Bring back Employer/Employee work place agreements/contracts. As a small business employer I have on a regular basis genuine people interested in working in my business. I would dearly love to give them a go, what stops me..... Superannuation, casual adult rates, etc. Explain this to the ever hopeful candidate and they respond with..... oh but I'd be more than happy to work for a reduced rate and no superannutaion entitlement, after all I get none of that on the dole... well yes thats exactly right, surely a bit of pie is better than no pie at all. Can the powers to be not see this?

Many workers are seeing the new ITEA’s they have signed fail the no disadvantage test.

What’s going on?

When John Howard introduced AWA’s in 1997 employers were given the greatest advantage they had seen since the federation of Australian.
They were given the ability to write individual contracts for workers without any regard to the awards that applied anywhere in Australia.
They could literally write any terms that they wanted and the government ensured that they were deemed to be acceptable, not matter how bad.
Employers in the meat industry leapt onto this arrangement like seagulls onto chips.
They wrote contracts that eliminated working conditions, making the meat industry a miserable place to work.

This had 2 major affects.

On the one hand these employers were able to make huge profits and stand over workers like never before.
On the other hand, labour turnover increased dramatically and the word got out, “don’t work in the meat industry”.
Labour turnover increased so dramatically that the industry ran out of labour and had to turn to overseas immigrant workers.

With the demise of the Howard government the new Labor government immediately moved to reintroduce a proper no disadvantage test which meant that workplace agreements could no longer be worse than the relevant award.
They also outlawed new AWA’s, but allowed a transitional arrangement for individual contracts until the 31st December 2009, called ITEA’s.
All ITEA’s are required to be assessed against the no disadvantage test and because most of them are exactly the same terms as the old AWA’s, they are failing the test.

Continued

Why? Simple. They are worse than the award.
The test applies to the whole of the agreement. It compares the whole deal to the award and determines whether or not the whole deal is as good as the award or not. If it’s not, it fails.

Some employers are telling their workers to ignore letters that they are getting from the Workplace Authority that advice the workers that their agreement has failed the test.
Some employers are telling these workers that they have “lawyers onto it”, and not to worry about it. Rubbish! What they are really saying is that they are arrogant enough to think that they can challenge the new workplace laws and keep their old shabby rip off deals in place.

We can tell you it won’t happen. These employers simply have to accept that play time is over for them and now they are just going to have to pay proper wages and conditions to their workers.
This is what we fought for in the election. It has been a long time coming but Australia has had enough of those deals and now e will return to workers being protected from rip off contracts. If your ITEA has failed the test then you are currently under the award.

If you are in this category then you should contact the union office to make sure that you are getting your award entitlements. If a company is underpaying you then we will get back pay for you. This will be a big transition for workers who have been under AWA’s for a while too, because many of them don’t even know how bad the deals are or what they have lost by not being under the award or a proper union collective agreement.

Yes...just some advice befour I hand out some tissues to our hard done by employers:)

BLUE

Of course you'd love to

Give them a go at working

For next to nothing

Bring back Work Choices

Why not go the whole hog and

Bring back slavery?

As an ex union official, in our best union, you disturb me.
I did not lay down my belief in workers rights that last day.
Can count many small business men/women as Friends.
You however are asking that we break the law.
return workers to slavery.
Superannuation is law it one day may well be the only retirement benefit we have.
Gillard is not interested in why weak agreements pass the boots test,she is not a worker friendly person.
she would be better as a night soil remover.
Unions are not being heard as clearly as the big firms are.

Why is it that we have to resort to extremes when discussing this issue, I am all for paying and operating in a fair and ethical manner, it's not about having my employees work there hearts out for little or no reward, in fact, I, where possible and funds allow, give my employees bonuses for a job well done. Why is it that my loyal employees have been with me for the past 5 years, never one of them leaving for a better offer or conditions. What I would like to do is offer more positions, but what I am saying right now, in this economic climate, is that it is difficult to employ an adult worker (casual), plus superannuation etc at the current rates. I am being told by prospective employees that they would much prefer to have employment, casual or otherwise, rather than collect money from the government. It's not about asking people to work for little or nothing, and the notion of slavery...well lets keep it a sensible discussion people. It's about offering people what they so desperately want...a job with fair wages and conditions for all concerned.

I am sure you mean well tooteaz, but not all employers act in a fair and ethical manner. Once a precedent is set you create more opportunities for exploitation.

Given that superannuation is a condition of employment you cannot set up a situation where you end up with a two-speed economy and create greater disparity between the haves and have-nots.

That is the bottom line, it is not that many employers might pay well (maybe even some over the award) or provide other incentives, just simply that a blanket rule ensures fairness.

The problems that arose out of Work Choices certainly provides evidence that most employers will reduce conditions and benefits rather than add to them, in all except niche occupations that already attracted more than there fair share of benefits.

Tooteaz, Australians have seemingly voted against workchoices.

That means that if you can't pay them the award, people think that
those people are better of, sitting on their arses, doing nothing.

That's great whilst the economy is booming of course. Unless
you are the one missing out on the money.

Fair enough, I accept a democractic decision, but if the economy
should teeter at some time in the future and they are screaming
for job creation schemes, like in the Beazley years, I shall remind
them that they can only blame themselves.

Tooteaz

Why is it that we have to resort to extremes when discussing this issue......because people have to get a life going, and while some live in luxury off the backs of others, greedy employers prefer slaving their own country people of peanuts. The award payments are need of urgent reform ( a nice tax cut, then tax the rich off their capital ), however your hearts in the right place, but the equal-opportunity for all working Australians and in general, still has a ways to go.

Of course you'd love to

Give them a go at working

For next to nothing

Bring back Work Choices

Why not go the whole hog and

Bring back slavery?
Posted by Shintaro, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 3:50:30 PM

Nice one....

BLUE

The Greens also secured assurances from the Government that reviews will be carried out of;

* Individual Flexibility Arrangements,
* Award modernisation process, including pay equity,
* employment law services,
* the right to request flexible working hours.

The long-held provision for Exclusive Brethren businessmen to refuse union entry to workplaces has been removed, but the Greens expressed concern that parallel provisions privileging the sect which exist in all states except Victoria still need to be removed.

The Greens' have also ensured the following elements of the Bill:

* The right of parents of children with disabilities to request flexible working arrangements
* A review of individual flexibility arrangements, award modernisation processes, the operation of the right to request flexible working arrangements and employment law services
* Removal of conscientious objection certificates (commonly used by the Exclusive Brethren)

Anyone remember this......nice:)

BLUE

So there you go Tooteaz, if you are an employer, then you must
be rich. In that case, union leaders will do their best to
screw you, for only workers can be poor.

Besides, they need to justify their salaries.

Running a business is seemingly easy and seemingly leads to
riches. Just ask Belly, Pelican and all those others who
made a fortune in business.

So screw those rich employers for whatever we can, that is the
motto.

Well well, Yabby. I have to agree with you on this one :)
I was paying my employees more than myself for a very long time there for a while. But I was the rich one as far as the unions and government were concerned.

They see your investment, capital and growth as your reward and they figure it far out weights what they earn so you must be rich. Funny how they don't include their savings and holdings in their wealth, only their wages :)

If we were to work by their logic, the more they have in wealth, i.e, house, car, holiday house, boat, shares, super, then we employers should be allowed to pay them less :)

But I do agree with the others also, there are some horrible bosses out there and it's not an easy one to solve.

Yabby....If one can not support labor at the right level, then one should not be in business.

A pour case of too many chiefs. 25% of Australian small business are just wasting their time.

I heard this the other day.

"Being in a job is riskier - At the moment, that statement is very true. Its safer on the dole............at least you have a fixed income and a day down the beach".......and that's what we're going to here more of, if the governments don't state and show true leader-ship.

And how many billions go down the drain each year on some of the most ridiculous spending spree's?

However, all that doesn't alter that fact that way too many one-man-band entrepreneurs aren't scraping a living, and the level of support from governments seems generally to be inadequate, wherever in the world they are. Part of the trouble is that too many would-be entrepreneurs are desperate to do just that - get by, make ends meet, scrape a living. In other words, run life-style businesses.

BLUE

It would be a greater country if many employers attitudes reflected those of yours Tooteaz; a rarity.

TOO TEAZ are you a fisherman? Or are you in fact a butcher, say rechtub?
I want so badly to remind ALL unions are not all evil,the future successful/surviving/growing ones are going to be/are aware a boss must make a living too.
How hard is this? laws also exist to protect bosses, unions do too.
FEW have any problems with those, yet they exist for exactly the same reasons trade unions do.
And from with in both camps good and bad emerge.
IF our teezer has no problems paying his workers more, then pay them legally what the law asks, that includes the costs of running a business.
We Are Unique I am more shaken by your view than any other, I once thought you valued fairness for the weak in this issue.
I too once employed workers,good and bad ones , but my profits came after fair pay.
Is this country one that wants to support small business at the expense of its workers becoming poor.
While miners and builders fight to turn them in to middle to high income earners?
Can that work.
A warning must be given, SOME SMALL business knowing and unknowing, caring and not caring, employ people who already get social security, in another name.
Rules are for a reason,do we want a black market economy without rules to assist thieving from us all.

tooteaz, it's a juggling act, isn't it? I tend to employ sub-contract staff wherever possible, simply because it means I'm not stuck with the on-costs of employing people. I also try to work on outcome-based incentives to give better, more motivated employees a bit more in their pocket.

My main reason for doing this is to avoid the paperwork associated with being an employer. I don't mind paying the money, since it's a basic cost of business that every competitor has also to pay, but the time spent doing the paperwork is a dead loss. The subbies have to take care of that, but they have the c ompenstaion of being able to claim expenses that they may otherwise not be compenstaed for.

My employees give me an invoice for their work and I pay them on that invoice. It's no different for them in that respect than submitting a time and expenses sheet.

As for the usual "you're a boss, so you deserve to get screwed" from the self-indulgent Unionists and the exile from Pomerania, it's the usual guff from those who expect others to make it possible for them to make a good living without having to take any personal responsibility - sour grapes and a sense of entitlement combined with a lack of the personal courage to have a go tend to produce that sort of thing. I'd not worry too much about it.

If you can't afford

To pay workers the award

You're not viable

If you're not allowed
to post under one name
try another...

Pomerania must be getting lonely, eh?

BTW, just to clear up the poor chap's cnfusion, noone is suggesting under-paying, merely that the on-costs are stupidly high, while the forced saving of superannuation is largely being used to line the pockets of "brokers" and other financial sharks.

The on-costs associated with a full-time emplyee are now over 40% of the person's wage. For every dollar I spend paying such a person, I spend over 40cents extra for the privilege.

Reducing those costs, which are a straight imposition on busibess and create nothing, can only lead to improved employment outcomes.

Well it seems this discussion goes the way of all discussions on this subject. No inbetween it has to be the emotionaly hysteria of "poor me" instead of looking for a fair, give and take solution. Providing lower than a living wage casual rate for employees is not one of them and will only set up a disadvantaged sector, it is nothing to do with unemployment vs under-award wages. Unemployment figures are low at the moment and many of the long-term unemployed won't be shaken from their couches for any wage even a generous one.

The biggest imposts for employers is middle class welfare in the form of superannuation, collecting taxes and maternity leave. That is not something I believe should be the purvey of small business. But business is stuck with it and all those costs have to be factored in when forming a business plan. Many businesses still make vast sums of money with those imposts.

Most of these problems can be fixed by reform of the banking system.The basic flaw in our system is that the increases in productivity by individuals are owned by the private banking system.Private banks create the money to equal our productivity as debt.The more growth we have,the more debt we incur.There is never enough money in our economy.30% of our mortgage money is borrowed from OS banks who just create it in their computers.We are borrowing from OS banks to buy our own land.

What's wrong with Govt computers creating new money to equal increases in our productivity?The bank of Nth Dakota is the only Govt owned bank in the USA and it is the best.The Govt of Dakota has an operating surplus.

We are fighting over the crumbs hence there is more and more austerity.

It's not about unions, for or against.

It's not about slave labour..... my mind boggles at that suggestion.

It's not about eroding peoples rights.

It's not about them and us.

It's not about the have's or have not's.....or the perception of same.

What I believe it is about, is giving individuals back their rights, their right to chose whether something is beneficial to them or not, or is it just the government and unions that know what's best for people, has the individual lost their own thought process, I no right from wrong, and I am sure that a good majority of the population does as well. As a people lets get passionate, stand up, have a voice, lead don't be led.

These are my thoughts, I have chosen to post them, I am happy to take on board all responces, good and bad, agree or disagree......that's my choice.

*A pour case of too many chiefs. 25% of Australian small business are just wasting their time.*

So what are you suggesting Blue? That they all close and go on
the dole?

"These are my thoughts, I have chosen to post them, I am happy to take on board all responces, good and bad, agree or disagree......that's my choice."

No problems that is what we are all doing on an opinion site.

The trouble is people use the word "choice" when referring to decisions to accept a less than award rate. If unemployment is high and employers are offering low wages many people will just have to accept those conditions because it will be an employers market. If all the employers are offering the same (in the same way that there is little bank competition) there is no choice.

It is not simply a case of two mature adults making decisions for themselves, it is how the nature of the market might skew those choices during certain periods of economic hardship.

A friend of mine worked in a company in Canada and during the financial crisis all the employees including the management team took a 20% pay cut (I think the managers took more) so that the business would stay afloat and everyone would keep their jobs. However, in that business everyone was salaried and paid above the award or average rates. That is quite a different matter than in the low income sector where the already low rates are in some cases barely a living wage.

Look Yabby....business people want it all there own way.......you just heard our friend here....."Bring back Employer/Employee work place agreements/contracts."

MMMMMMMMMM!

Get ripped off OR go to the beach......not a hard choice, is it.

Union action.......or wait for commonsense to comes back to the land.

Yes....now there's four choices.

Dont you just love democracy:(

Did I mention over-population and greed was one of our problems we face:) with a lack of infrastructure, well! did I or did I not?

Nice try Yabby,

BLU

*Get ripped off OR go to the beach......not a hard choice, is it.*

Fair enough Blue. Let them go to the beach.

Australia can remain a quarry and export our farm products
straight from the farm to the wharf.

Next they'll be screaming for jobs on OLO. No need, they
are happier on the beach.

So be it lol.

I thought you would find that amusing:) Pray tell Mr Yabby......what's the solution then, Iam all ear's?:) Its not another brand of WORKING CLASS HEROISM...is it?..........cause that's running a little thin.

BLUE

Nah Blue, no heroism. If you crunch the numbers and do the checks,
you will find that the working class have around 1.3 trillion $
in super, which is as much as the whole ASX is worth. So workers
basically own industry, banks and all the rest. If they
screw the economy into the ground, it will come out of their own
back pockets, aware of it or not.

To really understand the other side of things, Blue, you'd need to
get out there and operate a business. That might open your eyes.

Don't forget, that nearly every huge company today, started as some
embryonic, struggling small business, where the owner mortgaged the
house and took a huge risk. From Harley Davidson to John Deere to
Apple, they started in the back of somebody's garage.

What we now have in Australia, is the world's cushiest and most
inflexible labour laws, enforced by the Govt.

Those entrepreneurial types who do have a vision, will take one
look at it all and if they have any brains at all, run to Korea,
or Taiwan, or Singapore or anywhere but here, to make it happen.

I don't blame them. I would not risk the house, to meet worker
termination payments, if the market changes. So what could have
been in Australia, simply won't happen, we'll just stay a quarry.

If things get rough on jobs, just tax the workers more to pay for
it. Capital will move offshore in a jiffy, if you overtax it.

So places like WA will stay mining and exporting sheep live,
Melbourne and Sydney can keep taking in more migrants to build
more houses for yet more migrants, in their huge Ponzi scheme.

So bit it

None of you people get it.Our whole monetary system is flawed from its very base,hence it won't work.New money to equal increases in your productivity is created as debt.The more growth we have the more debt we get.

China finances 80% of its economy via Govt owned banks.They can have 12% growth while we have 3% or less.While Chinese Banks practise fractional reserve banking,their new money gets created as a tax credit and not as debt.For an education google 'The Secret of Oz' by Bill Still.You can get a free copy off the net.

I have doubts not just about our author but others here too.
A casual worker gets paid more per hour for loss of holidays and sick leave.
However a casual also, IF earning less than, forgive me not exactly sure, just over 400 a week gets no superannuation.
AND Employer Employee agreements can be done, no union involvement.
But warning, criminal acts not paying basic rights can put you in court years after.
Pay the going rates or get out of the game.

Perhaps this video might go down a bit easier for the folks, Arjay?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU

I have my doubts Belly, my initial reason for instigating this discussion was that I took issues on casual rates and superannuation, and why, because individuals like yourself are so ill informed, it is not around $400 a week and then super kicks in, it actually kicks in if someone makes a mere $450 a month.......does that not put a different light on it for you......

Oh yes, and to add insult to injury that $450 a month is before tax....it just gets worse

just over 400 a week gets no superannuation.
In a caring society which votes for a caring Government Pension/Superannuation should be covered by GST. Put up the GST by 2% and there will be enough for everyone to retire above the breadline. Those who think they should have a better Superannuation have the option of paying more towards it. Paying is the operative word here not employer provided. Public Servants not exempt. Most people would be amazed how much would be in the public coffers if superannuation would need to be optional. It would also be fair. The present system is one of the most immoral aspects of the Public Service. Why the focus on employers all the time not wanting to contribute more. How about asking Public Servants to contribute at least something if they want more than average Super pay-outs ?

"I would dearly love to give them a go" Tooteaze.

Guess my tiredness is catching up with me Belly! Thank you for mentioning as my viewpoints from my own experiences of employers are the same as yours.

The context within my response to Tooteaze was along the lines of: I wish other employers would be fairer to employees and give them a go in life Belly and not 'take take take', instead treating employees in a loyal manner.

You already know my previous views regarding Employers and Employees Belly from previous Rechtub threads.

Sorry, my comments should have read I firmly disagree with contracts and private arrangements between Employers and Employees. On many occasions, employees are greatly disadvantaged.

Those (views) will never change as I have been there done that for many years, along with hundreds of other Australians, burnt by quite a few employers after working 4 hours per day extra x 17 years without overtime, bonuses or a thank you.

Never mind, I contributed to fellow Australians and not bitter.

I am all for paying and operating in a fair and ethical manner, it's not about having my employees work there hearts out for little or no reward, in fact, I, where possible and funds allow, give my employees bonuses for a job well done. Tooteaze.

This was the exact part of Tooteaze's post I was responding to Belly at the time.

Unfortunately there are not many business owners reflecting Tooteaze's ethics, loyalty and fairness towards employees, hence the safeguards of unions.

We are unique:"Unfortunately there are not many business owners reflecting Tooteaze's ethics, loyalty and fairness towards employees"

I disagree completely. I know many many employers and evry one of them knows that the surest way to go broke is to have crappy and crabby employees who are resentful at being poorly looked after.

Very few Australian employers are in the business of exploitation of their employees, while the costs of employing people have become very close to unsustainable for small start-up operations.

I and my partner worked 80+ hour weeks for several years with no employees at all simply to get established. Our hourly rate at the time was probably of the order of $5 an hour, but we kept at it because we could see the potential in the business. We looked frequently at the option of employing people, but simply couldn't see how paying someone who had no stake in the business at least twice as much as we were taking home was going to be a positive step. I believe we were and remain right about that.

These days I emply contractors simply because they have a stake in their own productivity. They are colleagues, not employees and I do well when they do well. I don't have to waste an enormous amount of time and hold a large amount of cashflow aside as contingency for worker's entitlements such as super and long-service leave. My contractors are paid a very fair rate for their work and they can make a great deal more than they could as employees. The proof of the pudding is that my contractors remain where employees are much less stable in my experience. People with no stake in things tend to blow with the wind.

I think you're very much mistaken if you hold the views you expressed above.

Unionists as do 99% Public Servants, view responsibility for Superannuation as being the employers'. Superannuation should be optional as a voluntary contribution over & above the pension. In a so-called civilised western democracy an above breadline pension must be available to every retiree, no if's or but's. There is sufficient money in the coffers. It just needs to be distirbuted fairly and for that we need fair-minded authorities. The present system is so out of balance it belies belief. If Governments want the public to contribute more than Governments need to come up with the competence to run a healthy economy which in turn enables the public to contribute more.

Antiseptic...I have 'experienced' working with hundreds of employers across the Nation Antiseptic as a 'Contractor' in both private enterprise and in government.

Your life as a businessman differs greatly from mine as an employee, let me assure you.

There are some right royal crooked businessmen and Managers across Australia [as there are honest and fair], however the shifty dishonest and fraudulently behaved businessmen, women and managers who attempted on the second occasions not to pay my contract wages, breaking the law; received the flick. They do not receive my fantastic services again.

I decided three years ago to be more careful with my contracting choices.

we are unique:"Your life as a businessman differs greatly from mine as an employee, let me assure you."

Most of my working life has been spent as an employee. I have been self-employed since 2000, not initially by my own choice. I've worked in retail, construction, hospitality and engineering. I've had good bosses and bad, but I've never had a boss who outright abused me by failing to pay what was owed. I've had some quibble to the last cent, which irritated me no end at the time, but was hard to argue with.

There are two memorable "bad" bosses I have had, neither of whom lasted in business. One was a German chap who had a small chain of shops selling electronic goods. He was of Prussian heritage and very stiff and correct until he lost his temper, which was frequent. He paid correctly, but not as much as I thought I was worth, so I left.

The other was in the soil testing game. This particular boss's problem was that he used to give very vague instructions then get angry when the employees didn't do as he claimed to have wished. One employee memorably dumped the contents of several concrete sampling buckets into that boss's vehicle before announcing he was quitting. I myself deleted all the records of my work from the computers the day before I quit. Others made their displeasure felt in other ways. The business didn't last more than a few years.

The point, of course, is that I do understand there are bad employers, but few businesses thrive when run by such people. In my experience, the good outweight the bad by a very, very long margin, at least in small business, where the management ahs a direct personal stake in the business doing well.

Either way, paying over 40% on top of wages for the privilege of employing someone means that there is less incentive to employ. Speaking for myself, I'd rather have a job than not.

From my early experiences in Europe & then Australia I can only say that those who perpetually run down private enterprise belong to a group of unemployables & non-performers. As anyone will tell you if an employer has a good employee then it is in his own best interest to treat the employee well. Bad employers don't in general last very long unless you have a Government which doesn't run an effective economy so people are forced to accept positions in which they get exploited. An employer can only be generous when the economy allows him to be. Again, it's up to Government ensure a healthy economy so that employers don't have to take harsh measures which are more often than not simply not understood by many employees.

Individual

Could lead by example and

Quit his council job

Person with no life
pretends to be
someone else

Shintaro,
I suspect you're not enlightened on Council amalgamation hence your advise.

In my experience, the good outweight the bad by a very, very long margin, at least in small business, where the management ahs a direct personal stake in the business doing well.

True/Correct Antiseptic.

The fact that you experienced life as an employee in the aforementioned situations obviously has contributed to you being a fair and honest person retaining your long term staff [something you stated previously on a thread a while back]Antiseptic.

And yet!.....No-one looks at the leaders of the country!...Oh dear:)

BLUE

And yet!.....No-one looks at the leaders of the country!...Oh dear:)
Deep-Blue,
Whenever someone does so with a sober view you lot get all uptight & defensive ? You really should make up your mind.

The good employers probably do outweight the bad but not in all industry sectors but I think it is improving while unemployment figures remain low.

The childcare sector has improved conditions and wages (to some extent) to attact more people to the industry but if the environment was reversed and unemployment was high, I doubt if there would be much impetus to pay more fairly given the important nature of the role. That is just one example.

The same problem exists in the aged care industry and cleaning sector although in both those the trend has been to import cheap labour rather than rethink wage scales to attract applicants.

A healthy economy should set the conditions for even the lowest wage to be a realistic 'living wage' in conjunction with improvements in red tape and other burdens to small businesses.

Allowing random contracts and deals does not aid in this principle except as mentioned previously in specialist niche industries and skill sets like IT.

Pelican, the childcare sector is very heavily subsidised and regulated. It doesn't represent the small business sector as a whole, or business generally. You are right thoigh, in that since it is heavily subsidised in order to allow women of childbearing age to take up the burden created by the generational demographic situation, then once that situation is resolved in a few years, there will be a surplus of workers and so the subsidy will not be required. It will be reduced as "unaffordable", which it already is, really, but thanks the mining boom we aren't seeing that as properly apparent.

It's a very good example of a system control that can be easily applied at any time. All it takes is the will to apply it. The death of enough elderly products of the baby boom will provide the incentive for that politial will to be exercised.

The same applies to a great many policies that purport to be based on Feminist precepts. Once the need for female workers decreases, so will the justification for the policy.