What Do You Think?

Hi,

I hadn't given it much thought on how I was going to write this so please for give me if it is hard to make anything of it!!.

I started a new job a fortnight ago with a 3 month probation period (which seems to be the norm these days) as a contracted machinist. If I successfully pass it, I will be offered a 2 year contract (I will still be paid via the agency) and I still won't be entitled to sick or holiday pay.

However, unlike the last job which was also as a contractor I don't get paid a premium of 33% above the fulltime staff rate. In this new position I am presently being paid $5 per hour less than my fulltime colleagues who also get all the additional entitlements:(. Don't get me wrong I wasn't forced into taking this job but most of the postions I see in either the newspapers or mostly on the internet are like this. They usually say "casual which may lead to a permanent position" mmmmm. It appears the days of getting a permanent position are diminishing. I suppose the companies are happy with the arrangement(s) as they can (going via an agency) just sack the employee at anytime in the 3 months without too much hassle. Given that one of Labors pre-election promises was to do away with AWA's will this help change these type of "contracts"?

Can anyone also enlighten me as to how much agencies approximately get for there "cut % terms" from the employing company?

I would appreciate some feedback from fellow members as to their thoughts and experiences of the present system:wink:

Cheers
MH

sounds like a renamed workplace agreement, are you in a union, if not join

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by echnidna

sounds like a renamed workplace agreement, are you in a union, if not join

---

Hi Bob,

But as a contractor - can one join the union? And if so is there much point for the next 3 months?

Cheers
MH

Certainly doesn't sound fair. Quiet enquiries to the relivant union is my thoughts to. So much for the lobor shortage. The workers are still not valued. And now they'll blame the wages blow out on the workers too.:sigh:

Nothing wrong with working as part of an agency freelancer, or whatever it might be termed in your field. Pretty much been doing it before I graduated with some fulltime thrown in in between freelancing, except now i run my own business employing me as dispatch clerk, coffee maker and everything else.

From my side of the fence in my field, and I guess most fields now, fulltime isn't what it used to be, same job your whole life and good boss (only ever had one true good boos) The workforce is changing to agency freelancers and those self employed sole operators like myself.

Take the job. Haven't had a paid holiday now for 3 years, and sick leave - what's that, but you make hay while the sunshines so you can survive the leaner times. Just mae sure you arrange super and income protection for yourself.

As to what Rudd and Gilard say, :bartmoon:

My advice would be to spend the 3 months looking for another job. Make yourself seen to be well worth employing, the type of employee that makes a business hurt when they leave and then when you find another job simply go to the boss and let them know that without permanency your gone, if he says can't do then ahnd in your notice there and then. Casual with no loading or benefits - no way. Isn't there meant to be a trade shortage:?

Metal Head, if your employed through the agency, they'll be paying your super. But you work for and on behalf of the agency, that's how they work and always have - but that said, as an agency contractor, you should be making more than the fulltime blokes there.

I misread parts of your post.

I may be incorrect but as a casual employee you must be paid a 25% Loading to cover no sick, holiday or LSL pay.

I am not sure if this is 25% above the award wage or 25% above the lowest bracket of the other employee wages - if they have a current EBA (enterprise Bargaining Agreement)

A call to the wages htline should clear this up for you. if you are not an employee but a contractor then you should be naming the price not them.

Another example of Australia going mad.

Why should the agency continue to get their cut? What are they doing to earn this money? The got you a job and they should be paid, but why ongoing fees?

It seems that you are the one paying for the agency - not the mongrels who own the factory, hence your lower wage.

Personally I would inconvenience both the scum employer and the lazy agency to the extent that they are inconveniencing you - leave them both high and dry.

When employer groups identify and crush mongrel employers and unions identify and crush scum employees there will be higher productivity and respect in the work place.

Until then we will have the rotten system we have now where there seems to be a competition between the unions and the employers both trying to rip each other off encouraged by our two major political parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wood Borer

Why should the agency continue to get their cut? What are they doing to earn this money? The got you a job and they should be paid, but why ongoing fees?

---

I was interested to see what you were going to write Rob, when I saw your name up.

And I agree, employment agency rates look good on paper, but take their cut out and your worse off and I'd say from experience, that while it's great that you've got some work, what you actually take home in pay from them is much less than you are worth for your experience and skill set.

Like Burnsy wrote, take the time while you're there to look for a job for 3 months, or work your butt off prove to the boss that you are a valuable asset and approach him and say, "Look, if you're comfortable with it, skip the agency fees (which are ongoing for him and you) and if you're happy with me put me on f/time." I had several clients who I initially worked freelance for, approach me and ask if I'd take them on a proper clients and ceased all other outsourcing.





(sometimes what people write is better read in the light of the day than the late hours of the night)

I guess I am expressing a fundamental view of mine where I think your rewards should be proportional to your contribution. Unlike the many examples of people and organisations not doing very much but greatly benefiting from the sweat and headaches of others.

Examples might include lazy investors, overpaid board members, slack sales people, politicians etc.

I know that not many people will agree with my views particularly those people with their snouts in the trough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wood Borer

Another example of Australia going mad.

Why should the agency continue to get their cut? What are they doing to earn this money? The got you a job and they should be paid, but why ongoing fees?.................

---

Rob

i dont neccasarily disagree with you but what the agencies do for their continued fees is complete all the paperwork. That includes workcover, tax etc. so that you can run abusiness without worrying about all the associated costs.

The problem with this is that while they are a seperate business they too want to make a profit so their fees are structured to be more than the actual costs that they are saving the job provider.

But some people (and i dont blame them) dont want the hassle of employing people with the associated problems if they are no good etc.

This is the sort of Shitefite that only a politician could dream up. The smart people in the world are not the politicians.
The smart ones are the business brains who find so many devious ways to circumvent the letter and spirit of the law that it beggars description.
Some years ago an accounting firm I know of took on about 6 or so freshly graduated, wet behind the ears young aspiring accountants.
After 3 months they were then told they had only been on trial and 4 were told they were not wanted. This was before Howards way.

If these Laissez Faire practice scontinue we will be back to the bad old days of the 19th century where it was not uncommon for miners to have the cost of broken equipment deducted from their wages or not be recompensed for the time spent on rescue work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waldo

Like Burnsy wrote, take the time while you're there to look for a job for 3 months, or work your butt off prove to the boss that you are a valuable asset and approach him and say, "Look, if you're comfortable with it, skip the agency fees (which are ongoing for him and you) and if you're happy with me put me on f/time." I had several clients who I initially worked freelance for, approach me and ask if I'd take them on a proper clients and ceased all other outsourcing.

---

Good suggestion - this seems to be not uncommon today.

Thanks to all those who had taken the time out to reply:wink::2tsup:.

Today a fellow contractor was told his services were no longer required - for ???? stiring amongst other things - and agreed he would see this week out as per agreement.

It turns out that our big boss thought that the agency fees and money being asked for their contractors was getting a bit pricey and asked HR to find a local recruitment agency who's package (which included their % cut and the hourly rate of the contractor) was the cheapest. Of course it turned out to be mine - I now know that I am getting $5 p/hour less than the previous agency were giving their guys:(. So it is likely should they decide to replace the s--t stirrer they will go though the agency I am with. Given that the company I work for is the largest airline in the world I am disappointed that they are going down this track. Without appearing to be too conceited they have been lucky to have my services for the rate of pay I get. However, I may well hang on until my 3 months are up and see if they come to the party - however I am more likely to win Div 1 on tattslotto before I get offered a fulltime position there:). As we are now seeing, most airlines are contracting their maintenance out to lower cost countries but then the standards are generally lower - pay peanuts you get monkees. What further cheesed me off when starting last week was to find out that the overtime I was told would help boost my income had ceased the Friday before - maybe another ploy used by the agency used to suck people in?

However, I must admit I enjoy the work and I am fortunate I don't need to chase the $ these days but it does hurt to have learnt a trade that is not valued like it once was:(.

Oh well time to go to bed.

Regards
MH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

Good suggestion - this seems to be not uncommon today.

---

:2tsup:
Too many people see interviews and trial periods as being for the employer. For the past 10 years I have used interviews as a means of assessing whether I want to work for a particular employer. Sure they are looking at me too but at the end of the day, I have turned down a couple of jobs because of the attitude displayed by companies within interviews.

Fair point Burnsy.

I have interviewed well over a hundred technical people in the past and I always made the same point. There is no way I would want anyone working for me who wasn't happy with the job - particularly from day one. I was never the employer but interviewed everyone who worked in my section.

I don't necessarily disagree with the probation period however it does make it difficult for someone resigning from another job to take up the new position which may limit worthy applicants. Who wants to leave a permanent position for a probation period?

The probation period is really there because it is sometimes difficult to get rid of duds especially if they are permanent.

Amazing that airline companies who spend millions advertising their safety records are penny pinching from those who make the aircraft safe!!!:?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wood Borer

Fair point Burnsy.

Amazing that airline companies who spend millions advertising their safety records are penny pinching from those who make the aircraft safe!!!:?

---

I never gave that a thought Wood Borer. Maybe I should remember that when I go in for an increase - now where did I leave that spanner:wink::D.

Cheers
MH