New IR laws...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

I'm always interested, just never believe until I've done a bit of homework first.
:D :D :D


See the emotional clap trap here? "stripped staff of public holidays?", cut workers shift loadings?

None of that can be true if by definition, the AWA cannot be forced on an existing employee.

By "stripped staff of public holidays" the report means "removes loading for those working on public holidays in the context of a 38 hour average week incorporating a new wage level which averages penalty loadings over a twelve month period", but that doesn't sound anywhere near as unfair does it?

---

What of the staff member who wishes to spend public holidays with his family, as was the original reason for their existence? Can he "average" his lost days off?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

Now that is quite disturbing, particularly given some of the employers I know, however the penalty for lodging an unlawful contract is set down in the act - $6,000 for an individual and $35,000 for a corporation and I understand that restitution would have to be made retrospectively, so if an employee was properly informed it shouldn't be a problem. Note again that we are talking about NEW employees here, who would have accepted the position knowing what the conditions were prior to commencing.

---

Or, of course, a "former" employee whose contract has expired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

BTW on the Spotlight front, the $14.30 per hour that is apparently on offer, not coincidentally I'm sure, is exactly the rate in the retail award in Qld.

---

Yet without the additional award conditions that gave shop staff some measure of recompense for a crappy job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

Craig, I doubt that we'll ever agree on this stuff, and in principal I have no difficulty with working a 38 hour week at any hour without penalty rates. Don't forget that penalty rates were devised when the fight was on for a 48 hour week, and employers conditions have steadily eroded since then, no drivers, no manservants....(sigh! :p) but the point that I am trying to make is that however firmly one's political belief, the debate is fuelled by emotion not by fact, and I think it's time that we looked a bit beyond the headlines if we are to make sense of it all.

Cheers,

P:cool:

---

Mate, having worked on salary for many years and then being self-employed, I know all about working lots of hours for little recompense:rolleyes:. I believe penalty rates are important, as they are just that - a penalty that the employer must pay for not planning his activities to avoid them. Holiday loading I'm not so sure about, as it was originally introduced to compensate miners and other rural workers who may have had to travel for several days to get home and back on holidays. Yes, I know the world has changed and 7 day trading is the norm and perhaps that is not a good thing. I do think it's a shame that we can't see eye to eye on any of this, as I suspect that we are actually looking at the same injustices, but filtering them through our own prejudices. It's been (and will continue to be for some time) an interesting topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exador

I do think it's a shame that we can't see eye to eye on any of this, as I suspect that we are actually looking at the same injustices,

---

No it's not a shame, if we saw eye to eye, we wouldn't have had the debate, (although I know I'd beat you to a pulp with "proper" facts if we were face to face.... you'd give up in a flash!:D )

Yes we are looking at the same injustices.

Perhaps I should also add that having at one time employed well over 100 staff in 24hr, seven day per week retail food businesses, even with the awards in place the theory and the practice are very different.

A senior employee earning $14.00 per hour rarely if ever will get a penalty shift, ($28 - $35 per hour), why would they when a junior on $7.00 per hour gets $13-$17 ? The result is less flexibility for the seniors, juniors being overpaid, and customers being underserviced.

There are many more dimensions to the debate than Spotlight's supposed 2c per hour!

And I REALLY wasn't going to bite on this thread!

Cheers,

P
:D :D

So much for protecting existing employees.

From The Age today

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grunt

So much for protecting existing employees.

From The Age today

---

So the whole world is gunning for my argument now! OK if the paper's right, I'm wrong! :o

Maybe its time for me to become an employer again after all!

Cheers?

P

Wasnt " leave loading" actually bought into place to compensate workers that would lose shift and other allowances whilst they were on leave?

If one doesnt normally earn a shift penalty during their normal employment, why are they entitled to a loading when they are on leave?
In essence, i am paying that employee more to be on holidays that they are paid when they are working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maglite

Wasnt " leave loading" actually bought into place to compensate workers that would lose shift and other allowances whilst they were on leave?

If one doesnt normally earn a shift penalty during their normal employment, why are they entitled to a loading when they are on leave?
In essence, i am paying that employee more to be on holidays that they are paid when they are working.

---

Leave loading was originally introduced to MIM workers, I believe, to compensate for the extensive travel (2 days each way at the time, I understand). It was later extended to all. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I do think that some form of compensation for loss of earnings during a compulsory leave break is warranted. Many people rely on their loadings to pay the bills.

"You really do have a problem with workers expecting to get paid and treated properly, don't you? You still haven't answered my qyestion, either: "how cheap are you prepared to work?"

If I apply for a job and am accepted, I expect to get the wages and conditions that were on offer. Do you know of any examples where that has not happened? So to answer the above, if you apply for a job at X dollars, then implicitely you are prepared to work for those dollars. If not, why did you apply? There's your answer.

Now I've had enuff of this wank. I'm heading for the scotch.

I guess I've been looking at this from a slightly different view point. I haven't been here all that long but the sense I get is the average person tends to do without more often because they simply don't have any money. Also cause I'm a new immigrant I also spend a fair bit of time on new immigrant forums. And one of the most common observations by new immigrants from "western" nations is that the wages are noticeable lower than back home (where ever that may be). So when I hear the government on more than one occasion take steps to kill wage increases and in-fact want to to take it to another level and severely reduce wages... I've got to wonder where it will all end up.

Before I got here and for a while after I couldn't understand why a lot of job postings would mention "lots of over time" as a selling feature for the job. Until I got here and realized that most I encountered can't afford to live off their wage unless the do many hours of overtime a week. So what if you can reduce wages and therefore increase employment when most are just scraping by on what they make now. When the rest of the western world is trying to get away from over working and spend more time with the family the Australian government seems to be trying to go the other way.

My goal in starting this thread was to hopefully find out if anyone knew what the governments long term goals were with these and and other reforms. And what projection they have predicted as to what will take place in the near and far future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exador

Many people rely on their loadings to pay the bills.

---

Budgetting on behalf of an employee is not nor should it ever be, the responsibility of the employer.

17.5% of 1/12 of a years pay less (say 25% tax) equates to about 1.1% of an annual salary and sure as heck doesn't pay a very big bill!

It does cost close to that in admin costs for the employer though....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exador

What of the staff member who wishes to spend public holidays with his family, as was the original reason for their existence?

---

I suggest you stop blaming the employer for that.
Blame your missus, and me, and every other bugger that buys stuff or goes out on a public holiday. If we didn't want to be served, all those poor workers could stay home with their families, and we'd all be better off (except for the existing Spotlight employees, who'd be $90.00 a week worse off, because the shop would be closed when they currently get penalty rates.)

Then we'd have a whole new act of parliament insisting on people shopping and eating on Public Holidays I guess!

Cheers,

P (It's my birthday and I'll cry if I want to!)

:D :D :D

I'm glad I live in a bubble.

Geee, i wish i got to spend as much time with my family as my employees do!!!

It would be good to see which "western" nations have a higher standard of living than we in OZ do, most if not all may make more money per hour but it would be a dead cert that the conditions and allowances wouldnt be anywhere near what we take for granted in this country.

Some american friends of mine stared at me blankly when i explained to them what i am expected to pay my staff. They simply couldnt believe it.....as for 4 weeks paid annual leave with a loading well thats another story too, apparently.

Now, i dont know what the solution is and i have no idea what the government is trying to implent in the future but as an employer i know that i have very little say in how my business runs once i follow ALL of the correct procedures, policies, awards, agreement etc etc etc.
Contrary to popular belief a lot of small business people arent the millionaires that some believe, nor are they a cash cow to be drained by ingrained poor work practises and under acheiving employees.
Perhaps the main aim of these new laws isnt to drive down the wages and conditions of employees but simply give control of the business they work for back to the person who owns it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maglite

Geee, i wish i got to spend as much time with my family as my employees do!!!

In my case, I'd like just once to have as much time at home as any of my many bosses.

It would be good to see which "western" nations have a higher standard of living than we in OZ do, most if not all may make more money per hour but it would be a dead cert that the conditions and allowances wouldnt be anywhere near what we take for granted in this country.

You need to get out more. For starters, try almost any European country or Canada.

Some american (Well now THERE'S a example for all of us!) friends of mine stared at me blankly when i explained to them what i am expected to pay my staff. They simply couldnt believe it.....as for 4 weeks paid annual leave with a loading well thats another story too, apparently.

Yeah, its tough to get around those pesky worker's expectations, ain't it? The Americans get two weeks/year. They also hate it. Apart from enjoying a nation of cheap stuff, would you want to be an average American worker? How many million Americans fall into the category "the working poor"?

Now, i dont know what the solution is and i have no idea what the government is trying to implent in the future but as an employer i know that i have very little say in how my business runs once i follow ALL of the correct procedures, policies, awards, agreement etc etc etc.
Contrary to popular belief a lot of small business people arent the millionaires that some believe, nor are they a cash cow to be drained by ingrained poor work practises and under acheiving employees.
Perhaps the main aim of these new laws isnt to drive down the wages and conditions of employees but simply give control of the business they work for back to the person who owns it.

---

The real, hidden reason for these laws is John Howard's handing a poisoned chalice to Peter Costello. (I don't think he can stand him either)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregoryq

The real, hidden reason for these laws is John Howard's handing a poisoned chalice to Peter Costello. (I don't think he can stand him either)

---

Ahh, spoken like a true conspiracy theorist :D

He was doing well up till then too :rolleyes:

Richard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maglite

Geee, i wish i got to spend as much time with my family as my employees do!!!

It would be good to see which "western" nations have a higher standard of living than we in OZ do, most if not all may make more money per hour but it would be a dead cert that the conditions and allowances wouldnt be anywhere near what we take for granted in this country.

Some american friends of mine stared at me blankly when i explained to them what i am expected to pay my staff. They simply couldnt believe it.....as for 4 weeks paid annual leave with a loading well thats another story too, apparently.

Now, i dont know what the solution is and i have no idea what the government is trying to implent in the future but as an employer i know that i have very little say in how my business runs once i follow ALL of the correct procedures, policies, awards, agreement etc etc etc.
Contrary to popular belief a lot of small business people arent the millionaires that some believe, nor are they a cash cow to be drained by ingrained poor work practises and under acheiving employees.
Perhaps the main aim of these new laws isnt to drive down the wages and conditions of employees but simply give control of the business they work for back to the person who owns it.

---

Canada for one - I would say a much higher standard of living to honest, but you can 't surf there. I've spent a great deal of time in the states also and would say that they have a higher standard also, they don't have much in the way of social programs but the oportunities far out way that. I think the UK is high up there also, much more in the way of social programs and the earning potential seems to be higher.

As per your last paragraph that is part of what I have been sensing (for lack of a better word). There are a lot of people here that are just getting by so I have to wonder how these new IR laws and other reforms are going to benefit Australia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daddles

He was doing well up till then too :rolleyes:

---

I thought that was the only really good bit!

Comparisons with other countries are so dangerous they are almost irrelevant.

So you want the same wages in Finland? The be prepared to spend $6.00 on a cup of coffee, and a bucket load on house heating. If you are the sort of person that resents business making money, it's best not to go there either!

Everywhere there is a balance. If there is a better balance somewhere else, go there. Mat did exactly that, and I know he's not whinging about his lot, just enquiring, because he knows that on balance, here is pretty good! (If he did whinge, I'd tell him to rack off home anyway! :D )

On another note: did anyone hear ABC radio PM ref a new Spotlight store in Sydney's west?

I didn't and cant' find the transcript on the ABC website, but was told that the numbers presented about NEW employment opportunities were pretty significant, and most of the NEW staff were something like $300 per week better off. So the dole doesn't look so good when you bring it into the equation?

Cheers,

P:p