With the next election planned for, whenever, one issue that will be faught over are IR laws.

Now it is obvious that the masses hold the view that work choices went too far, but then again, so did fair work Aust, in the opp direction.

While having all the perks of weekend loading, etc, etc may be appealing to many, they are simply useless if one can not secure a job, with these perks, that amoumts to a decent amount of hours, on a regular basis.

More and more people are being messed around by irregular work rosters, simply because employers hands are tied and, constant changing of rosters is one way of getting around many penalties they suffer from, if casuals are employed on a regular roster for an extended period.

Casualization of the workforce is about the only way for employers to protect themselves from laws, so, many employers today employ casuals with a view to seeking the best workers, then, when they find a good worker, they often put them on full time as it is actually cheaper in the long run.

One reason for this is that an employer can not drop one perm employee, in favor of a better one. Another law that needs to be examined.

So I guess we should be seeking that middle ground, as IR will be a heavily faught election issue.

I'm sure when the Coalition wins the next election, if they gain control of the Senate that is. They will do the 'right' thing by the employers and bring in all the necessary 'flexibility' required of the workers. Given half a chance they will get rid of all those lurks and perks, penalty rates, sick pay, holiday pay, LSL, supa etc its all got to go, these unfair imposts on the poor employers. Abbott's message will be loud and clear "Just think yourself 'lucky' you have a job." Casualizstion, now that is the way to go. in the western world I believe Australia is only number 2 when it comes to casualisation, Spain is number 1, can't have that, Abbott will get us the top spot.

Paul1405,
I hope that a Coalition Government will have the sense to cut back on the lurks & perks in the Public Service which simply got out of hand under the ALP. A Labor Government would be appalled at what the ALP has done in the years since big, useless Goagh.
We can't continue paying $1500./week for empty apartments whilst the supposed occupants are living in their own houses on $250.-plus/day travel allowance.
That is a situation brought on by the ALP & no-one else & it has to stop.
IR under the ALP has gone off the rails.

The monk will reinstate the work choices.
Pay peanuts and you will not get the right people.
Public servants equalls services.

Public servants equalls services.
579,
you are of course not serious. Or do you believe that having highly paid Public Servants hiring the services of expensive consultants with taxpayers' money for tasks which the highly paid Public Servants are in their positions for ?

Only if the same two leaders remain in place will it be the major thing in the election.
Both sides may want it to be, but it is unlikely to take the place of trust in either side.
Rechtub may not even be aware of it, but his views on the subject are extreme.

Yes Belly your correct, it is farcical that Rehctub should attempt to claim the middle ground on this issue.

"So I guess we should be seeking that middle ground, as IR will be a heavily faught election issue".

Clearly, Rehctub thinks Workchoices is the middle ground, as does Abbott whom spent his latest time rubbishing his country to his crony extreme ideologue counterparts in the U.S.

Preaching, (most probably) too a room full of downtrodden right wing ideologues with tax reducing investments in the Cayman Islands, whom haven't payed their workers a pay rise in eons, because nobody represents American working people.

If Abbott tries to get that Workchoices stuff up again Belly, the streets will again fill up with 1000's of protesting working families, even if Gillard is still PM. Of this you can be sure.

You would have to be crazy to believe Abbott's masters doesn't want to go back to a Workchoices-like environment. At the time, some in his party were apologising that the reforms did not go far enough.

The main pillars of the Liberal Party are -

1. Smaller Government with lower taxes
2. Less Government Regulation and
3. Deregulation of the labor market.

That's all. That's why they exist. The rest is just window dressing they need to do to achieve those aims and there's no way they will just walk away from an essential part of their philosophy.

It may not be under a big banner name again but a series of incremental reforms will produce the same result, but be more like the frog in the pot scenario.

Work choices can not be implemented again & neither can the unfair dismissal act.
Both sides need to dream up new terms. If the Coalition, repeat if the Coalition has any sense it will focus on natural attrition to reign in the size of the Public Service & freeze Public Service pays for at least two terms. It could be done if they changed the heads of Departments.

Individual, you say "freeze Public Service pays for at least two terms" My partner is one of those public servants you want to put the big freeze on. She leaves for work at 4.45am every morning to work in a large public hospital. Works hard all day for her $20.66 an hour. Are you proposing a wage freeze for her for the next 6 years?

How's this my old father in-law who is 80 had some grub out today to fix his stove, there for less than 10 minutes fitted a $40 part (my son took the old part and got a price for it.) charged the old bloke $260 for the job. Allowing for the cost of the part that works out at $1320 / hour for labour. like so many small business grubs this bloke didn't give a receipt avoiding GST and other tax, as so many do.

So person A needs some job to be done and person B can offer this service, they meet each other and happily reach an agreement, some form of a work-for-money exchange, then comes along the government out of the dark clouds, labels one of them an "employer" and the other "employee" and says: "Stop, you can't do that".

How ridiculous and abusive. Two adults are in agreement, with informed consent: what right on earth or in heaven have the government to intrude in their lives?

Paul, the reason this so called grub didn't give a receipt, is cause your dear old dad wanted a discount, ie, no GST. BTW, I don't blame him.

As for this grubby practice, I am with you there, it's a disgrace what these guys get paid.

I remember having a blocked drain one Sunday in one of my shops, I was charged about $800 for two hours, that was back in the early 2000's.

I believe all seniors should be able to go to Medicare and have their call out fee, usually about $80 refunded, as they quite simply can't afford it.

But back to the topic, despite my mate T2's dig, we must find middle ground, as we will be in dire straights if the present situation continues.

We have disgruntled workers, who can't get enough steady hours, disgruntled bosses, many of whom no longer wish to employ staff and strikes everywhere.

Things must change, hopefully for the benefit of everyone.

Paul if your father in-law is living in his own home, tell him to get on to the mature age office of centrelink, & ask for advice.

There are a large number of government funded support agencies, designed to help oldies to continue to live in their own homes. centrelink should be able to advise on the ones in his area.

They will send suitable repair people out to fix your father in laws equipment, such as power, gas, water & safety equipment for him. They cover all labour costs, charging only for the parts used.

Some of these people may not be the very best tradesmen, but they are mostly very genuine & helpful. One spent an entire day overhauling my mothers gas hot water system, with no reduction in excessive gas consumption. He did not see the pilot light was burnt out causing the waste. These blokes can't know everything about every make or model.

Your commercial repair man may have spent a couple of days learning about the problem with your oldies stove. This is a common problem for them. They are then inclined to charge 30% for doing the repair, & 70% for knowing what to do. In many instances this is reasonable, after all we pay a brain surgeon more for knowing how to do the job, than for doing it.

Would you suggest the brain surgeon should not be rewarded for the time spent learning his trade? If it's OK for the surgeon, then why not for the repair man?

Yuyutsu, while I never paid minimum wages under the protection of work choices, that's for skilled workers in my industry, I think what you are refering to was the guts of WC.

Personally, I see no problem with a bare minimum, then, if one has skills/ability/nouse to offer, then they negotiate a better deal.

After all, good workers are getting harder to find, so they can demand high wages, and that's fair enough.

But the present system has put us back decades and has simply allowed the duds to set the benchmark.

They (labor and their supporters) were warned, but they still took to IR with an axe, then gave extreme powers back to the unions and look what they have achieved in a few years, total dysfunction of the workplace. Unless of cause one is gullible enough to believe our unemployment is around 5%. yea right!

Many today don't bother with unemployment as there are too many hoops to jump through. I was unemployed for six plus months, but because I have too many assetts, albeit not in my name getting assistance was not worth the hassle. I went for six month, while establishing a new business and lost about $60,000.

I will get some of my tax back, but it can be a long time between drinks.

Put simply, labor and the unions have all but ruined workplace relations.

It's a sad world when a top union official can set out to smash an iconic company and seek to send it broke.

Power hungry grubs is all they are.

Paul, I remember my mum has had a leaking underground pipe fixed by Home Care, in QLD. It was very cheap for her, but she is on her own.

Dear Rehctub,

You are right of course, but that's too many details.

I was referring to a basic principle: once broken, anything can happen and any evil can sneak through.

Two people agree, with full and informed consent upon a deal and that deal happens to also involve an exchange of labour for money. Let us assume that they ask no-one else to certify or protect that deal and let us further assume that no-one else is injured or threatened by that deal: what right has anyone else to label them an "industry", one of them as "employer" and the other as "employee", and on those grounds to impose this-or-that condition on what they may and may-not include in their agreement?

Any IR laws, good or bad, are a violation of our inalienable natural freedom.

Yes Yuyutsu, many were happy to work Sundays, then play golf on Mondays, but they have now lost their Sunday shift and have to now work on Mondays.

They can't afford Sunday golf, or, it's just too busy and playing a round on Sundays is frustrating.

It's just plain stupid to think two adults need this big brother intrusion in their working lives. But unions say it's to protect the weak and vulnerable.

But unless they call for help, perhaps big brother should stay out of it.

Meanwhile, those who are happy with their arrangement get left alone.

Was that not the reason for unions, if one wanted protection, then joint a union.

Paul1505,
Yes, people tend to try to get as much as they can & many go completely ape$hit about it.
We'll have to deal with them just like we should deal with overpaid Public Servants. It will not happen under an ALP Government.
As for the bloke charging say $200,- for an hour's work consider travelling, working out quotes, buying parts/materials, renewal of licenses & permits & registrations etc.
As I said many times, the whole show of business in Australia is just too much out of synch.
We need to focus on getting some balance back. If your partner gets $20,-/hr I suppose it depends what her job is but I do agree that hospital workers are being exploited. Hospital administrators are ridiculously overpaid. I know, I have been there. Fact is far too many Public Servants are overpaid & provide nothing in return & those are the ones I want either gone or demoted to a realistic level. We must rid ourselves of the Peter Principal in our Public Service. We can't afford that any longer.

...As I said many times, the whole show of business in Australia is just too much out of synch.

Indi, owning a small business was enjoyable, provided you with a level of freedom, if chosen and, above all else, provided you with an opportunity of financial independence.

I am afraid those days are all but gone.

Nowadays, one can't run a SM without a lawyer and an accountant, and a business banker.

We now have to have structures that are too complex for most to follow, in fact, company laws are in the spot light as we speak, as most directors are not aware of their duties.

When one has to risk all they have worked hard for, just so some grubby land lord etc can get their hands on it, you know the balance is wrong.

My analogy of SM is, once I used to scoop my money up with a shovel, nowadays I use a landing net, and most of falls through the holes.

But, I took the advice of many and got out.

Now, I work when I want and have the ability to make a substantial living, with no staff, no landlord and no hassles.

Living the dream as they say.

It's just a shame it has to be that way.

Yuyutsu said "So person A needs some job to be done and person B can offer this service, they meet each other and happily reach an agreement, some form of a work-for-money exchange,"

then comes along the police (my word0 out of the dark clouds, labels one of them an "addict" (my word) and the other "dealer" (my word) and says: "Stop, you can't do that".
How ridiculous and abusive. Two adults are in agreement."

rehctub said "Paul, the reason this so called grub didn't give a receipt, is cause your dear old dad wanted a discount, ie, no GST. BTW, I don't blame him." For a start the old bloke didn't ask for a discount, the grub told him he would do it straight away for $260 cash!
Rehctub you condone people braking the law through tax avoidance. Are you also advising people who can't afford the GST to steal from shops?

Nice try Paul, but saying I don't blame him is not offering my support, however, this may come as a surprise to you, but I think the way the GST is charged, to those who can least afford it, is not fair.

As for the guy wanting cash, dad could have complained about that. It's the only way to get rid of shonks after all.

That whole shonky show of licenses, permits, blue cards, gold cards, white cards, registrations etc etc etc is only there to keep the public Service affluent. Build a couple of roads here'n there yes, but most of our taxes go to people who do extremely little for their fellow citizens in return for being mollycoddled from cradle to grave. This has to stop. An ALP government will not do that, a Coalition Government may give it a go but will have to tolerate constant interference from the lefties.
Most budgets for a service to the public contain at least 50% just for bureaucracy. That has to stop !
Yes, money was originally made round to go round but it appears to always end up in undeserving hands.

As for the guy wanting cash, dad could have complained about that. It's the only way to get rid of shonks after all.

Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 19 July 2012 10:44:02 AM

Dad is 80 half blind, takes all day to read a newspaper. That's okay cause I rang the ATO this morning about this grub. Gave them some details from the local newspaper. The AOT should simply set up a sting on these types of people. They would catch literally 1000's. car repairers, tradesmen etc. Bust them on the spot, big fines. Your right about the GST.

Dear Paul,

I am no expert on drugs and the variation you introduced is completely foreign to my lifestyle and the kind of people I meet, but ASSUMING (perhaps out of ignorance) that no third-party is injured by the exchange between the one so-called "addict" and the one so-called "dealer", and assuming none of them asked at any stage for the state to interfere in their affairs, then your variation holds as well and the police has no right to intervene, telling them they can't do it (however, personally I would stay away from them and not befriend such duo).

We are now looking down the barrel of IR. The mining boom has workers flocking in without a thought other than money. The places they leave will suffer from their desertion & the places they go to chasing the almighty Dollar are already suffering the first symptoms. Excessive rent & hastily brought in infrastructure are already changing the small towns. When the boom is over in a couple of years everything will be totally out of balance from insane mortgages to absolutely no economy to continue life in the towns that got overrun in the rush.
It's just a silly short-term rush from which no worker will really benefit because the money they make is driving up their expenses as well. Extremely short sighted indeed.
Families will break up en masse & more children will grow up without direction.
If Government doesn't modify IR on the run we'll all pay for the failure.

Imdi, you are right.

I am about to build a rental on one of my lots, a transportable, aimed at miners and it should rent for about $1500 to $2000 per week. Not bad for a $200K investment.

Had I done the same five years ago, my rent would have been $120 to $150 per week, if anything, as I am ten km from town.

The expectations of young workers today is out of whack. Nowadays, two week on, two week off and a $120K per year is the norm.

Out here we have young guys finishing their apprenticeships, being scooped up by the mines on a start up rate of $180K+.

They are the ones who will suffer as they simply won't cope with reality when the boom stops.

Wages for on miners must be subsidized or business will simply fold.

As I have said many times, welfare is governments responsibility, not small businesses.

rehctub said "Wages for miners must be subsidized or business will simply fold.
As I have said many times, welfare is governments responsibility, not small businesses."

Let me get this straight. When the non sustainable mining crash comes, Government should make huge handouts to unemployed miners

As rehctub said "start up rate of $180K+."

The unemployment benefit for these ex miners living in rehctub's neck of the woods will have to be equal to $180k per year. You may ask, why is it so?

rehctub also posted: I am about to build a rental on one of my lots, a transportable, aimed at miners and it should rent for about $1500 to $2000 per week. Not bad for a $200K investment.

Now we know why the unemployed miners have to get this huge government benefit, so they can pay rehctub the outlandish rent for his mobile hovel. If they are on normal unemployment benefit as rehctub said all he will get for rent is, "my rent would have been $120 to $150 per week"

It is the taxpayers responsibility to ensure rehctub continues getting $2000 a week from an unemployed miner for his mobile hovel and not $150 a week from some dole bludger! Nothing like a bit of targeted welfare. ROTFLOL.

Are you really that dumb Paul? Or do you just think it's smart to misrepresent something so badly?

I guess the latter, after all you are a lefty, & going by their climate change scam, they could not lie straight in bed, even if their life depended on it.

My apologies Paul, a small typo in my post, but it sure got you going.

What I meant to say was that NON MINERS wages need to be subsidized so non mining businesses can afford to employ staff. At present they simply can't compete.

I have suggested before that a levy should be charged on miners pay rolls so this money can be used for the subsidizing of non miners wages. Same deal for rents.

As for young ones wages, my point is that when the industry does slow/crash, it is they who will find it hard to accept what most of us consider as the norm.

A for them getting 180K on the dole, yea right, don't know how you think that was my thinking.
But then again, some people just can't help sticking the knife in.

It's often a habit of under achievers, not sure if that's you, don't really care.

It becomes clear from comments all around that the whole I.R. thing only addresses two sides independently, opposing that is. The employers' side is all about getting the most out of the employee & the employees' side is all about getting the most out of the employer.
There is no flexibility & that's where the trouble lies.
The one factor stuffing up both deals is bureaucracy which grabs a larger than fair slice from the employer & the employee.
Government is supposed to regulate everyday live for it's citizens but in Australia it's mission appears to be fleecing everyone to the max in order to pay for it's own incompetence.
The present mining boom would be an ideal point in time to refurbish IR. Put it to to those who claim sky-high pays what their plans are after the boom is gone in a few years. Put it to them that because they're on such high pay now they won't be eligible for unemployment money for some time. The same goes for the overpaid bureaucrats in the Public Service. If you are on very high pay for several years then you really should have enough in the kitty to keep going for some time without asking the lower paid to support you. If you think you can't put enough aside from your big pay to support yourself beyond the boom then stay with your present job, don't cling to our aprons.

Butch,
IR will only be an issue at the next election if Labor chooses it to be. If you really want change the government then I suggest you drop this matter. The present government is far more vulnerable on many other issues.

For example, carbon tax, illegal boat people and all the stuff ups they have made. They could present an argument about IR and frighten some electors about work choices.

No matter how important you see it for small business, and it is, best stick with other issues I have mentioned.

Boat people are only que jumpers, our intake of immigrants has not changed.

Boat people are only que jumpers,
579,
suggest then how to deal with them.

Small Business - aren't they the crowd who screwed over the taxpayer by rorting things like the Pink Batts scheme?

You're right Wobbles, but only because the government was so incompitent that they didn't have the appropriate checks and balances in place.

Fix a leaky tap or mow a lawn ome day, install insulation the next.

You will always get rorters in business. Checks and balances means red tape. Make up your mind which way you want to go.