Printable View
I wonder how many phone calls Howhard is making to the big business leaders to geeup support for his IR laws
Interesting to note how they are screaming their tits off that they might lose money
I didnt see much sympathy from them for the workers in the hospitality and retail sector who are being screwed by this legislation.
Hold your ground Kev and dont weaken ... its all a Howard orchestrated beat up
Bring on the electionhttp://www.stickybeek.com.au/forum/smileys/smiley7.gif
<!-- Signature -->
Hmmm, at least half a dozen of our friends are actually enjoying their new ten hour day, four-days on four-days-off lifestyle, Mr Rudd will have that gone and a real dollar pay cut as well, but at least they'll get "paid" for working Sundays! :rolleyes:
Having been involved in the hospitality and retail industry for 15 years prior to the last two, I can assure you that it's a tough game, both from an owners and an employees perspective. For the last ten of those years it was made easier for both by our AWA's, and having assisted a couple of businesses to put new (replacement) ones in place, there has been no change under the new legislation, other than now having the right for a small business to employ whoever they want, which seems fair to me.
There's an awful lot of huffing and puffing, as there was before the legislation changed, and no-one's denying that some businesses have not done the right thing. Hopefully they'll pay a price for that.
There again, I've had a few employees steal stuff, come in late, knock off early, and take sickies too, under the old legislation I couldn't sack them! I suppose that's fair to Mr Rudd?
Gee I'm glad I don't employ anyone anymore. Of course if everyone felt like me, there'd be no grumbles, because no one would have a job.
Oh and while I'm at it, there was some stupid sheila on the front page of the local rag, whinging about how much that bloke from Macquarie Bank earned, compared to how much she earned in the local coffee shop.
I wrote to the paper suggesting she puts in place the same productivity incentive as his, ie, she sets her salary to 2% of the profit of the business, if it's a really good business she'll make between $800 and $2,000 per year.
If you don't like the way you are being treated, find an employer who'll value your time, there are plenty of them about.
It'd be interesting to go back over a couple of old threads on this topic, and see how those sprouting doom and gloom have actually been affected. I suspect not at all.
Cheers,
P :doh:
Idiots have the uoo much union influence. I want to know why they can't allow people to be employed the way they want. If they want collective bargaining, then they should be entitled to it. If they want their AWA then they should be entitled to that as well.
I'm an employer and mostly agree with the unfair dismissal laws.
I do however have a real problem with the AWAs in their current form. The most disadvantaged are even more disadvantaged. Women, migrants etc. have no bargaining power and are simply paid less and work in poorer conditions.
The U.S. is very, very likely to go into recession this year. They will stop buying crap from China. China will need less raw materials. Pop goes the resource boom. Our unemployment rate will rise which will put employers in a greater position of power. They will be able to say "You want the job, take the minimum wage, work nights, weekends with no holiday pay and no sick leave. You don't we'll give it to the next person."
This is how it works in the U.S. Millions of people there work long hours and are still way below the poverty line.
The current WorkChoices is not fair and balanced. We need to have in stone some basic protections for those who are not in a strong bargaining position.
Chris
Let me be clear, I mostly agree with them too, particularly the changes that make it possible to dismiss thieves, (and people who own boxer dogs! :D )Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunt
Is that really the case overall? No one pretends that there are not disadvantaged groups in the equation, but by and large the benefits seem to be fairly well balanced.Quote:
I do however have a real problem with the AWAs in their current form. The most disadvantaged are even more disadvantaged. Women, migrants etc. have no bargaining power and are simply paid less and work in poorer conditions.
But of course after a certain number of hours, if the pay rate hasn't been averaged, penalty rates (or their equivalent) still apply. What does it matter if the nominal 40 hours is worked in four days, or over only Sundays? If we as consumers expect a service, and we don't want to pay for it, then something has to give.Quote:
The U.S. is very, very likely to go into recession this year. They will stop buying crap from China. China will need less raw materials. Pop goes the resource boom. Our unemployment rate will rise which will put employers in a greater position of power. They will be able to say "You want the job, take the minimum wage, work nights, weekends with no holiday pay and no sick leave. You don't we'll give it to the next person."
When was the last time you walked into Bunnings on Sunday morning and volunteered to pay double the price because penalty rates apply? (OK I know they don't but you get the point!)
No it's not how it works in the US. It's a completely different system, AND we don't live there either. We have a far higher minimum wage level, AND we don't have a black economy in illegal immigrants working at $3.00 per hour.Quote:
This is how it works in the U.S. Millions of people there work long hours and are still way below the poverty line.
NO ONE HAS EVER ADVOCATED THAT SYSTEM!
So what's wrong with the basic wage safety net that used to be there rather than a wholesale reinvention? Is it actually legal to have someone on an agreement working longer than 37.25 hours in a week (or whatever in a month) without paying penalty rates??Quote:
The current WorkChoices is not fair and balanced. We need to have in stone some basic protections for those who are not in a strong bargaining position.
I don't think so. It may be what is happening in a few cases, but there's a lot of emotion that doesn't seem to be backed up with fact.
Last time we had this discussion, I asked for any evidence to be produced (other than ads on tele). It was the time of the Spotlight publicity, and it all turned out to be a fizzer as I recall.
So come on... convince me with FACT, none of this rhetoric.
BTW, I'm on the side of truth and light, so I don't have to worry about facts!
:D :D :D
P
I thought you used hand tools. Isn't that going to the Dark Side? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
Richard
Wgat a lot of people forget in these debates is that while the 'Unfair dismissal' laws have changed, particularly for small business, the 'Unlawful Dismissal" Laws remain intact.
There is a difference.
PS> we aren't supposed to talk politics (or political views) in this forum.
Hi
It is about time the EMPLOYER, the guy PAYING the EMPLOYEE had some rights of his own.
For far too long the rights of the employer had been substantially diminished. I don't deny that there needs to be a minimum wage which IS applicable within the new AWA IR laws.
WHen employers can control THEIR OWN destiny then ALL business succeeds. Bad employers will find it hard to get good staff and the word spreads about such an employer. GOOD employers will be able to get and retain good staff - it's logical really!
I know of one instance (before AWA's) where and employee was dismissed for stealing. There was irrefutable evidence to prove she was stealing money from the cash register.
The UNION backed her case for UNFAIR dismissal and she won her case and gained a financial reward - how STUPID is that!
My personal experience with unions and the "collective bargaining" option was interesting. A UNION member was dismissed because he was just no good at the job for which he had been employed - these things happen. So, I was approached, being a NON-UNION member, and was asked to join the union. I declined the invitation. Subsequently the company was given a choice that either *I* joined the union or *I* would be dismissed and the utterly useless employee would be reinstated. Again - how STUPID is that!
Collective bargaining is of course tantamount to union blackmail, this has had over the years, disasterous effects to the cost of living of all Australians. The "follow-on effect" of one branch of UNION members blackmailing err collective bargaining their way to higher wages with the same or LESS productivity has done nothing for the BENEFIT of the Australian lifestyle.
I believe now as I have always done that people - employees - should be paid on their own merit and be able to negotiate higher wages if their merit proves this to be the case.
If I am good at my job the employer will want to keep me otherwise I can obtain better employment elsewhere. This is FREE ENTERPRISE for the employer just as it is the THE EMPLOYEE!
This is the major benefit of AWA's the GOOD employee can succeed very well, the less capable employee has to rely on the power (ie blackmail) of a union or collective bargaining to gain undeserved remuneration.
There is NO WAY any one unions OR employers can say that xx number of people desrerve a wage rise just because it's a nice thing to do. The repercussions of this is, as always higher prices to the consumer! Employers can though provide wage rises to those deserving of wage rises and pay any appropriate increase INDIVIDUALLY and maybe NO increase to those that do not desrerve an increase.
Employees should EARN their money, not be given it for NO effort.
Unions ergo the Labor party, are and have always been selfish. They have NEVER given consideration to the repercussions of their wage demands or other "deals". The Liberal party has always been for the individual. To allow ANYONE to get ahead if they so desire and have the ability to do so.
Anyway that's enough from me...
Soapbox mode off :D
Hmmm? I wonder who I'll vote for THIS time.....
So does that mean you'll vote labour?
As a declared leftie, I'm looking forward to the restoration of some union power in a few months. History has shown over and over that those in power will subjugate those without it.
This may be the one that closes the thread.:wink:
Oops! :oo:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
I'm glad I wasn't being political... :D :D :D
Best we move? Or best we just read the thread from last time instead of rehashing all the fun!!
P
:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunt
I have recently become a victim of the WorkChoices policy of the Howard government.
Until 2 months ago I worked for over 5 years on a regular basis of 3 hours a fortnight for one employer.
I was then dismissed and offered re-employment under an AWA but the AWA only offered the basic rate of pay and more working hours were required of me, with the net result being that I would earn only a third of what I was earning before.
So now I'm retired and will vote for Kevin.
Peter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
Good onya Peter. Sorry about how you were treated.
I'm an employer (or at least I would be if I could get my business to the point that I was making enough money!). I'm also a former employee, a former contractor, and a self-employed business owner. Politically I would describe myself as a liberal conservative. I strongly believe in individual freedom (that's the liberal side) and I'm a capitalist (that's the conservative side). I'm happy to admit that I voted for little Johnnie. But this time I'll be voting for little Kevvie. One of the major reasons for that is the Work Choices legislation, even though it doesn't disadvantage me personally one bit.
I was of the opinion that the laws restricting small businesses needed review and change, because small businesses were being governed and regulated out of business. To employ anyone was just too hard, and I believe a lot of small businesses didn't bother because of that. But, I believe that the Work Choices legislation as it stands is a move way too far, and gives employers the power to treat workers like slaves. I believe that in the long term this will cause a resurrection of the bad old days of the unions fighting employers at every turn (because workers will join unions again in droves if this legislation stays in place). And I believe that this will be VERY bad for the economy and general health of Australia as a nation.
I know of instances where people are employed for longer than 40 hours per week as casual employees (not permanent) and not paid any penalty rates. I personally was employed (some years ago now thank goodness - I have a strong aversion to work now :wink: ) for more than 40 hours a week with no penalty rates (sometimes as much as 80+ hours a week without penalty rates), but I never minded much because I was on a fair whack at the time.
It is now also legal for employers to take the compulsory superannuation contribution out of your wage instead of out of their pocket, and I know of an employer changing his employment conditions to do just that. I know of employers changing conditions and pay rates since this legislation to make employees much worse off, and the attitude is "sign it or you're sacked". I know of people being sacked for no reason, or being offered casual conditions after years of employment.
This is not fair, and I'm sorry but it shouldn't be the kind of society that Australians are willing to accept. And if all that is too political and causes this thread to be locked then I'm sorry!
Yeah I know one of them too. I also know of a company that wanted to sack an employee because he was rude to the customers, had no idea what he was doing, and was a definite liability to their business. But it cost them thousands in legal fees to make sure it was done right and he had no comeback. And I watched both of the business's owners turn grey overnight.Quote:
I know of one instance (before AWA's) where and employee was dismissed for stealing. There was irrefutable evidence to prove she was stealing money from the cash register.
The UNION backed her case for UNFAIR dismissal and she won her case and gained a financial reward - how STUPID is that!
Something had to change but maybe it was a step too far, although I don't have any personal experience to base that on.
However I think that voting for the other guy because his policy is to overturn the policies of the current government is not necessarily a brilliant idea. Yes people are sick of Johnnie but what does Kev &co. have to offer? How many of you saw Julia Gillard last night unable to explain how they propose to support existing AWAs in legislation once they 'rewind' Work Choices or whatever it's called today? Her stance was that they have an objective, but as yet no details on how they are going to get there. "But we will release full details of that before the next election".