Once the Howard government has demolished the unions, particularly with the help from big business, you will most likely see the next step in the process of Industrial reform.

AWA's are currently subject to scrutiny, generally no one can be paid less than the award and employees will be compensated to some extent for the loss of some entitlements.

The next step is to avoid AWA's altogether by hiring persons not as
employees, but hiring persons to provide services as a subcontractor.
On the surface this may seem appealing to some workers as they may feel they are more in control of the work they do and they can act as their own boss.

The huge disadvantage of this is that, the business engaging your services do not have to pay you the award rate of pay or any entitlements whatsoever that an employee would enjoy.

Loss of entitlements would include: no overtime rate of pay, no sick
pay, no holiday pay, no termination pay, no redundancy payout, no
employer funded superannuation, Inadequate workers compensation, no
enforcement of workplace safety.

There is evidence of this in the music industry where some members of orchestras are being paid about 40% below the award (in cash) and have no entitlements whatsoever even though they have been working at the same venue regularly for over 6 years, some members having no other source of employment.

As far as workplace safety or lack of simple amenities such as change rooms etc. are concerned the individual would have to approach the employer and the employer would most likely react by not using that particular subcontractor to provide his/her services.

Workers compensation would be inadequate because the employer only pays a premium based upon the payments made to the subcontractor.
Subcontractors cannot obtain their own workers compensation as this is
not available to them, as most subcontractors are regarded as "sole
traders".

All in all, it looks pretty grim for the average worker and very rosy
for big business.

There is a general misunderstanding by both some businesses and by employee/subcontractors over what can be contracted and what cant be. Current law it is illegal to hire someone as a subcontractor when they are really acting as an employee. There were a number of court cases back about 2003 to support this.

The best way to pick the difference is:
if it looks like an employee, acts like an employee and smells like an employee, then it IS an employee, no matter what term you give to the relationship. Whats more, if it is found that the relationship is one of employer/employee, then the subcontractor is entitled to all of the same rights as a normal employee, including leave, superannuation, insurance etc.

Smart business has been getting around this by requiring that its subcontractors incorporate, as a business cannot hire a company as an employee. It can only contract with the company. The copmany can then provide workers comp insurance to the employee (the person who WOULD have been the direct employee of the business). It also has to meet superannuation payments.

Whilst some areas of business have moved towards this approach, many are not able to because their employees are not sophisticated enough to run their own companies. These businesses can try but wil eventually find their pool of workers drying up.

As pointed out on this topic this is only the tip of the iceberg.
If you remember Richard Court and Graham Kierith did the same legislation known as the third wave.
Those who declared that they would not touch individual workplace agreements with a barge pole made the wisest choice.
Those who signed individual workplace agreements got themselves into all sorts of strive, regretting the folly of their choice at that time.
Those who had signed individual workplace agreements had sold their award rates which of course was more of a benefit to the employer. Annual Leave Loading gone, Long Service Leave gone. Flexi time gone. Public Holidays gone etc etc. The pay rise they received was then taxed at an average of 35% the staff were working harder with less time with their families. It takes time to realise that you are caught up in a scam locked in with a binding contract and any union representative helpless to help you. So come the next General Election think of it as signing an individual workplace agreement because once you have put a cross alongside John Howard's representative you have literally sold your soul. This may sound melodramatic but honestly that is exactly what you will be doing. If you look at social history it has always been a class struggle and they will have you working for a bowl of rice if you allow yourself not to put up a fight. Remember if you fight you win if you fudge you fail. fraternally Bronco Lane

Sydney News, this is not news. This has been the reality of life in much of the Sydney building scene for 20 years now. It might be spreading to other areas now, I don,t know. But this movement began in the mid eighties and had nothing to do with AWA's, obviously.
I saw the drivers as the introduction of Super. and then stiff Workers Comp. premiums in my industry.
In the mid 90's I employed up to 12 tradesmen and labourers by the award, and had trouble keeping employees who were attracted by the freedom of being a subbie and by the greater immediate monetary rewards. The on-costs associated with operating this way proved prohibitive to winning work after about 5 years and I began to also subbie out jobs, sometimes legally and sometimes not. I made more from the subbies than the employees.
My point is that alot of this argument is wrong when it is couched in terms of the evil of bosses. It might be just a reality they had to confront. And, per my experience it predates AWA'S by nearly 20 years.

COUNTRY GIRL, you are so right. The present situation for many small businesses is a farce. We are between the devil and the deep blue sea, between the ATO and W. Comp.; between market reality and loss of work, between the cowboys and the conscience.

On the plus side Sydney News, I couldn't exaggerate the difference in productivity and morale in the industry since the bad old days of the BLF,BWIU and CFMEU. Also the changes forced on us greater efficiency and professionalism, and the rewards for many have been worth it.

However, I recognise the need to wind back WChoices Mark 1. Not everyone is up for the changes and not every industry is like building and construction.Youth is particularly vulnerable. I support Rudds move to bolster collective bargaining, but he needs to, as Paul Keating recognises, preserve the individual agreement as well. And not just in the WA mines.

I am afraid it is not news at all I would ask Sydney news to have a look at the booming labour hire industry.
Increasingly workers who once worked for the prime contractor are now employed as casual labour via a contracting firm.
Working along side workers who get up to $300 a week, yes that is true, more than them.
Made up of travel wages meal and super differences.
I speak of civil construction sites but it is a shame and fact on any construction site.
This very day my work took me to such a site and labour hire workers are fear filled and unable to confront the issues.
Of the greatest pain to me is the use of a labour hire firm that in no way ever consulted any union about its intended bid to supply workers.
Has no unionists working for them.
Is under the control of a man who demonstrates at anti workchoices events.
Pays $3 an hour less than the next lowest labour hire firm in the area.
Says it is all the prime contractor will pay.
Yet next week finds another labour hire group sharing the contract.
Having consulted the union at every step.
And paying the extra three dollars it is the only defense to labour hire I know of.
Help the best .