than the usual 20%. You can't tell me that full timers on drilling rigs are on 50K a year, so let's find out what the full time rate is hey!

rechtub bloke, look at our sport, do you think Broncos should have matched the Dragons offer to our coach?
Why is it always about the money.

WB was a vertual 'unknown' untill he came to the broncos. There, he became famous.

He built up a repore with many 'special needs kids' as he to had special needs kids. I will bet these kids have been devistated by having lost him, all because of the money. Something that I doubt he really needed anyway.

In my view, he, like many others, will regret the move.

I would love to see a broncos dragons final, perhaps they could be 'third time lucky', but I doubt it. They will always be good bridesmaids when playing the broncs in a grand final.

Good luck.

I am not going to chase my tail debating you is much like that dog in the dust trying to do the imposable.
If it is cheaper to employ full time workers why do we have so many casuals?
Are bosses stupid?
Last nights results say clearly your team and mine have much work to do.
And I am chuffed at your bad sportsman ship in W,s defection, count the once saints who played for you, none better than Gordy.

If it is cheaper to employ full time workers why do we have so many casuals?
Are bosses stupid?
Good point belly.

Now I can only speak for retail and say that the increase in casual labour has come about mainly due to extended shopping hours and the unpredictible shopping habits of consumers at large.

You see our government (qld) had this grand idea that it would be great for consumers to have more shopping hours to shop.

Problem is, they didn't give them more money to spend while they shop, therefore, the dollars they spend are simply spent over a longer timeframe each day so retailers tend to use casuals as at least they can be sent home if it's quiet.

My shop can fluctuate up to 40% either way just in one or two weeks. Coles, Wollies can be similar.

I only have one casual and I offered him full time but he wanted to stay casual as he couldn't afford the pay drop. Trouble is, he spends the extra he earns so he is on a 'no win' road.

We had to have him sign an agreement just so we can't be hauled over the coals at a latter date.

Now as for being a 'bad sport', tey telling that to the kids that idalised him.

Broncos up, no thanks to the usless ref!

I think the eels may roll your lot to.

Even the government uses more casuals now or non-ongoing staff to allow flexibility in the workforce. Now that the government wants to streamline the APS and be seen as fiscally conservative we will see more rubbery figures from departments manipulating the system to ensure there is still enough people to do the work.

Or in some cases, not enough people at the frontline only to be met with cries of lack of service, "why do we pay our taxes" etc.

Trouble with government spending cuts on the APS is that it is usually the lower level service deliverers, customer service areas that are cut. Politicians make these cuts but then wipe their hands of how these cuts are going to be managed and what they might mean for 'public service'. They really need to enforce a cut across the service at all levels otherwise it is a joke expecting the lowest paid to do more with less. Centrelink is probably the best example of this but not the only one.

The senior end of the service always seems to survive the hard knocks. Then those workers in the frontline are blamed for the ensuing lack of service, then later a consultant comes in to say yes you need more staff and it is increased again until the next round of cuts, when another consultant is called in to say you can streamline processes and do things better with less staff and on the cycle goes.

This never-ending cycle is costly - get rid of overpaid consultants who are only called in to do one's bidding and use this to actually increase or maintain the current level of service. We should learn from this cycle but we don't and it is endemic to both sides of politics.

Sorry, rehctub I have probably gone off topic a bit.

No Pelican I agree with what you say.

It is flexabillity in the workplace, as well as extended trading hours in retail that have contributed to more casuals.

Now there is talk of the loading for casuals to be increased from 20% to 25%, I am assuming in an effort to get more employees on full time work.

I have grave fears this will lead to the closure of more small businesses and place more strain on unemployment.

By all means encourage full time work, but no unless you wind back trading hours as well. Otherwise they are simply handing a greater monopoly to the chains and remember, they feed shareholders, not families.

P.S Belly, I told you that the eels were a threat!

Bring on benny at suncorp, sorry 'lang park' and we will simply wipe them out again.

Cheers

I came back to let you have your dig.
Some choking, some very bad lapses in defense, and my pain is real, we can not win in my opinion, however we can next weekend.
Casuals, you without taking a second to think give an explanation why we have so many.
It supports my view those oil rig workers save the bosses money, even with that loading.
I am at war, no other way to describe it, with a state government that is increasingly turning full time jobs into casual ones.
Now if it was cheaper, if it was being done as well, if that work was as good or better than full time workers.
I would be left stranded no way I could win.
It never is, it always is worse, often dangerous often breaks that governments own laws on safety fair wages and lots more.
And dreadful as it sounds, once maybe still in roads at least contracts went to former management employees, of the very group granting the contract.
On pay days it was my job to find out why no pay was in the bank, and far too often why firms went bankrupt over night.
Always it took months to get pay owed sometimes it never was recovered.
Turnbulls apparent thoughts about work choices is strapping his ship to a sinking one.

Turnbulls apparent thoughts about work choices is strapping his ship to a sinking one.

It is my understanding that turnbull will let the new Ir laws run and, if the libs win at the next election, or the next, they will have at least had time to evaluate the new laws before making changes.

Now you raised safety and breaks.

How many truckies do you see get out of their rig 'wearing thongs'.

How many concreters, brickies, plasterers turn up at a job then walk around inspecting it prior to commencing work 'wearing thongs'.

Breaks; If we the bosses offer an employee an opportunity to work straight through without a break then finnish early, most jump at it knowing full well they are breaking the law and putting their won safety at risk.

Safety at the workplace is a two way street. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink!

I think the broncs will be to strong at home for 'benny's boys' as they can't handle 'in your face' defence. The eels will roll the titans and the dogs will be worse off for the weeks rest and they will bring kamorly back to early and be beaten and miss the final.

The ones to beat, as usual, will be the storm.

I just hope we don't play them before the grand final as they are incapable of beating the broncs in the GF as they are not strong enough mentaly. Last year when they pipped us at the post was just a fluke for them. They didn't win that game, 'we lost it'!

Evidence of such was the 40 - 0 grand final score.

Belly, why do you avoid facts so often.

Have you not seen a truckie, brickie or plasterer turn up for work in thongs?

It seems to me that every time you are presented with 'real facts', you either avoid the thread or change the toppic. Why?

rechtub yet again you taunt me, for not replying to one of your posts.
You truly must learn I do not share your over inflated opinion of your self.
Ponder on these words, if you both over estimate your own ability's, and under estimate your opponents your are twice beaten.
Yes I have seen such people break the law.
And it was work choices that stopped me and my mates entering work sites to put a stop to such stupidity.
Those acts are against the law.
Let us for a second drop the truckys are good blokes rubbish.
Give most a big steering wheel air horn and CB radio and they are children again CB=CHILDISH BEHAVIOR
No need to look far walk along side any truck rest area and look in the bins and grass for pill bottles, you will find them, drugs are always in use.
No boss worth his salt would let any worker work in thongs it is against the law.
rechtub I read your posts not all are worth answers most fail the test of balance all fail to understand the subject.
Are you telling me you think your lost sheep can win an election?
One more time Turnbull will never ever be PM Rudd has this and the next election won right now, want to bet I am wrong, bet you ten kgs of your best pork sausages and no putting the under a cold water tap to make beef look pork ok?

Belly; And it was work choices that stopped me and my mates entering work sites to put a stop to such stupidity.

Yes, good point! Let's hope this changes moving forward.

One problem employers (and unions) face in times of ubundent work is that of 'i will do what I like' attitude from employees, as they know they can find work anywhere.

My advise to unions is that they fine employees for saftey breaches if the gear is available but they refuse to use it. Why should we have to hold their hands.

Now as for turnbul, I have never thought he would be PM.

Your biggest threat does not come from the libs, rather, it comes from within, that being the labor state premiers who have had a strong hold, some for a decade or longer and have proceeded to send us broke.

Fed labor will have to contend with a huge protest vote as I recon the local bowls club could win the next qld election if they ran.

Now as for pork sausages. I sell mine for up to $15.00 per kilo, so you can be assured they are the 'real thing'.

Meat substitution is a real issue at present and some guys have been getting away with it for years. By the way, 'it's hot water' that sends them white.

So who do you recon will make the final, out of broncos, storm, ells and saints?

My pick is broncos eels final.

p.s. I don't mean to taunt you, I enjoy your comments and sometime agree.

A lot to cover football, my team is my life love them, love the game watch any two teams play and love it.
If we get over you, big if we will battle to win parra Melbourne Canterbury for me.
You if you won well too, but we are a chance.
we have had a weakness for 12 years built into the culture of the club.
Mate know this, just today I told a boss to sack a trouble maker, member of my union.
He refuses to obey OH XS rules.
deaths injury happen no one can ignore rules without penalty's.
I had a fool sacked for refusing twice to wear a safety harness at hight, he fell but while on compo was removed from his job on my demand.
My first full time job was picking up fat and bones from Sydney butcher shops.
country kid 18 months sick or not never had a day off.
learned much about meat.
including seeing a butcher do just that, run water over beef sausages to fool a very demanding old woman.
Rudd is to increase his majority states ,mine is the worst are to have little impact on federal politics.
Last just suppose saints won by 20 Saturday.
You would have to ask what is going on wouldn't you?

Belly
If unions manage to get employees and employers to tow the line with safety issue, then bring it on.

You know my only beef with unions
is that of trying to protect unrealistic pay rates, achieved mainly from an inbalance in workers v jobs.

Now just on the new IR laws, I attended a seminar recently run by AMIC.

I have less than 15 employees and, although exempt from UFD laws, I do have to consider unlawfull dismissals.

Now I gave an example which could not be answered.

At present the bonning of beef is 'an addition' to the moduels for completing a butchering apprenticeship. Crazy, but true!

So, if I were to employ a 'qualified' butcher that can't break beef and I change my shop to 'body meat' as it is known can I terminate his/her employemnt. This often occurrs depending largely on the export demand.

I suggested that as a condition of employemnt they be advised that I may change to body meat and therefore they may become redundent.

What is the view out there of this senario, should it occurr.

By the way, best of luck on saturday. As you know the saints are my 2nd pick and should the beat us I will be rooting for them all the way but I do think the broncs have to much to loose.

Have you ever been to the famous 'lang park', if not, it is a 'must do' for any footy fan as there is simply no other ground like it in this country.

By the way, if you ever do, the 'cackston' pub (not sure how to spell it) is a must, esspecially at state of origin when the 'blue's bus' goes by.