NSW has announced it is to give its power to the new federal System.
Not government workers but every one else will be covered by the new system.
Frankly while not happy with all of it I always thought one System country wide made for a better economy.
Complex and with traps the thing that is now our IR law is hiding traps for both sides.
In no way can it be seen as work choices or can the idea it is a return to the so called bad old days.
Yes some of those day can honestly be called bad, just as some on the other side acted very badly during work choices.
However government plans to Harmonize?
Strange word for an act than intends to murder, NSW occupational health and safety will be a battle Field few will forget.
We live in interesting times.

OH&S Belly is way over the top.It is being used as a tool of oppression rather than reasonable objectivity to make work places safe.The employee also has to take some responsibility,otherwise your members won't have any jobs.

I think it is impossible to condense so many awards.

What usually works best is for employers and employees to get together and decide what they want and, if they can't decide, or, if there is a complaint, then, there should be a mediator in place.

I had dinner with a mate last night who is turning 60 and is an electrician. He has more 'hands on' experience than any newly qualified tradesman, yet, he pointed out that he is working with a guy who only one week ago finnished his time and is being paid the same rate of pay. Now how is that fair? 45 years experience verses 45 hours!

Retail is another area where many may exit.

Are you aware that while you are enjoying your traditional 'boxing day rest' that many retail workers will be working, all in the name of more shopping hours. Change every award so everyone has to work.

If an employee works every sunday, as part of their normal shift, they are to be given a three day weekend, including sat & sun each month. WITHOUT PAY!

Nobody working sundays wanted this!

The fact is that the people who make these changes are not effected by them.

Another flaw is the fact that there is nobody there to check if an agreement between parties passes the 'fair work test'. But, if the areement is challanged years latter, the employer may be found 'in breach' and have to pay thousands. Multiply this by 20 staff and they may go broke.

Then, if an employee is unhappy with their deal,(from the commission) they have no avenue for appeal other than to take legal action.



We will have industries full of full time apprentices being 'under trained' as there will be insufficient trades people left to train them as many work casual to fit in with workloads and employers simply won't stand for an increase in the loading.

Put me on the record as saying,the whole thing is a mess and will simply cut jobs.

Your right rehctub.I refuse to take on apprentices.I would rather keep my business small and controlable.Just pick and choose the better jobs.Far less stress and positive outcomes.They are making it almost impossible to employ people.

If the Unions want to make a difference they should be looking at how our Govts and the banking system steal money by creating too much of it.Look at the fractional reserve system of banking that allows banks to create 9 times the amount of money for loans as thy have in deposits on their books.

This inflation is what diminishes people's saving and wages.Remember that inflation like interest is compounding and with just 3.4% inflation over 10 yrs can mean a 40% increase in the money supply above pop increases and GDP.This means that your currency gets depreciated by 40%.It is the ordinary folk with few assets who lose out becasue they have no hedge against this currency depreciation.

So become aware Belly and start tackling the real issues.

First a confession.

I have never fully understood the twentyfirst century rationale for IR Law.

Sure, it was relevant when workers were being exploited by greedy capitalists who cared nothing for their welfare or safety. But that was pretty much sorted out by the middle of the last century.

We have an entirely different economy today. There are no more dark satanic mills. Very few mindless, repetitive piecework jobs standing in front of a machine tool of some kind. The justification for imposing a seemingly infinite number of "rules" as to how we are permitted to employ people is itself, I would suggest, history.

I would appreciate being enlightened on this. I can certainly see how an employer should be responsible for enabling the worker to operate in a safe and healthy manner. But that's not what IR is all about, is it.

If we turn rehctub's example around:

>>he is working with a guy who only one week ago finnished his time and is being paid the same rate of pay. Now how is that fair? 45 years experience verses 45 hours!<<

From an employer's point of view, if they do the same work, they should get the same pay.

But if there is value in the additional experience, I, for one, would be very happy to pay it. But is this permitted by IR legislation? (That is not a rhetorical question, by the way).

So perhaps we could usefully discuss the objectives of IR law, raher than pick over a couple of examples that on their own, are meaningless.

>>while you are enjoying your traditional 'boxing day rest' that many retail workers will be working, all in the name of more shopping hours<<

Maybe they are happy to earn the money that the retailer is happy to pay them. Where's the crime?

>>The fact is that the people who make these changes are not effected by them.<<

You see, that's the problem. If you left it to the employer and employee to work out between themselves, you wouldn't have all this grief.

The only 2 days of the year there is no retail is christmas day and good friday. All other days are optional. Optional being the word.
So if you open on boxing day or any other day, it is your decision, it is not the law.

Dear pericles,

>>We have an entirely different economy today. There are no more dark satanic mills. Very few mindless, repetitive piecework jobs standing in front of a machine tool of some kind.<<

My brother-in-law was until recently employed in a certain manufacturing establishment here. His job consisted of some incredibly repetitive work. One required a sizable item lifted into position and a piece inserted with two screws applied every 7 seconds. It was common work practice for a worker to be rotated every 2 hours off this job.

Recently the company was bought out. The new owners wanted all workers to be made redundant to clear the books then the majority of them were to be re-employed at two thirds their pay. With the economy the way it is most were keen to be rehired.

My brother-in-law was put on to this particular job and informed that he was going to have to do the full 12 hour shift as part of the new work practices. He and his co-worker tried to explain the nature of the job but were not listened to. Both ended up returning far less units for the shift for which they were berated and both went to the medical section to report muscular discomfort.

Both were let go one week later when the positions were announced. Each had put in over a decade with the old company. No recourse is available.

I see our IR laws as a way of us correcting imbalances that offend our sensibilities.

I am not surprised by the posts of rechtub or arjay, but challenge both to see both sides of the issues.
OH XS arjay has never been under more threat than this.
Now our system is in NSW at least over seen by a dead useless body work cover.
It seems to me,honestly being self funded to be interested only in fines, safety is not even looked at until after an event.
Bosses bring injured workers back to work, only to sit around so insurance costs do not rise.
Arjay, you said it but surely even you do not believe workers will not have a job if OH XS is made harder?
Let us however not kid ourselves one National scheme, if fair is a better way, and is just about ready to go.
Look for information on fair work Australia, find information on the dreadful intended changes to OH XS it steels from NSW workers and imposes the worst state rules on our whole country.
Truly Labor is intent on a system in safety that is as bad as work choices, if we can not make them see how wrong it is.

With respect, csteele, that's not exactly the most reassuring rationale, at least for an employer.

>>I see our IR laws as a way of us correcting imbalances that offend our sensibilities<<

Whose, for example are "our" sensibilities?

The example you use is an interesting one. Again, purely from an employer's point of view.

If I need "a sizable item lifted into position and a piece inserted with two screws applied every 7 seconds", I would need to cost this activity into the manufacturing process, and pay accordingly.

I would also have to make sure that the necessary health and safety provisions were in place - there's little point in relying upon a manual process, if it cannot be performed effectively, consistently and reliably.

>>Both were let go one week later when the positions were announced.<<

What would be the point of continuing to employ these folk, if they were unable to perform the task? It was necessary either to employ people who could, or to find another way to perform the same function

>>Each had put in over a decade with the old company.<<

That's the biggest problem for an employer: the belief that the company owes lifetime commitment to the employee who inserts two screws into an item, however many seconds are involved.

Most employers, myself included, would not prevent any employee from leaving if they so wanted. Certainly, I wouldn't say "hey, I've employed you for ten years, you owe me, you can't leave"

That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

I can definitely see that regulations are needed to keep the workplace safe. But who is protecting whom, and from what, with arcane, time-consuming, one-sided and unnecessarily complicated IR laws?

The lawyers would hate to see them go. That on its own almost enough justification to scrap them all and start all over again.

Recognizing we live in the twentyfirst century.

Any idea that FWA fair work Australia is heaven for unions or bosses is wrong.
Both sides are contained within a set of rules not yet fully understood.
And both sides, equally, have safeguards that may become traps for the other side.
The term Enterprise Bargaining Agreement has become Enterprise Agreement.
Both sides, MUST bargain in good faith, surely an end to some bad behavior from both sides?
OHXS is and remains a concern,isolating legal people from claims in my view is criminal.
If your house burns down, your car is smashed or stolen, you can use an expert to represent you.
If you die in a workplace event, or never work again after one , your income is most likely to be on the publics purse why?
Few know in NSW the last Liberal Premier gave injured workers a better deal than Labor.
Few understand need to cut insurance costs in workers comp is seeing this federal government consider using the very worst laws from other states in Australia and inflicting them on every state.
Crippling the best state laws, not good enough but best, NSW.
Crack down on fraud, make work safe, but under this proposed law unions will be restricted in workplace safety, deaths will come, both sides do not want a system that kills more.

Under the new system any one can appoint anyone to be his/her bargaining agent, it need not be a union.
Fair enough but some silly things are underway, some small firms have pressured three even four workers to become Agents, for single people.
We Will hear and see much more about this as the system gets moving with the expiry of awards and agreements.

Dear Belly,

It makes perfect sense to introduce
uniform and equitable Industrial
Relations Standards throughout the
state.
As of 1st January 2010 - employers
and employees of the private sectors
will be under Federal regulations.

The State will have time to fall into
line or be dragged into line in due
course.

First things first - starting with the
private sector.

Dear Pericles,

Mate, I have owned and operated my own businesses, mostly small in size, for 4/5ths of my working life. During that time I have employed many people. I have had decades in retail, wholesale and manufacturing often running totally different enterprises simultaneously. Not one of those businesses went broke and I paid all my workers all their entitlements.

I have associated with a number of employer groups and I must say thankfully your attitude is rare in the majority of business owners I know. I must admit it is an attitude I see more often in managers. Are you a manager?

Most of those owners would know, as I do, if an employee lasts more than a couple of years with you, especially in manufacturing, then you have struck a good one and they are worth holding on to. Secondly the relationship you have inevitably formed means you care about them and their families.

In manufacturing it is often the ones who do the most tedious work that you feel the most grateful for because you know it would be beyond your own capabilities to face that grind.

So whose sensibilities does it offend? Myself and many others in business I know. I have seen some rouge operators out there and have been involved with others in boycotting them because of the way they have treated their staff. I have even had one shut down.

The biggest shame is the lack of trust their former workers bring to their next workplace.

I will admit some IR laws make my grind my teeth but I recognise that on the whole they do assist in keeping the balance right at least here in Victoria.

Yes Foxy I agree NSW surrendered its powers to the federal system, the right thing to do.
However it is not planned that public enterprise RTA Forests Parks ext will ever become part of the system.
It is however proposed and well underway that # Harmonization# of OHXS [ one set of rules nation wide take place.
Some Labor states have far worse laws than NSW, it is those states who oppose introduction of the better laws in their states.
It is a better way, to have National laws, it is a concern ,increasing costs involved in workplace injury.
Indeed in fraud by both workers and employees in this area.
But do we truly think cutting costs is a safety measure?
Work cover NSW is a fraud.
It is useless and helps no one.
Why not improve safety and surveillance not cut victims rights?
Fraud, deliberate crime, drove car injury pay outs down , so too in personal injury's payouts dropped.
We stand convicted in the workplace we think of cost not, not rights of victims, ruined lives.
Under this new system I [ fully trained ] can drive past a work site and find real danger to motorists and workers.
Today I can walk up and ask to see a traffic control plan and or traffic movement plan.
Ask for it now, not under this system.
I must give 24 hours written notice to see that document.
This morning I could if given it prove danger exists, show how to fix it, see it done and drive on all in less than five minutes.
No fighting, no IR war and no deaths or injury's.
Is it known some who set out these sites are untrained and not lawfully able to do so?
Or that I soon will be unable to challenge them?
In fact by invitation I audit a very big international firms site today, but break the new law too.

So if you open on boxing day or any other day, it is your decision, it is not the law.

Sorry Desmond, but you are wrong.

All shopping centres today have what is refferred to as 'core trading hours' and, as a retailer, you must trade these hours or face fines.

The fair pay commision has deemed 'Saturday' as a 'trading day' and 'Monday' as the public holiday.

What ever happened to the three or four day break at Christmas?

One very simple solution would have been to make Saturday the public holiday and leave trading on this day as 'optional'.

Remember, the majority of businesses are closed for the entire Xmas break, so it is 'retail' that is hardest hit.

I also remind you that my concerns are for my staff as I will be on leave.

My staff don't want to work boxing day, but we have been forced to.

As for experience in the workplace.

Isn't it funny how one can be paid extra if they do a 'first aid course', yet, they don't get recognised for their years of experience.

Now it's all well and good for an employer to pay the experienced person a higher wage. The trouble starts if and when the less experienced challanges that.

And belly, I say again, this will cost jobs. You thought 2008-9 were tough years. Mark my words, 'you aint seen nothin yet'!

Krudd, with his failed employment generation schemes has left a huge hole in the confidence of employers and you can bet very few business owners will have any faith in anything he has to offer moving forward.

Frankly, that comes as a surprise, csteele.

>>Mate, I have owned and operated my own businesses, mostly small in size, for 4/5ths of my working life.<<

From your earlier approach to the topic, I was convinced that you must be a public servant of some kind, with only a theoretical understanding of what it takes to run a business.

>>thankfully your attitude is rare in the majority of business owners I know. I must admit it is an attitude I see more often in managers. Are you a manager?<<

Equally surprising to you must be that I am also a business owner, having started, and managed, four small companies - all successful, all still going.

You and I have no disagreement that a good employee is worth holding on to. Nor that the relationship extends beyond the shop floor. Nor that those who willingly perform the most tedious tasks can be extremely valuable, and often very difficult to replace. The longevity of the vast majority of my own employees stands testimony to these synergies at work in real life, as does the fact that I have not had to fire or lay off a single employee over the past twelve years.

Where we disagree at a fundamental level would appear to be that you feel that various government agencies know better than you how a business should run, and are forever discovering new ways to make life difficult for you.

It isn't a matter of grinding your teeth, csteele. It's the sheer frustration of having to deal with laws put in place to protect people who - just occasionally - have entirely forfeited the right to that protection.

It is punishing the many for the sins of the few.

Give me one example, if you will, of an IR law that is exempt from this description.

Dear Pericles,

I feel after reading your second post I could be talking to a different person.

>>You and I have no disagreement that a good employee is worth holding on to. Nor that the relationship extends beyond the shop floor. Nor that those who willingly perform the most tedious tasks can be extremely valuable, and often very difficult to replace.<<

So why the laissez faire approach to my brother-in-law's situation?

It was obviously a case of the new owners wanting to stamp their authority and the handover gave them the opportunity to negate any unfair dismissal law implications.

I think most people would consider their actions as unfair. They offended my sensibilities of a fair go. Many would be happy that under normal circumstances there is some remedy available.

So if you wanted an IR law to debate lets start with unfair dismissal.

I was also surprised by your statement “I would need to cost this activity into the manufacturing process, and pay accordingly.”

That is not the way it works. I always worked on the award wage plus 25% in my costings for a rough guide to gauge if a process was viable. You seemed to be indicating you let the process drive the pay.

I do prefer Perciles version 2 and I congratulate you on your 12 year record. I willingly admit it is better than mine although I still occasionally have a beer with a bloke I let go because of theft. Life is too short.

Sorry rechtub but you are wrong.
The sky is not falling, jobs will not go.
Rudd has already won the next election.
Now about trading on boxing day? you do own butcher shops?
None will open around here, they say one third of Sydney's population comes to our mid north coast but bet you no butcher shops will open.
Maybe in Woolworth's or Cole's but surely not shop?
One day, maybe now, employers with new ideas will sit down and work out a deal, remember you can , bargain with your workers.
It has to get past the BOOT test, that is better over all test measured against existing agreement.
Look at the last 5 years overtime records, it needs to be individuals as some work much more than others.
Figures will give average overtime per year.
Work out a base rate than includes that amount of overtime, if both sides agree you have a base rate of pay all hours worked.
Good bosses exist, good workers too, some workers gladly would work Saturdays for this inflated rate, and apart from over all pay rises it would cost you no more.
If your average worker worked 100 hours a year overtime, any hours after that would need to be paid as extra, pays would be by exception, changed only if over the average overtime was worked.
Some would want me flogged for saying this, but it has worked and I know some who would not have it any other way.
Annualized salary is its name, and bloke know I do not lie bosses just like you Chase my mob to help in drawing them up, they work for both sides.
Providing excessive overtime is paid or taken as paid leave at overtime rates wages time sheets alone are less work.

Belly; I am talking about QLD. As for NSW I don't know, but if they don't have to trade on BD, well that's great for them.

As for what you say with the new award, or what every you are saying, I am sorry, but I don't understand you.

What I do know is that while many may claim to work 'un paid overtime', they fail to acknowledge the times that they 'don't work' but get paid for. Checking and forwarding personal emails, sending texts, hanging around shop/office fronts having a smoke break.

Anyway, this is off track. My beef is that my staff only get Xmas day off this year becasue some 'toss' has decided to throw a stick in the works, which, by the way, won't effect him/her.

rehctub: << All shopping centres today have what is refferred to as 'core trading hours' and, as a retailer, you must trade these hours or face fines. >>

That's not "law", rehctub. It's a contractual condition of the lease that you entered into. Your problem is with your lessor, not the Fair Pay Commission.

Of course, you do have the choice of working yourself instead of taking the day off, or giving yourself and your staff the day off and paying the penalty to your money-grabbing landlord.

CJ Morgan covered it well rechtub but make an effort to understand.
The long term future is annualized salary's.
And I have given you an idea how it works, it however is much more complex, answers to your problems can be found.
Not the wet cheeks about workers being human, maybe if it is that bad you should sack your manager.
Look at the way I said, take a worker you do not want ever, to work extra hours, or outside normal hours, they would be paid normal rate.
Those you want to be flexible in hours days worked get paid a single loaded rate all hours worked.
This gives higher super and long service payments and other benefits.
It is my view in time, this system will be used by most, with the safety net that extreme or excessive overtime will bring extra payments.
This system is in place, it compels some workers to work one in two Saturdays, a few Sundays, and a given amount of hours outside normal a year.
Excessive hours are paid as Christmas payment.
Or taken as paid leave 8 hours Sunday becomes 16 hours paid leave.
Again average worked overtime over a period of years is said to be the new standard, paid and expected to be worked at the new rate.
I know of such schemes workers and bosses would fight to keep, it works for both sides.

Ok Belly and CJ, we will agree to disagree on the laws of boxing day trading. The fact remains that boxing day has been decaired as 'a normal trading day', you are welcome to look that up if you wish.

What I want to know is what is happening to the traditions in this country.

Go back 20 years, nothing was open Xmas day. Every retail shop was closed for three or four days over Xmas, depending on the day it falls.

Slowly we have seen these family values errodded, all in the name of increased competition and extended trading hours.

Why do we need this?

As for belly's suggestion of IR laws, this has been done in many hospitality areas and has worked well. So why change it?

This industry faced ruin under the new IR laws until they took their case further and won an exemption. I assume that cost the industry millions, but why did they have to go down this road in the first place?

On another note I see Krud has finally decided to tackle the wasted billions from welfare with a 'debit card scheme'. Three cheers Mr Rud!

You would not be compelled to trade in NSW on boxing day.
I spoke not about the new IR laws but an existing and growing way to pay workers, annualized salary's, the future is this way.
The betraying, no other words explain it, of hospitality workers by my team shows a clear lie from Julia Gillard.
She said at state conference the ALP, her and Rudd no longer listen to the loudest voice.
A clear reference to unions in my view.
She and he however heard the mining lobby loud and clear and Queensland tourism.