# Wage Rises



## krisbarry (3 November 2005)

Over the past 6 months, at work, I have receieved not one pay rise, not two pay rises, but three pay rises. I am very happy 'bout that!

If there is any sign of wage pressures, the time is now, with such low levels of unemployment.

This will certainly lead to higher interest rates.

Maybe that is why our "little Johnny" is rushing through I.R. chances so we can all go to work in our sweat-shops and earn 20 cents an hour


----------



## tech/a (3 November 2005)

Kris.

In the building industry wages have taken a huge hike. If you want the best people (and we do) you have no choice but to pay them very well. 
Poaching is so rife that if you find a valued employee you must have a package so attractive that they are not tempted to move.

Work places also have to be places you want to come to everyday--if its a chore then your not in the right work place and maybe not the right job.

All of my people are on work place agreements and Ive been using them for 6 yrs. I've not had one complaint. I have had employees initially (Particularly those beginning with us) who appreciate and enjoy the guidence through the negotiation process. This takes 3 mths as we *BOTH* have a look at each other and see where we can *BOTH* benefit mutually.

We make sure all employees meet WITHOUT management to discuss general points about their agreements.
Employees and Employers alike are understanding that if *each excell * in their fields *each should and will benefit*

Leaders in their fields of business will become expert in work place agreements and valuable staff members will through negotiation and close discussion with their employers become more business Saavy.

This needs to occur if Australia is to compete globally.

If an employer tries to use the legislation to disadvantage employees---they will and should go elsewhere---businesses will quickly become as good as their employee--employer combination and the weak *WILL* fall by the way.
With such low un employment the employee will just seek a better employer and so they should.


----------



## krisbarry (3 November 2005)

Yes I agree, poaching is rife, and certainly within the building industry.

But I believe it will be very difficult for young workers to not be exploited under these I.R. reforms. They have far less experience in the workforce and employers will dictate the terms/conditions.

My current employer is under contract, if they lose the contract in Dec. we all get the sack.  Then a new employer will come in and re-hire us with these new I.R. changes and we will be forced to sign them or join the dole queue.  I bet your bottom dollar that all penalty rates go!

I also think with less job security now days (contact/casualised workforce) and employees willing to jump from employer to employer, more of this will occur.

In my life-time and I am only 31, I have had around 25 different jobs.  I am not a bad worker, and have never been sacked, it is just a sign of the times.  A more transient workforce, happy to go where the money is.  Happy to take more risks and also happy to move on after a couple of years.  

I somewhat feel guilty that my job pays $30 an hour on the weekends and that very same job in the U.S.A would be classed as a minumum wage job and therefore be paid at a rate of around $6 per hour.  But such is life!

I think the more Johnny hangs around with our American Cousins, the more we will end end like America too.  Now that is very frightening!  Low wages, very little in terms of penatly rates, no leave loding on holiday pay and a 24/7 working roster etc.

I have worked in Canada back in 1997 on minimum wage ($7 per hour) while leaving a job within Australia paying $15 per hour.  Now that was a shock to the system.  Have no idea how minimum wage earners even get by, maybe they all hit the streets at night and sell their bodies to make ends meet.

Do we want that life for our children?


----------



## bvbfan (3 November 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> I have worked in Canada back in 1997 on minimum wage ($7 per hour) while leaving a job within Australia paying $15 per hour.  Now that was a shock to the system.  Have no idea how minimum wage earners even get by, maybe they all hit the streets at night and sell their bodies to make ends meet.
> 
> Do we want that life for our children?




I think its already happening, selling their bodies. 
I saw a newspaper survey about sex workers in Canberra and I think about 60% were young students putting themselves through uni.


----------



## krisbarry (3 November 2005)

Yes its called sex for HECS...  Believe you me, I know of many who strip in  clubs to pay their HECS fees.  And you know what happens in those strip clubs, more than just stripping!

So our little Johnny is supporting the thriving sex industry in an in-direct way!

Vote 1, for little Johnny, and up go the HECS fees (25%) which forces more people into the sex industry to work off thier HECS debts.

Ohh what a crazy world we live in!

I was even offered work in a sex club as a male dancer many years ago, I declined due to the nature of the work, although it would have cleared a massive student loan many years earlier.

Source: Friends of friends who work in strip clubs!


----------



## Rafa (3 November 2005)

this is tragic to hear...

i hope this is not where we end up... howards become way too powerfull.... he reminds me of chancelor palpatine... but we are a democracy and we gave him that power... (and there wasn't really any alternative i guess) but still... 

i think there was an article from the Wallmart CEO the other day actually calling for  rise in the minimum wage ... why... becuase no one who works in his store can actually afford to buy anything...

lowering working conditions is only going to reduce money supply, lower overall demand and contract the economy... then those same business who were happy they can get cheap labour will soon realise no one can afford their products!!!

this will be more relevant in Australia, with our small population, if people stop spending, that will be it for the economy!!!

for the record... i beleive there are some unions who are way too powerfull, but there are also plenty of unscrupulous employers... (and more of them). So i think there needs to be some change in IR, making it easier to hire and fire... but to remove to unfair dimissal laws up to 100 staff is rediculous... sure, have a longer probationary period, etc, but to just not have unfair dismissal laws is just plain wrong!


----------



## tech/a (3 November 2005)

Unfair dismissal.

I found a supervisor 6 yrs ago walking around one of our sites at 2 in the Arvo drinking a stubbie.
In the back of my Ute (His work vehicle) I found a carton and 3 empties.
I took the keys and told him to catch a lift back with the trucks and crews.

He basically in front of all other employees on site and the cleint and his business manager to go jump.

Next day I called him in and he went to town-----.

He refused to do as I said and refused to stop drinking on site.
I sacked him.

He went unfair dismissal.
Dept of Labour and Industry found my actions too harsh.
Cost me $5k and he stayed sacked.

*Kris and Rafa.
I'm seeing a one sided ---I want the world but dont want to be a part of change.*

*What then are your suggestions to best place our workforce in the world and local markets?

(A) What do Employers need to do?
(B) What do Employees need to do?

If there is no regulatory change and hance a structured guide to implementation--
(C) How do you suggest your plans be implemented?*


----------



## The Estimator (3 November 2005)

Sorry Tech, a bit off topic, but do you own/run a construction company or just manage?  I've been an estimator for about 7 months now for an interstate firm that opened up an office up here in brissy a couple of years ago.  In the last 2 months I have been contacted by Hays, Nayler and a few other recruitment firms I can't remember the names of.  They all contacted me on my home phone number which I already thought a bit strange.  Well today I got a call from Downing Teal on my mobile.  I have no idea how they get my details but it just points out how bad the poaching.  I wouldn't have thought I've been in the game long enough to be desirable but still they call.  I find it a strange situation to be put in.  I was with the chief estimator at the time and he gathered what the conversation was about.  He said they get it all the time.

John


----------



## tech/a (3 November 2005)

John 
I own the company.
Retaining Wall Industries (Civil) Pty Ltd.

Strangely we specialise in the construction of Retaining Walls.
We handle all of Concribs work (They are a Brissy based manufacturer and contractor) in SA.


----------



## Milk Man (3 November 2005)

Could have got him knocked off for less than that tech  . 

I absolutely applaud Howard for this decision. Ive heard these horror stories about unfair dismissals too many times. Good on Johnny for being the man of steel that he is, on the inside that is. 

If you want equal treatment for everyone go talk to a Russian and see how that ends up.....


----------



## Rafa (3 November 2005)

Tech/A, I fully sympathise with your position, infact, there are lot of people even within my own workplace who I think should be given the sack... As stated earlier, i think we need to make it easier for people to hire and fire... in fact I am all for free market in employment... as long as its fair.

My previous post however, come from attempting to look at it from the other side... i think even you have to agree, with no protection from unscrupulous bosses, workers are open to exploitation...

Historically power has always been with the owners... going back to the old days of landlords and serfs... however, we are now trying to create a more civilised society amongst humans... and that is where I think this is a step backwards.

I would be interested in your thoughts on this topic... i've been thinking about this the last few years, as I have been mulling over the benifits of sacking a lot of workers and lot of govt workers... cause they do nothing (gross generalisation i know so apologies in advance...) But then i realised, if fewer poeple have jobs, its actually worse for everyone else...

Its the same with this IR laws... Do you really think making people work harder, and fearfull of loosing their jobs, will make them better workers and also create a better society? What is the point of companies making all this money and money being concentrated in the hand of few, when there is no one to buy the products they make...

Australia is enjoying boom time becuase
1. the majority of people have got some money... hence they are buying stuff, houses, etc, making the rich richer...
2. millions of people in china and India have got some disposable income, hence more demand for stuff, futher boosting the world economies and making the rich richer...
3. Australian economy survives becuase people spend a fair bit of their income... if their real wages fall, they might decide to spend less which is bad of everyone..

Its mass consumption that is fueling the world economy, not consumption by a few rich people...... (that is the biggest irony of it all).... and its this mass consumption that is making the rich richer... (so its actually better to make everyone better off!!!)

I am trying to see the big picture here, not just what is good to one sector of the populations... its still a work in progress as my thoughts and thinking is still in the early stages, but would be interested in your thoughts on this...

I get back on this tomorrow...


----------



## krisbarry (3 November 2005)

The new I.R. laws will just encourage more people onto welfare payments as they will be better off on the dole, than they will be working for peanuts under the watchful eye of the master.

Scraping leave loading, penatly rates etc.

My job requires me to work xmas day, along with many other public holidays. I will be the first to tell them to get stuffed if the new I.R. laws knock out penalty rates.  Why work on a public holdiday for the same rate of pay...thats what our little Johnny wants Aussie workers to do.

Anyone catch the first episode of the hit show 30 Days, by Morgan Spurlock, Channel 10, 10pm, Thursdays night? Back some weeks ago it was about minimum wage in the states. Just brilliant!  I have been there and done that, exactly!  

*The working poor! *  You can work a 40 hour week and actually be worse of than someone on welfare, collecting all the extra benefits and sitting on their arse....how is it so?

Here is the website for 30 Days, check it out
http://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/originals/30days/main.html


----------



## Bloveld (3 November 2005)

I always thought that withdrawing ones labour was a basic human right.
Looks like I got that one wrong.


----------



## tech/a (3 November 2005)

Bloveld said:
			
		

> I always thought that withdrawing ones labour was a basic human right.
> Looks like I got that one wrong.




I'm missing the inference here?
Are you saying that choosing to work or not is a basic human right?
If so would that choice be as easily made if there were no welfare?

*Kris we dont pay penalties.*
I have a stampede for more hrs though---daylight saving weekends--can you work that one out?
We (meaning those of us who work together) nutted it out.

Longer reply tommorow.


----------



## krisbarry (3 November 2005)

So you must have a higher flat rate or something to compensate for no penalty rates?  Why would your workers work on public holidays/evenings/weekends for the same money?


----------



## krisbarry (3 November 2005)

On a side note, watching the 30 Days tonight about the Straight guy, living a homosexual life for 30 days, Interesting!

Takes you into a different lifestyle


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 November 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Yes its called sex for HECS...  Believe you me, I know of many who strip in  clubs to pay their HECS fees.  And you know what happens in those strip clubs, more than just stripping!



A friend of mine runs a few strip clubs (and other unrelated businesses) and, to get to the point, she says that there are a large number of what she calls "B-grades" around at the moment who are basically after money to pay HECS fees, rent and so on but otherwise wouldn't go near that sort of work. On the other hand, genuine star performers are pretty rare but make $$$ compared to the "B-grades". 

As for the sex aspect, not all strip clubs are into that although many certainly are. In her case the answer is "not unless they're running a private business on the side which most aren't although one does it very blatantly and seems to be doing pretty well from it".

The big problem with this line of work is psychological according to what she says. The vast majority simply can't handle it. Most realise this either before they apply or pretty quickly afterwards and leave as a result. A few push on regardless but tend not to do too well at it. And then there is that small number with the right personality to do well out of it. 

Interestingly, she is of the opinion that the psychological suitability of job applicants can largely be determined by finding out what their original career interests were. Makes a lot of difference I'm told.

The owner works in the business (as a stripper - she's still in the age range) which she says helps hugely with the staff / management relations. As for the money, if they're good then her view seems to be that they ought to be earning a fortune. Many aren't too good though. No penalty rates etc. Basically just an hourly rate and that's it but the rate is pretty good even at the bottom and very good higher up. Seems to keep everyone happy.

The main thing seems to be a policy of flexibility about what employees get up to at work - certainly no clock cards, timed breaks, monitoring of photocopying or phone calls etc. Just do what's required and within reason anything that most bosses don't allow will be ignored. 

In case you were wondering, I honestly did meet this person at a politcal rally in Tas. Closest I've come to being a client was doing some photography work (I know exactly what you're thinking there...   ) for her.


----------



## tech/a (4 November 2005)

Smurf,
Would be a handy contact.

Kris.
Together we worked out a simple pay structure.
I wanted a smoothing of all forseeable problems like
(1) Paying whilst travelling to a site,sometimes an hr there and an hr back.
(2) Rain days with 16 in the field when it rains it costs me a packet.
(3) Overtime--
(4) Weekend work is available but I didnt want to be penalised,so the question was do it or leave it.
(5) Staff meetings and team problem solving/efficiency implementation. I have a problem holding these important meetings which are for everyone to better their position and having to pay them for the privilage to better their position and pay.(See below as to what I mean).

Staff obviously wanted to be paid---I wanted to minimise costs maximise production.

We agreed on $3 over the award for EVERY hr worked.(Average work week is 45 not including weekends.
(1) We also agreed on a rate of production cost /$1000 produced.
(2) We agreed upon a $ turn over /mth above break even--- targets.

(AAA) Once (2) is reached then there is approx another $3/ hr / employee available.
Once (2) is reached then any decrease in (1) is rewarded by another $1-1.50/Hr.For the NEXT months pays.

Longer hrs mean (2) Is reached easier,Weekend work means (2) is reached easier.Once they reach (AAA) then every hr worked to achieve (2) and (1) is paid at the bonus rate.

Reckon they are happy!! How many do you think leave? How many do you think the crews will allow to hang around and be slackers?

Even labourers can take home over $1000/week.

From a Company prespective monthly NETT profit after bonuses has risen from $12K / mth to average $35K up to $60K.

Everyone wins.The challenge then becomes maximising business and employee growth.


----------



## wayneL (4 November 2005)

tech/a said:
			
		

> We agreed on $3 over the award for EVERY hr worked.(Average work week is 45 not including weekends.
> (1) We also agreed on a rate of production cost /$1000 produced.
> (2) We agreed upon a $ turn over /mth above break even--- targets.
> 
> ...




Ah yes, incentive schemes, done right work real well.

We had one set up in our manufacturing business...a similar experience to what youv'e outlined above.


----------



## tech/a (4 November 2005)

Wayne.

I think you'd agree that its not only a matter of employee education but one of Employer as well.
Seeing 90% of employers are small business.

*So rather than having a one sides EMPLOYEE based
"Hey look how we as a country could benefit and so can you" advertising / education type campaign.

Should there not be EMPLOYER based education programmes to teach (What I believe to be the majority of small business employers---simply they dont know or are un able to recognise ways of introducing win win work place agreements.) how to implement great partnership strategies with EMPLOYEES.*

After all without the right mix business will flounder or at worst fail (90% fail).


----------



## Rafa (4 November 2005)

I think tech/A you have hit the nail on the head!!!

It has to be a two way street... and the best bit about that is everyone WINS! If you have an unhappy worker, the worker suffers and the employer does too...

And given the state of today's economy, its fair to say that so far, it has been a WIN WIN... the laws may need a few tweaks to give employers a bit more flexibility, longer probation periods, lesser evidence needed to carry out sackings, but thats about it... no need for drastic changes


----------



## krisbarry (4 November 2005)

It still begs the question: Would you work on Xmas day, Easter Sunday, Australia day etc for the ordinary rate of pay?

New employees may not have the choice but to accept signing an AWA that forgoes the right to refuse to work, and also forgoes the right to penatly rates, and will have to accept a flat rate of pay, no matter the day or the time.


----------



## Milk Man (4 November 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> It still begs the question: Would you work on Xmas day, Easter Sunday, Australia day etc for the ordinary rate of pay?
> 
> New employees may not have the choice but to accept signing an AWA that forgoes the right to refuse to work, and also forgoes the right to penatly rates, and will have to accept a flat rate of pay, no matter the day or the time.




If you dont agree with it then dont sign it. I am an employer as well and finding staff aint easy; people dont need to agree to stuff they dont like the sound of.


----------



## krisbarry (4 November 2005)

New employees will have no choice but to sign them, or they will not be employed, simple as that!

The new IR laws do not really apply to existing workers, unless you want to swap over to an AWA.


----------



## tech/a (4 November 2005)

Kris.

Everyone has a choice.
If you are in the hospitality industry than chances are you'll have to work Xmas.
If your a police officer that could also happen. It comes with the job.
If you dont wish to work holidays --dont work in industries where it maybe required.
If you dont wish to work on a flat rate negotiate a different package---thats the whole idea.

Sure a new employee may not be able to broker the *"Best"* deal.

*BUT After 12 mths * a valued employee will be able to negotiate a *great* deal.

*There is a lot of short sightedness on this issue.*


----------



## krisbarry (4 November 2005)

Short sightness, unsure of that.

I guess we are looking at it from two different sides, yet again, funny how that keeps happening. LOL

I am looking at it from the employees point of view and yourself from the employers point of view.

Employers in many of these areas will struggle to fill shifts on weekends/nights/public holdidays if penatly rates are slashed.  So as an employer I am sure you can understand that.


----------



## krisbarry (4 November 2005)

I choose to work weekends,public holidays, and week nights as I can bring in an excellent wage for doing very little.  Just working smarter, not harder!

I like working these hours too as there is less management prancing around, making sure they are king-dick of the place, and there is always less crap to deal with.

But if someone wants to kiss arse with the manager and work ordinary hours so be it.

But if you are a new employee in a new workplace, hold onto your hats with these IR changes, as it looks like you will be short changed on payday.


----------



## Rafa (4 November 2005)

i don't know about short sightedness Tech...

i am interested in your thoughts on what i wrote earlier...

Its mass consumption that is fueling the world economy, not a lot of consumption by a few rich people...... (that is the biggest irony of it all).... and its this mass consumption that is making the rich richer... (so its actually better to make everyone better off!!!)

in my opinion, trying to squeeze the life out of workers is short sightedness... making people fear of loosing jobs at a moments notice increase the chances of people choosing the save and invest rather than spend... which is contractionary and will eventually lead to a recession...

(PS: cutting the red tape around corporations law, real tax reform, etc are lot better ways to attract companies to Australia... and then everyone wins!)


----------



## krisbarry (4 November 2005)

Tech/a you may be a great boss to work for, and well done, but for every great boss their are 10 others ready to exploit workers, this will just make it easier to do.

Mates of mine are already on individual AWA's and when they take annual leave they get no leave loading.  They also get no overtime payments, just time in lieu.  They also work on 24 hour 7 day a week rosters.  Their rates of pay a pretty crappy too.  I reckon they would have been better off in a union and under one contract for all workers.  

Plenty of horrid stories coming through on 60 minutes, Today Tonight and A Current Affair about workers being forced to sign indvidual contracts and finding out they are worse off than the bloke who stands next to them that got in the system a few months earlier. Now how is that a fairer system?


----------



## tech/a (4 November 2005)

Rafa 

I dont disagree with anything you have written.
Consumption is the driving force in all economies.
No arguement there.
People position themselves to take advantage of growth differently.
Many dont bother or find it to hard.These are perhaps the ones who are afraid of Work Place agreements.Those that have the mentality of "Them V's Us." This is short sightedness on their part.

Flip the coin and Employers who want the world but give little are short sighted on the employment side.
Thats what negotiation is all about.
those who are best versed on Both sides will benifit most.As time goes by each will understand and become---through necessity better and better.

Those who use fear or who fail to work toward Mutually rewarding agreements will fall by the way. Both Employees and Employers.

Opportunity and CHOICE will always be available---how you identify,use and implement that opportunity and CHOICE will always be the point of discussion.

There is no perfect outcome only that which you percieve as best for you.

Why would you accept anything less?---be you an Employer or Employee.

Rafa hope Ive addressed those issues.


----------



## Rafa (4 November 2005)

Tech, I fully agree with your statements...
And that is exactly the way I look at life...

However, I am certain, the people who think like this are in the minority!

My concern is... what do we do about them... 

I mean... social justice is all about looking after this group of people...
or should we just let them fall by the wayside.

I am also concerned that education... one of the surest ways of taking that next step (now i know there are other ways to do it too...) is also getting more and more expensive....

Essentially, what we are going to see are people who are essentially slaves...
They have to work, not to get ahead, but just to get by, becuase...
1. they have massive house mortgages...
2. they have massive HECS debts to pay off...
3. or even worse, they are put off studying becuase of the massive costs...

This is the path I see this legislation pushing us down... (and all other previous legislation put forward in the last few years...)

And we all know how this ends up ofcourse......


----------



## krisbarry (4 November 2005)

Well said Rafa, we are slaves trapped in a system that is costing more and more, and only a few will ever escape and head upwards, the rest will just fall by the wayside. Housing and education are the two evils I see at the moment.

Education and housing are becoming too expensive for some, so are we are just going to breed a dumb society, who rent as they cannot afford to better themselves?


----------



## tech/a (4 November 2005)

Rafa and Kris.

If you can identify these problems then you must have an idea,theory or hypothesis toward a solution.

An alternative?

Now I'd like to see that!


----------



## Bloveld (4 November 2005)

As a union member I am losing the right to silence. 20 years busting my arse in mining and construction and I am considered to be on par with a drug traffiker. Murderers and rapists have more rights than me.


----------



## Bloveld (4 November 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> New employees will have no choice but to sign them, or they will not be employed, simple as that!
> 
> The new IR laws do not really apply to existing workers, unless you want to swap over to an AWA.





Wrong. With the near impossibility of accessing the new protective laws it is easy to sack anybody who wont sign an AWA.


----------



## tech/a (4 November 2005)

So there are no alternatives?
The Status Quo to remain?
Bloveld--why not have your union rep on hand?
Ever tried to get out of a union?
2 of my guys were sued for non payement of dues even though they had requested cancellation of membership. *What really is the fear here?*


----------



## krisbarry (4 November 2005)

What is wrong with the current system? Very Little!

The Australian Economy is booming along, why change it?

Workers are about to lose rights, money, and will eventually lose faith and hope.

I see an unhappy workforce in the very near future, and a very un-productive Australia ahead.


----------



## Bloveld (4 November 2005)

The issue is the erosion of rights.
The plan is to get rid of awards.
Get rid of unions.
Get rid of trades.
Free up immigration laws so temporary workers can work here.
Get rid of safety and conditions.
All this is happening right now.
How this is going to benefit the average working person will have to be explained to me.


----------



## tech/a (5 November 2005)

Right here we have a perfect example of plenty of critisism but no real suggestions. Directionless-----

All around us we have 3 massive economies growing at amazing rates.
China,India,Asia.
To be competitive and to serve this growth we need to be at the cutting edge of industrial relations with an opportunity for both Employer and Employee alike----never seen before.

*There WILL be change*--massive change and not only in our work places.

*Employees WILL * have the upper hand--particularly those with any type of skill.
China,India,and Asia will have an insatiable demand for skilled people.In the construction industry they already have.
If employers want quality employees both will need to negotiate win win packages.

Times and policy IS going to change---Take advantage of what is available--use it to your benifit.

Some will some wont. *You DO have a choice*

This is it from me on this topic as it is becoming circular.


----------



## Milk Man (5 November 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> What is wrong with the current system? Very Little!
> 
> The Australian Economy is booming along, why change it?
> 
> ...




Why should I have to go to court and pay thousands even if I am right in sacking someone? They pay nothing because the deadbeat can get access to legal aid and I have to wear the costs no matter the outcome. Wheres the justice in that? 

*That is what is wrong with the system; a massive wasting of government and employers money!*


----------



## tech/a (5 November 2005)

Milk Man said:
			
		

> Why should I have to go to court and pay thousands even if I am right in sacking someone? They pay nothing because the deadbeat can get access to legal aid and I have to wear the costs no matter the outcome. Wheres the justice in that?
> 
> *That is what is wrong with the system; a massive wasting of government and employers money!*





Been there done that.
4 times including the example above.

In a case where even the mediator admitted I was 100% correct in dismissing this person in question I was told that to run it through court would be $30K. and there was a chance that even if I won I would have to bear costs.

The economical view was to pay this scum (anyone who theives is scum) a sum and as part of that payment include dismissal.
So I was robbed 2wice. I live and work with it.

Without employers you wont have a job!
Without employees you wont have a business.

Employers DONT HAVE TO employ anyone but the best.
Employees DONT HAVE TO work for anyone but the best.

Whats the problem?


----------



## krisbarry (5 November 2005)

Milk Man said:
			
		

> Why should I have to go to court and pay thousands even if I am right in sacking someone? They pay nothing because the deadbeat can get access to legal aid and I have to wear the costs no matter the outcome. Wheres the justice in that?
> 
> *That is what is wrong with the system; a massive wasting of government and employers money!*




I guess that is part of doing business, there are many laws and rules to follow, even if the employee is in the wrong it must be proven in a court of law.  

Yes I understand the frustration in the current system from the sacking perspective, although should all workers have to suffer with less rights, less pay, from a few minor incidents.  A better and fairer system would be just to tweek the current system, rather than to spend squillions over-hauling it because China and India are about to boom!

China and India over recent years have been booming along and so has Australia.  We have been able to compete quite well, especially from the mining/materials sectors, so we still have the upperhand, and will continue well into the future.

Still cannot see anything at all in the new IR laws that will benefit myself, or the rest of Australia


----------



## krisbarry (5 November 2005)

It must be hard, very hard to run a business, and I do understand your frustrations but there is no need to be bitter about a few bad apples.  For every one bad apple their are 10 others that are hard workers to bring fruits of the labour to market, so to speak.

If your not happy being managers, then become workers instead and leave the crap to others to deal with.


----------



## tech/a (5 November 2005)

Kris.

An employer like myself (and dont take this personally) wouldnt want people like yourself.

Here is why.
We want people to be PASSIONATE about what we do.
We understand that you are just like us in that if you join us you will be making what we do your lively hood.

For my people if I succeed then they have their job.
If I excell then they should excell.
The only way that RWI will and does excell is DUE to the input of every single member from myself to the labourers.

They want the BEST leadership and opportunity to better themselves.
We want the BEST builders of business---employees.

There are and will be businesses and employees that adopt the above--they WILL succeed far beyond the dreams each had/s.
Others will languish forever caught in the revolving arguement of who puts out first Employer or Employee.

If an employee doesnt come up to scratch in my company---I dont have to sack them genearally---the boys wont have a bar of them--they impair their earning capacity.
Ive had them come in and say --boss we need another operator Tony just isnt up to scratch--we are sick of doing his job as well as ours!
Now after meeting with tony and being given the opportunity/s he deserves and there is no improvement do you think he wants to stay??

*To all looking for the best position you can find.

Be the best employee they will find.
Prove it!!!
Then negotiate what you are worth WITH them.*


----------



## krisbarry (5 November 2005)

Think workers will find it harder in the future to negotiate with their bosses, when there is nothing left to negatiate with.  Stripping everything back to the core!

The only solution is that employers bring to the table a range of packages that will entice/retain workers, if not they will just move on to bigger and better employment next door.

Employers will find it very costly in the future if they offer very little as workers will not hang around, hence the high rates of staff turner-over will be very costly.

But equally employees will have to show comittment/passion/hard working ethics also.  And yes it will be a two-way street.

Tech/a, you run a company that appears not to work on public holdidays, weeknights and weekends but what is your solution to the many employers who do run companies in these hours?  Would you pay higher rates than the award wage, would you implement penalty rates etc to retain workers?


----------



## krisbarry (5 November 2005)

Like I mention b4 about my wage and how it would be classed as a minimum wage job in the U.S.

Here is a little example

I am going to work tomorrow for 7.5 hours at a rate of $30 per hour ($225)

My American worker goes to work for the same amount of hours 7.5 at a rate of $6 (AUD) per hour ($45)

Hmmm which Country would you prefer to work in and for?

I know which country I would be proud to be a worker in and would be give 100% to that employer!

John Howard is about to turn this country upside down and inside out.  Just a matter of time b4 many jobs become classified as mimimum wage jobs and then the minimum wage is slashed to compete with China and India.


----------



## krisbarry (5 November 2005)

Here is another example of what will eventually happen within Australia.

Back in 1997 while on my 1 year working visa, I picked up a job in Canada, working for Subway.  They paid me the minimum wage of $7 per hour.  I worked for them for a week, then told them where to shove their job in a polite way.

I went onto further employment while travelling for that 1 year period.

I then return back to Australia and went into a local subway store, and asked out of a mater of curiosity how much they get paid and to my shock it was somewhere in the amount of $14 per hour.

Now this seems so unfair.

Why should a Subway worker in Australia get $14 per hour, a Canadian Subway worker get $7 per hour and their neighbour in the U.S. be getting $5 per hour.

Now I have also factored in a little rate conversion here for the different countries but this is the very same example that will eventually pull Australia's wage down in line with these other countries to compete with China and India.

Wake up Australia and smell the roses...you are in for a very rude shock soon!


----------



## tech/a (5 November 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Tech/a, you run a company that appears not to work on public holdidays, weeknights and weekends but what is your solution to the many employers who do run companies in these hours? Would you pay higher rates than the award wage, would you implement penalty rates etc to retain workers?




Kris.
Work is available at all times here. One of the problems with motivating staff is that when the reward is exceeding their requirements then motivation drops. So I have to find creative ways to motivate and its not limited to MONEY.

In answer to your question--absolutely you can call the negotiated rate of pay a penalty rate whatever you want, but if I want YOU to work in times you dont it has to be beneficial to you---you then have the choice to work or not.
I'm not going to get good people offering below average wages--I'm going to get the best(They are who I want) if I offer the best--*I get opposition staff asking me for a job!!!!!*

When last in Las Vagas I got talking to a barmaid in the Coyote Ugly bar on the strip. We got talking about tips.
Her wage was $3/hr--her tips $80-200.
Bellhop same thing hourly rate $6 tips $20-50 and he was damned good.

Yeh I agree wake up Australia----think outside the square---get off your complaining backside/s and MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

ADD VALUE--be someone worth employing---you'll never have to worry about financial security again.
If you're a labourer be the BEST Labourer.
A cleaner be more than spotless.
A barman be the guy everyone wants to be served by.


----------



## krisbarry (5 November 2005)

Yes agree totally if you are going to work in the States/Canada on minimum wage, then you are better off working in an environment that will also pay you tips.

That is the reason why I quit the job at Subway and moved onto a Restaraunt, where a 10% tip was compulsory on the bill.  I also used my Australian accent to my advantage.  Everynight I made more in tips than the wage itself.  $56 in wages and approx $120 in tips.

But do we really want to head down that path of low wages, and tipping for service?

Women working in pubs/bars make more money in tips than males, so we are at a disavantage already!  That leeds onto the next point of the attractive women making more money than the unattractive women.

Why not have a little more equality, same rate of pay and conditions for all employees that way no one has reasons to be unfairly punished and end up in a court of law.


----------



## tech/a (5 November 2005)

Idealic equality wont ever happen.

Time for people to be realists and to take care of their own futures.
90% of the population expect someone else to do it for them.

I've noticed that those who take care of their lot complain about very little.

In the big scheme of things taking care of your lot is about as good as we can make it.
Few can actually do that let alone anything else.


----------



## bvbfan (5 November 2005)

I'll support the reforms IF the politicians get the same workplace agreements, watching Kevin Andrew address this issue and laugh it off and try to get it back onto the typical Australian made me so angry. So a politicians is MORE than a typical Australian?

Workplace reforms should be for everyone but seems the politicans will be exempt so they can keep a pension for life, get 20% super or whatever it is and get a minimum $125,000 for make 1-2 speeches a year in parliament and cutting a few ribbons here and there.

If they want any success in these reforms they should start at the top and lead by example.


----------



## tech/a (5 November 2005)

BV

True and I agree pollies have a set of rules for them and one for us.

You'll never satisfy everyone.
To be honest it doesnt bother me --- life has its way of equalisation.
I cant control them and my veiw is lost in the crowd,so I just look after me.

In doing so I have to look after those around me--if I dont then I suffer.
Sure I'll have opinions and support issues I believe in,but thats as far as I'll go.

Anyway thats me and I'm glad everyone is different.


----------



## Kauri (5 November 2005)

All employers will tell you that they have had good employees and bad employees. 
  All employees will tell you that they have had good employers and bad employers.
  No amount of government legislation will change the basic nature of people, bad employers will remain bad, good ones will remain good, the same goes for employees. 
  Good businesses will survive, bad ones will struggle, good workers will thrive, bad ones will complain.
  On one job I was sent to PNG to work on a power station. The job was finished ahead of time. On coming home I was put up in a hotel in Honiara for 3 days..      .
  On another job I roamed the deserts of WA, SA, and the NT, my accomadation after a 12 hr day for weeks was my swag rolled out beside a campfire. Once, on coming into the Alice before heading back out west into the Gibson desert I stayed overnight in a motel. I had to pay for it.    
   No amount of legislation would change the above. 
  Guess who I would choose to work for in the future.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 November 2005)

I can see both sides of this debate.

1. Some time ago I approached a company and suggested how they could make technical improvements to their manufacturing process which would save millions of dollars per year. Not long after that I was sitting in the company's office being asked how much I wanted to be paid. It was made very clear that there's no need to worry about what market rates for a position are when someone has ideas which improve the bottom line.

2. The other side. Go to practically any major US city and find the local slums full of, mostly, black people. That this can occur in the wealthiest country on earth whilst that same country spends a fortune on military adventures etc. is an absolute disgrace. The ultimate test of any civilisation IMO is how it looks after the disadvantaged. It is morally wrong for Australia to go down this track no matter what the economic benefits may be. To this end both the minimum wage and welfare payments must be at levels which provide basic food, clothing and shelter for all.

So, two sides to this debate and I agree with parts of both of them. Some people, indeed quite a large number, don't want to work and for them I have no sympathy. But for those willing to work, society owes them a decent existence even if they are unable to find work in the middle of the next recession.

Personally, I tend to avoid businesses which I know or suspect to have inappropriate policies in this area or who refuse to answer the question. I know others who do likewise. The blatant greed of certain large retailers who deny their mostly young staff a normal social life through their totally unnecessary trading hours (who really needs to do supermarket shopping late on New Year's Eve?) heads the list of those I avoid year round. There is, after all, more to life than money.


----------



## krisbarry (5 November 2005)

At the end of the day if my hourly wage gets cut and penalty rates go, then I will be forced off the stockmarket, and I am sure that I will not be the only one.

NEW WORK CHOICES = LESS IN THE HAND AT THE END OF THE WEEK!

That will not only mean that I will not be trading, I will also have no need to visit sites such as ASF.

So think b4 you decide your fate...do you change jobs now, do you stay on in your current job, do you change career paths etc.

Do you vote little Johnny out?
Do you just accept what is about to be law?
Do you fight for your rights and protest?
Do you join the union?
Do you find a workplace with 100+ workers to be a little safer?
Do you pester you local MP's

What do you do?


----------



## Kauri (5 November 2005)

Kris.. 
         Do *you * think anything you can do will change what is happening?
         If you do, do it.
         If you dont, adapt as best you can to succeed in the new environment.
         If you are not sure, stay the way you are and hope someone else will look after you.      ..
         The more that things change the more that they stay the same.     

          ( By the way, I would miss your posts if you moved on.      )


----------



## tech/a (5 November 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> At the end of the day if my hourly wage gets cut and penalty rates go, then I will be forced off the stockmarket, and I am sure that I will not be the only one.
> 
> NEW WORK CHOICES = LESS IN THE HAND AT THE END OF THE WEEK!
> 
> ...




Firstly you learn to trade at a profit so you dont need a job to prop up your trading losses.
You do what you think is best for you.

Simple really.


----------



## Bloveld (5 November 2005)

The last time that I was involved in a strike for wages was in 1987. Since then every large job that I have worked on has been covered by an EBA. Since then its all been about safety and conditions. And I can tell you that plenty of companies will ignore safety until we take action.
But it appears that the government is targeting EBA's. And making it very difficult to take any action, even over safety.


----------



## Kauri (5 November 2005)

The last time I was on strike over safety was in the late 80's when we went out because the company bus taking us from the camp at South Hedland to the site on Finucaine Is. had near bald tyres. Later the same day we took the bus to the coast to go fishing.


----------



## mime (5 November 2005)

Kris maybe you should read the new IR laws and not just union properganda(sp?). 

The current IR laws are stupid. Under the current IR laws if you are caught stealing from your employer you CANNOT be sacked. You must recieve a written warning before you are dismissed.

A friend of mind got sacked because of theft (it was baitable), he phoned up the union and they said they couldn't help him. I know he could have gotten pay for unfair dismissal or compo for loss of earnings. Even though what he did was wrong, the point of the union is to represent the workers best interest and they let him down. 

I've left the union because they didn't little to nothing for me and they where charging me $250 something dollars a year. They aren't worth the money.

Remember all the fear over the GST? Where's Kim's roll back policy gone? The IR laws will be the same.

Youth are alreading being exploited ($6 an hour) but at least they are building up work experience to make their CV to look good so they have a better change of getting better work in the future.

The new IR laws are designed to help small business and Australia WILL be better off under them.

PS. I've noticed the business council are advertising on TV in support of the new IR laws, so it's not just Mr Howards "personal ideology".


----------



## krisbarry (5 November 2005)

Seems to me there are a lot of people in support of the new laws, maybe I will just shut my mouth then.  Just don't bitch when your sacked for no reason, when your penalty rates go, when you are forced to work weekends, nights, and public holidays, 24 hour a day 7 day a week rosters etc.


----------



## Happy (5 November 2005)

Labour pendulum seems to swung into employers quarters, so employee has to accept what is available with grace.

It will be a while, if ever, before unions will get another grip on employment matters.

Pity, unfair dismissal laws were a farce which had to go, now employer looks to have achieved GOD status again, and bull labour market came back, pity again, but common sense had to prevail one day.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 November 2005)

One effect that I have noticed is that since the IR changes were announced there seems to be a degree of panic amongst real estate agents and builders with both simultaneously ramping up advertising and cutting prices. Likewise the sellers of expensive goods seem to be experiencing a slowdown according to media reports.

It's possibly just a co-incidence but it does suggest that consumers aren't exactly over confident at the moment. A lack of job security discourages the taking on of debt so I think the shorter term economic effects of this may be more significant than is being assumed regardless of the longer term implications.


----------



## Happy (5 November 2005)

Good employees have no worries and will be well rewarded.
It is the dead wood, with all the excuses in the world not to perform up to acceptable standard will have to pull the finger out or be out themselves.

One can only pull so much wool over eyes.

Unfortunately, since employer will have little bit more power now, can abuse new set up.

If one is not desperate, can leave unfavourable employment conditions, but unfortunately not all have the luxury.


----------



## Bloveld (5 November 2005)

Well just about every benefit Australian workers enjoy was fought for by unions at some stage then flowed on to all workers. Workers comp, the 8 hour day, the 40 hour week and now the 36 hour week, overtime and holidays. None of this stuff was handed out. 
I make more than double the award rate. Award RnR is 13 weeks on and 1 off, I am on 5 and 1. My membership costs less than buying the weekend papers.
But if you can sit back an pick up the benefits without putting your hand in your pocket then good luck. Bit unaustralian to me.


----------



## tech/a (6 November 2005)

Sadly I agree with Bloveld to some degree.

There certaintly are times when parties cannot reach agreement.
Generally this occures when one side is being un reasonable.

Sadly again Union involvement generally isnt about being fair and just as a mediatory but as a biased pro worker negotiator.
Middle ground needs to be defined.

If not Business will employ their pro negotiatiors and employees theirs---"Unions".

Thats not the spirit of work place agreements---nor is it desirable---this sort of confrontational We (The employee) V's them (The Employer) is NOT conducive to sound business practice.
If you have to bring in professional negotiators into any work place then you shouldnt be working together.

But I will conceed desirable in some cases and un avoidable in others.
The business world--Employer --Employee will never be perfect.


----------



## krisbarry (6 November 2005)

Happy said:
			
		

> Good employees have no worries and will be well rewarded.
> It is the dead wood, with all the excuses in the world not to perform up to acceptable standard will have to pull the finger out or be out themselves.
> 
> One can only pull so much wool over eyes.
> ...




What a crock...at the end of the day employers will screw employees and much as they can, and pay as little as they can.

The employer only thinks about the bottom line!


----------



## krisbarry (6 November 2005)

Was at work today and in the tea room was the following flyer:
*
...What is not guaranteed by law under John Howard's WorkChoices for new workers and workers changing jobs

* Penatly rates
* Overtime rate
* Meal breaks
* Rest breaks
* Public Holidays
* Annual leave loading
* Shift Loading
* Allowances

All of these conditions, which Australian's have enjoyed for decades, will now have to be negotiated with employers.
*


----------



## Kauri (6 November 2005)

Kris..
         when all this comes to pass, how will you afford to buy your house in 4 years time?        Sorry


----------



## tech/a (6 November 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Was at work today and in the tea room was the following flyer:
> *
> ...What is not guaranteed by law under John Howard's WorkChoices for new workers and workers changing jobs
> 
> ...






Why should EVERYONE be equal. If you put in more hrs than Bob and treat your job like it was your own business by going that extra mile/s why shouldnt you be rewarded .
If you take the time to understand that impressing your employer with an attitude of JOINT effort and consideration while others just do the hrs and put their hand out--why shouldnt YOU be rewarded over and above Bob???

*So place yourself in the best position to negotiate. * 

The only problem here I see are employees who feel employement is a right along with all the trimings.
So as an employer you expect me to give you EVERYTHING for the privilage of you being at my place of work for 40-45/hrs a week regardless of your input and value to myself or those who work with you.

To many an employer has no rights (Just because every cent including wages/ benifits/tools of trade/premisis business expences/and costs to ensure YOU HAVE A JOB and the employer has one as well---comes out of the pockets DIRECTLY of the 90% of small business owners who employ 70% of the workforce) Employees constantly feel like THEY need to rule with a DICTATORIAL Iron glove---.

If the business goes broke can the OWNER take all employees to court and claim UNFAIR employee work pracitices????

From the Employees involved in this debate here on this site All I've heard is WHOA is us!!

No wonder we have a problem finding QUALITY work personel.
Happy to take not happy to give.

*So place yourself in the best position to negotiate. *


----------



## krisbarry (6 November 2005)

Kauri said:
			
		

> Kris..
> when all this comes to pass, how will you afford to buy your house in 4 years time?        Sorry




I am not a new worker and I do not intend to change jobs, so now of this affects me, am I right?


----------



## tech/a (6 November 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> What a crock...at the end of the day employers will screw employees and much as they can, and pay as little as they can.
> 
> The employer only thinks about the bottom line!




*Yeh and so should you.* No profit no job--but hey who gives a rats about the employer he has no rights.You lose your job and you'll just move to another---the Employer loses his and he WILL have nothing as HE places EVERYTHING on the line.

*How about every employee places all they own on the line at time of employement---if the company goes bust--SO DO YOU!*


Kris--you'd be the model employee under great demand I'd say!!


----------



## tech/a (6 November 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> I am not a new worker and I do not intend to change jobs, so now of this affects me, am I right?




Have you been told you'll take a pay reduction?
Have you been told ANYTHING that makes you believe you'll be worse off by YOUR EMPLOYER???

Didnt think so.
Your being bluffed and sucked in by people who have THEIR OWN AGENDAS. You really think they care about you?

Labor wants YOUR VOTE.
Unions want POWER and your FEES.

How Naive.


----------



## krisbarry (6 November 2005)

tech/a said:
			
		

> *So place yourself in the best position to negotiate. *




Look mate, like I said b4, you might be a really nice boss, and well done, but I think you are a minority.

I think you will find the boss had done all the negotiating first and you will just have to sign the terms and agreements, and if not, they will show you where the door is.

Come on Tech/a , think outside the square mate, not everybody is a nice as so, there are plenty of greedy bosses and greedy company, ready for these new employees to sign up


----------



## krisbarry (6 November 2005)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Have you been told you'll take a pay reduction?
> Have you been told ANYTHING that makes you believe you'll be worse off by YOUR EMPLOYER???
> 
> Didnt think so.
> ...




High possibility of a pay cut in my current job as its contract runs out in Dec.  We have all be warned that we may not have a job in Jan.  Another company can come in start up and undercut us.  They will then employ us under a new contract, and of course lpay us less money....HIGHLY POSSIBLE!!!


----------



## krisbarry (6 November 2005)

Looks like tech/a has been waiting all day for me to return home form work and post on ASF.  He seems to be getting so excited-pushing my buttons. LOL

Its OK mate, I can take it, I am a big boy, not going to cry to my mother...LOL


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 November 2005)

It's all about making the workforce more competitive internationally and that pushes down rates, salaries and reduces the benefits that come along with employment. 
I think of being employed is much like modern day slavery. Work for peanuts and make the company dollars. Overall I see employers as being non sharing, non creative and too traditional in the sense they have put it on the line, so, why share it. If business provides jobs then employees should be happy they have jobs, is old and tired. They should be inviting their good employees to contribute more in an incentive scheme that creates a bit of equity in the company for the employees.  Eek say the traditionalists.


----------



## krisbarry (6 November 2005)

Depends on the company you work for, some are very cosey, close-kit/family orientated business' and some are just corporate money hungry, greedy bastards that couldn't give two hoots about their employees.

It will be very easy to apply these new IR laws to all companies but the outcomes in the above senarios would be very different.

Now how is that fair?


----------



## tech/a (6 November 2005)

Well Kris looks like your stuffed.
Good luck at the rallies you'll need all the help you can get.

So if you cant find anything but greedy bastard employers--spose the next best is the dole.
Could work for yourself I suppose--but what if you had to employ someone?
Still if you find a big enough company you should be able to get maximum $$ and not be seen---fantastic.
But wait if your not prepared to negotiate or better yourself (Get yourself in a position to negotiate a better rate) then you'll have no choice but to sign an agreement---shock horror minimum benifit----minimum employee input and value.


I reckon you'd be lucky to know 2 business owners/managers.
I know more than 50---not a single one would begrudge paying a valued employee way over any award--people like you with an attitude like yours--wouldnt get past the job interveiw and if you snuck through my boys would have you back on the street faster than you could say---greedy employer--its time to pack up we dont get paid overtime.

Anyway your posts are your biggest testimonial---glad you didnt take up that offer of help I extended to you.


----------



## mime (6 November 2005)

tech/a said:
			
		

> You lose your job and you'll just move to another---the Employer loses his and he WILL have nothing as HE places EVERYTHING on the line.




Very true.

These laws are being created to protect SMALL BUSINESS because many are struggling to keep a float. The new laws are helping them out greatly because if they hire a bad employee it hurts them much more then a big business with a large work force and more resources at their disposal. 



			
				krisbarry said:
			
		

> High possibility of a pay cut in my current job as its contract runs out in Dec.  We have all be warned that we may not have a job in Jan.  Another company can come in start up and undercut us.  They will then employ us under a new contract, and of course lpay us less money....HIGHLY POSSIBLE!!!




Does the company you work for employ more then 100 people?


----------



## krisbarry (6 November 2005)

I was making the comparison between say a family/close-knit company and greedy bastard corporations like McDonalds, you dill.  Had no reference to you or your company.  In fact I beileve you would be a nice boss to work for as you have explained in previous posts

But anyway  you rant and rave and go on your little tangent...You keep beating your chest again, I own 50 house, I build this and that and I know all these people, so what?  Good luck to you!

Has no meaning to me, and doesn't affect/concern me in the slightest, doesn't make you a better person, than anyone else mate.


----------



## krisbarry (6 November 2005)

Look, since we (tech/a and myself) cannot get along on ASF, I think the best way to solve this would be to ignore each others posts.  I am happy not to reply to any of tech/a posts in future. 

Sorry mate, you will no longer get a response from me.

Hmmm who is the next victim on tech/a hit list...glad its not me! LOL

Hold onto your hats boys he's ready to pounce on your post and rip it to shreds!


----------



## mime (6 November 2005)

Maybe you should listen and try understand his point of view. He sounds very experienced in practical life running business and stuff, something that you don't have. You might learn something.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 November 2005)

I think BOTH of you are right.

Smaller, decent employers would benefit hugely from a more flexible system as would employees BUT there will be plenty who abuse it.

The big winners will likely be those in higher skilled areas who can negotiate better pay and conditions. It is obviously desirable to be one of these but by definition we can't all be above average.

The big losers will likely be those who can't outperform in their jobs. For example, a train driver either drives the train properly or they don't. There's not really much middle ground in that job so if you are doing satisfactorily now then it's hard to become more valuable to the employer unless you change careers altogether.

The acid test in my opinion will be whether someone doing the EXACT same job is better off or worse off in 5 years time. Only time will tell.

I'm not really into conspiracy theories but it has occurred to me that this could just be a plan to prevent a wages breakout at a time when inflation is clearly gaining momentum. In my opinion wages are the missing link in the inflation chain so far but pressure seems to be building. Mustn't draw attention to all that currency being created out of thin air. Must make them think wages cause inflation and blame the unions...


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 November 2005)

mime said:
			
		

> Maybe you should listen and try understand his point of view. He sounds very experienced in practical life running business and stuff, something that you don't have. You might learn something.



Agreed. I've learnt quite a lot from tech's posts despite a disagreement or two. But likewise I agree with quite a bit of what Krisbarry has to say too.

No point only reading things you agree with. Best to look at BOTH sides of the argument I think. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.


----------



## mime (6 November 2005)

I recently negotiated consistent and convenient hours that revolve around my studyies with my employer(Woolworths). I managed this because I work hard and proved I was an asset to the company. I get what I want and the employer (manager) gets what he wants. It's win/win.

Negotiation is not so bad is it?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 November 2005)

mime said:
			
		

> I recently negotiated consistent and convenient hours that revolve around my studyies with my employer(Woolworths). I managed this because I work hard and proved I was an asset to the company. I get what I want and the employer (manager) gets what he wants. It's win/win.
> 
> Negotiation is not so bad is it?




Good work Mime!

I agree if you can show your value to your boss you will have more to negotiate with.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 November 2005)

tech/a said:
			
		

> John
> I own the company.
> Retaining Wall Industries (Civil) Pty Ltd.
> 
> ...




John/Tech,

I had a look at your website. Good work producing a booklet about retaining walls.

Snake


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 November 2005)

Kris,

I agree with a lot you are saying, but, get a grip man and get out there and make it happen. Nothing comes for free. 

When will the generations of "everything must be given to us" disappear. Handout nation is upsetting those who don't have and those who won't make it happen.

Read some motivational books and get motivated. 

Snake


----------



## krisbarry (7 November 2005)

Ummmm...did you miss something man...I do make it happen.  I am happy in my current job and working my current hours.  Between 20% to 250% of my wages come from penatly rates, hence the reason I am worried about my future.  I can only do what I can do mate, the rest of it is up to the bosses.


----------



## krisbarry (7 November 2005)

mime said:
			
		

> I recently negotiated consistent and convenient hours that revolve around my studyies with my employer(Woolworths). I managed this because I work hard and proved I was an asset to the company. I get what I want and the employer (manager) gets what he wants. It's win/win.
> 
> Negotiation is not so bad is it?




Worked for Woolworths for over 5 years when I was much younger too.  I did exactly the same negaotiated working hours.  They are a very flexible company.  But the real test will come later when, IR rules are implemented, you will not only have to negotiate hours, but wages, penatly rates, leave loading etc.  What if you say no to an extra shift later, then find out the boss has taken away some other benefits, very possible this kinda tic-for tac nature will prevail.


----------



## krisbarry (7 November 2005)

Many members on this board seem to have the "Old Sckool" approach to work.  Stay with a company, build up your experience then negotiate.

Those days are gone.

Companies nowday change so rapidly, contracts are won or loss, business change hands, workers are sacked, then re-hired etc

I come from a generation of job hoppers, we move on from company to company.  My brother and sister are the same and many of their friends do exactly that too.

I  don't think I have ever given a toss about any of the companies I have worked for, I go to work earn my wage end of story.  

Here is an example.  About 3 years ago, 24 employees, myself included were hired with this company to do contract work for a certain private hospital.  Went along to the induction day, got the uniform and were hired.  The next day got a phone call saying that all 24 workers were sacked.  Another company had under-cut the contract and been awarded it.  What about us?  Sounds like the company couldn't give a stuff.

This is the kinda scenario that face generations of workers nowdays.  There was no way of negotiating anything, no matter how much experience you had, wouldn't make any difference.  The negotiations had been completed by management and all the workers suffered.


----------



## tech/a (7 November 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Many members on this board seem to have the "Old Sckool" approach to work.  Stay with a company, build up your experience then negotiate.
> 
> Those days are gone.
> 
> ...




And in 10 yrs time you and people like you will be in exactly the same position as you are today. Complaining about exactly the same things you are today.
Yet those who take the "Old School" road you'll hear less from.

Companies cannot survive on transient labour only---they like their employees need stability they seek it and reward it as do valued employees.

Kris clearly you have stated your position (above in Blue).

You and those like you CHOOSE to be in this group.

*If you want things to turn around for you.
GET OUT OF THIS GROUP and its MENTALITY.*

If you dont wish to----then stop expecting to be treated any differently than your being treated now.Stop asking or expecting something that simply wont be given to this group of people.

Why would ANY employer give you the same benifits,wages and or stability over and above an employee that actually gives a "Rats" about their company--big or small your attitude would shine out like a beacon in any job interview.

Your life.


----------



## Milk Man (7 November 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Was at work today and in the tea room was the following flyer:
> 
> *...What is not guaranteed by law under John Howard's WorkChoices for new workers and workers changing jobs*
> 
> ...




Wheres my gravy train of rewards? If I dont make a profit why should I have to pay this crap out? I still have to pay extra to get/keep good staff. The crap ones dont get sacked either- they get their hours cut back and pay goes to minimum wage. No one has had to be sacked, no cases of unfair dismissal.


----------



## mime (7 November 2005)

First of all Woolworths is a company bigger then 100 employees so I will keep the current rights after the new IR laws are passed. You should probably should understand the issue before you argue against it. 

Second. I've noticed the a spilt between work ethics for a between the younger workers. The workers that work hard are getting the roles of responsiblility with in the store while the others arn't. They are setting themselves up for better employment oppertunities in the future. The others that arn't. They may end up working there for the rest of their working lives and becoming heavly relient on their employer and become Labor voters because it's all they have. It's about attitude towards work.

And Lastly I have little loyalty to my employer. If I was offered better conditions/wages somewhere else I would go there in a blink but right now my boss is offering me what I want and I have no need to change.


----------



## tech/a (7 November 2005)

mime said:
			
		

> First of all Woolworths is a company bigger then 100 employees so I will keep the current rights after the new IR laws are passed. You should probably should understand the issue before you argue against it.
> 
> Second. I've noticed the a spilt between work ethics for a between the younger workers. The workers that work hard are getting the roles of responsiblility with in the store while the others arn't. They are setting themselves up for better employment oppertunities in the future. The others that arn't. They may end up working there for the rest of their working lives and becoming heavly relient on their employer and become Labor voters because it's all they have. It's about attitude towards work.
> 
> And Lastly I have little loyalty to my employer. *If I was offered better conditions/wages somewhere else I would go there in a blink but right now my boss is offering me what I want and I have no need to change*.





Mime.

Wouldnt you at least discuss it with your current employer before blinking?
Giving them the opportunity to reward you for value seen by another employer---mind you sometimes the value offered to some cannot be seen by others.


----------



## mime (7 November 2005)

I would have no need to discuss it with the current employer because they can't negotiate higher wages and they are restricted to certain employment conditions. Plus it's good working at different places. Learn new stuff.


----------



## ghotib (7 November 2005)

Tech, Do you have a "Human Resources" manager / department, or do you deal face to face with all your employees? 

Thanks,

Ghoti


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 November 2005)

The whole debate surrounding the IR reforms seems to be about money.

What about safety? Surely going home safe and healthy at the end of the day is far more important than earning 10% more working for someone who cuts corners with safety? I'm quite happy having to work longer than average hours for roughly average pay because my employer has a very strong safety policy in an industry where the risks are significant. 

What about life outside work? I work hours such that 10 days paid work is done over a period of 9 days so every second Friday is a day off. A good idea IMO and no doubt it benefits the employer too since nobody has a need to organise their private business during work time as often happens if you are always at work when banks, lawyers or whoever is open. That ought to lead to higher productivity than 9 to 5 Monday to Friday.

What about job security? Personally, I would much rather have some certainty about ongoing employment than earn a few $ more. In my opinion security does far more to increase overall happiness in life than a bit of extra money would.   

As for this idea of constantly changing jobs, no thanks! I accept that many workers have no choice but it must be costing the employers an absolute fortune. Obviously if varies between industries but in my case it takes about 3 years to get someone who is already a qualified tradesman fully trained up in the detail of the work and able to work without supervision. The work is specialised and there simply isn't anyone out there who has experience and the consequences of a mistake are such that risks have to be minimised. Alternatively, an apprentice could be taken on but that takes 4 years. Management simply couldn't afford a high staff turnover, hence their focus on things which encourage those looking for stability such as safety, working hours etc rather than simply offering a bit more money and attracting the itinerant types.


----------



## tech/a (7 November 2005)

mime said:
			
		

> I would have no need to discuss it with the current employer because they can't negotiate higher wages and they are restricted to certain employment conditions. Plus it's good working at different places. Learn new stuff.





Interesting.

I was told once that I couldnt do something due to certain restrictions--this had influenced others in not entertaining that which i was interested in doing---so were others but each time they got to this seemingly impossible stumbling block.
I investigated ways of dissolving the "conditions" in such a way that both parties benifitted.
The result was far in better in the end than I could have anticipated.

Learning new stuff is the spice of life but I've never forgotten this piece of wisdom.

*"Become an EXPERT in something--"*

People beat a path to the door of experts--people pay well for experts--be an expert in something that most people need--be an expert in an area where there are few experts.


Ghoti

Face to face there are only 16 of us.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (7 November 2005)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> 
> I was told once that I couldnt do something due to certain restrictions--this had influenced others in not entertaining that which i was interested in doing---so were others but each time they got to this seemingly impossible stumbling block.
> I investigated ways of dissolving the "conditions" in such a way that both parties benifitted.
> ...




Tech,

You have hit the nail on the head.

Specialise in something and name your rates.

Snake


----------



## tech/a (7 November 2005)

Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> Tech,
> 
> You have hit the *nail* on the head.
> 
> ...




Snake did I mention that my early trade/expertise was carpentry?


----------



## ghotib (7 November 2005)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Face to face there are only 16 of us.



Thought so. You take responsibility and have the capacity to implement your decisions, and everyone knows it. I think though, that your situation is unusual.

If you were managing a team of 16 in a large organisation, you would very likely spend a fair part of your time battling to keep responsibility and capacity within cooee of each other. If you were negotiating terms and conditions with your staff, you would be constrained by company policy, and if the company is large enough you would have little, if any, input to that policy. You would have zero control over layoff decisions: they would be made by numbers and against corporate goals that you don't set and possibly don't even know. You would very possibly have your own performance assessed by "productivity increase" measures, again linked to corporate goals that you don't set, possibly don't know, and that quite often turn out to be impossible anyway. If you worried about your own career / mortgage / etc etc etc, you mightn't have time to think about encouraging your staff to enhance their expertise / value / etc etc etc because you were so busy enhancing your own that you barely have energy to do half your job. If you and your staff happen to be fluent in different languages, you wouldn't even know what they were thinking. 

How do I know all that?  Experience mate!! 

I laugh when I hear people talking about Baby Boomers expecting life-time jobs. I didn't WANT one - the idea of long service leave horrified me, and in fact the longest time I've spent with any single employer was on a 3-month contract that extended for more than 5 years. After that I took 2 "permanent" jobs, both because I believed I could build a team of experts in a field that would enhance the value of the companies' products. One tech wreck and two layoffs later, it would take a frontal lobotomy to make me believe that any corporation CAN treat people decently when times get tough unless top management is both extraordinarily ethical and extraordinarily strong. 

Corporations need strong labour laws to prevent the worst employers from gaining an unfair advantage. To put it another way, a level playing field needs a groundsman with a team of workers, a roller, a watering system, and sometimes a thwacking great grader. I don't say the existing situation is perfect. It's not. In many ways it's ridiculous. But this 700 pages of legislation, so simple that it needs a further 500 pages of explanation, is a stinking con on everyone. 

Ghoti (totally cool)


----------



## krisbarry (7 November 2005)

mime said:
			
		

> And Lastly I have little loyalty to my employer. If I was offered better conditions/wages somewhere else I would go there in a blink but right now my boss is offering me what I want and I have no need to change.





Exactly my point, many younger workers adopt this behaviour, I don't think it is such a bad thing.

There are plenty of younger workers ready to take up your position, so the way I see it as there is no problem with moving on.

Why should employees show loyalty to employers.

Employers continually cut jobs in the blink of an eye, without regards to loyal workers.

Makes no difference in todays working world if you have been employed 5 minutes, 5 days, 5 years or 50 years.  Your are just as likely as the next person to be booted out the door.

The way I see it as younger workers are learning the skill/art of being transient workers, ready to take on many different working roles in their life times.  Maybe young workers are learning from their employment experiences that loyalty aint what it used to be.


----------



## Rafa (7 November 2005)

well... 5 years ago I worked for an IT company, < 30 staff, first he took me on no pay for 3 months over summer... then he offered me a job 1 day a week whilst i did uni... then after i finished (having not seeked other jobs, as i am not that type of person)... he offered me the a salary (29K a year inc super) to start full time..

I was SHOCKED and I told him my disappointment!!! he said bad luck, business not doing well, etc, etc

Luckily a found another job within a couple of weeks... and quit... he then has the nerve to offer me over 40K a year... NO WAY!!!

Somehow that company is still operating, and still exploiting people... and even expanded to Sydney!!! so people who exploit others can still survive!

anyway...

I fully agree the laws should be changed for the small business owner... cause they really have a lot of things on their plate... and their main prerogative is survival...

However, once the business moves into the realms of medium to large... (as per ATO definitions, i think its based on turnover/profits/staff) the business owes the community it exists in something.... its what called the triple bottom line.... or the socioeconomic responsibilities... society, environment and stakeholders (employees, suppliers, customers, etc).

As Ghotib and others alluded too, when you work for a corporation, your boss may be a GOOD bloke... but he/she has no control over HR, pay, etc... once the order comes for above, its all over... and there is nothing that can be done!... the proposed laws basically wipe out all sense of responsibility from the business... and that is wrong... its uncivilised... and pretty much makes us the same as China, India, and the rest of the third world... a few rich people and billion of poor!

So, TechA, my solution is to have one set of rules for small businesses and another for the rest... Its not that big a deal, cause it happens with payroll taxes, GST, etc, etc....

Otherwise, with these laws passing, there is now even less reason for employees to be interested in the welfare of the company the work for, knowing full well that the company can tell them to go at anytime...

On top of that, as Smurf hypothsised, if more people start thinking only of themselves... well... so much for society... and i would go further... so much for the economy.... 

The only time an employee would feel responsible is if they are made part owners, via shares, etc and share in the profits...

My solution Tech...

All employers should be given a share purchase scheme... with ownership level based on their value to the org, loyalty, performance, etc... there should also be a profit share arrangement..... There is also room for contract staff, naturally paid at a higher rate.

This would eradicate unions, boost productivity, etc, etc, in one hit... but how many owners would be happy with this... not many.. cause for the majority, its about how do i make the most money for myself... screw the rest of them...that is why we needed these laws in the first place!!!

This employer/employee relationship is outdated and its going to be even more dysfunctional thanks to these laws, and will continue to be as long as employees are classified as an expense on the P/L statements...


----------



## Kauri (7 November 2005)

As Bob Dylan said…” The times they are a changing”………………….
Whether the proposed Industrial Relations changes are right or wrong, each individual has their own choice to make, change with the times or get left behind. As with all changes in society, some will benefit and some wont, adapt as best you can and ensure you are not one of those that are disadvantaged and left needing other people to support you. Life never was fair, especially to those who don’t make an effort.
  Don’t count on a Labour Govt. rolling back the changes, when was the last time any Govt. rolled back anything, Labour has always had as one of its main policy planks non privatization of public assets, how many State Labour Govts. Now control electricity generation and distribution, gas reticulation, rail, public transport, ports, roads, insurance…the list is endless. In fact instead of retaining assets they are selling them.
  Do you think Labour will roll back GST? 
  Do you think Labour will roll back the disposal of Telstra?
  Do you think Labour will roll back I.R changes?
  If you think they will then by all means sit back and wait for it to happen, otherwise look after number one because no one else will!


----------



## happytrader (7 November 2005)

Man will dominate man to his injury. Another basic human trait. Its injurious to the dominator and the dominated. It is a trait acted out in every facet of human relationships by all age groups at all levels.

It is no different with the employer and employee relationship. We all need to take responsibility for ourselves and develop a proper view of our worth. Find out. Develop and hone our skills, add some value. 

Why would you depend on someone who may not have your best interests at heart to tell you what you are worth and pay or work for you accordingly? Its called robbery in my books.

Cheers
Happytrader


----------



## Kauri (7 November 2005)

Todays West Australian

Outlaw strikes: Western Power

*JENNIFER ELIOTand KIM MACDONALD*

Western Power has called on the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to terminate its workers' right to strike, claiming strikes would damage the economy and endanger lives.

The utility last Friday took action to terminate the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union's bargaining period, in retaliation for industrial action on Thursday night, when on-call crews were "unavailable" to respond to faults.

A protected bargaining period is when pay negotiations are under way. Workers can legally take industrial action over their claim if they give three days notice.

Western Power said the crews' unavailability was a planned union action that tried to damage the economy.

It endangered lives and the personal safety, health and welfare of the population.

A hearing is due today.

Managing director Tony Iannello said Western Power was disappointed the action had taken place after a seven-hour meeting in the AIRC on Wednesday with the CEPU. "During the negotiations, the CEPU have raised the threat of blackouts," Mr Iannello said.

"Western Power will continue to take action to ensure continuity of services to customers.

"We went to the AIRC today to ensure this issue is resolved rather than let our customers experience any inconvenience."

Western Power claims an availability roster, which ensured that after hours emergencies could be addressed, had been in place for three years.

An allowance of $261.80 per week, or $37.40 per day, is payable to employees for being on the availability roster. Employees who are called out are paid at the applicable overtime rates.

Employees on the availability roster are usually required to be available once every four weeks.

Western Power said in its application that the bargaining period should be terminated, rather than suspended, because of regular threats to bring the electrical network to a halt.

CEPU secretary Bill Game said Western Power was grasping at straws and staff had simply acted on requests from management to cut back on overtime.

Mr Game said emergency work had been done - a damaged pole was made safe and workers finished the job in the morning.

"We have got proof that overtime is getting out of hand," Mr Game said.

"One of Western Power's own managers said we want you guys to start doing less overtime.

"Now they are trying to use that to stop us taking action."

Energy Minister Alan Carpenter could not be contacted yesterday.


----------



## Rafa (7 November 2005)

Kauri.... I make my own mind up... and am not influenced by political parties of either pursuation... My post is NOT Labour propoganda!

Example...

I supported the introduction of the GST cause i could see the benefits of broadening the tax base, 
I support the sale of Telstra/other businesses, becuase the governments should not be running businesses!!!
I also support removing unfair dismissal laws and remove lot of red tape for small businesses.

I do however believe govt's are there to protect the vulnerable and provide essential services to everyone, irrespective of whether they can afford it or not.
1. Food
2. Education
3. Health
4. Laws/Safety net/Welfare to protect the vulnerable...

On that point, I reject the health (private health), education (massive increase in the costs of education, HECS, etc) and the proposed IR policies of the present govt.

After all, that is what it is to live in a civilised First World Country... Otherwise, there is no difference between us and the animal kingdom!

Happy trader... yes... I do intend to look after numero uno... and I am capable of doing that...

My concern is for those who are unable too...


----------



## Kauri (7 November 2005)

Rafa said:
			
		

> Kauri.... I make my own mind up... and am not influenced by political parties of either pursuation... My post is NOT Labour propoganda!
> 
> ..




  Rafa... I am indeed sorry if I have offended you, I didn't realize that i was answering a post of yours or even referring to it, or indeed to to you.


----------



## Rafa (7 November 2005)

Ah...
well... sorry about that then too... 
i guess i saw yourpost straight after my post...

interestingly, i don't think roll back is really an option for any party, cause generally when they come into power after a long time in the wilderness, they don't have control of the senate! And even if they did, the costs would be prohibitive, especially when you talk about buying back assets and rolling back the GST...


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 November 2005)

Rafa said:
			
		

> I support the sale of Telstra/other businesses, becuase the governments should not be running businesses!!!



Why should government not be running businesses? I think the best owner should be running a business whether that is public or private.

It has long (since the 1970's at least) been known in the energy industry that if you are looking for a location with cheap and reliable electricity then you start by crossing anywhere with a privately owned supply off the list since it will be neither cheap nor reliable. That applies most notably in the US and now in Australia too. 

Just look at the almost unbelievable electricity charges (and total lack of future planning) in South Australia or the mess with private rail operators in Tasmania. Both of these ran with fewer problems and at less cost under public ownership. 

On the other hand, the Latrobe Valley (Vic) power industry was in a complete mess under government ownership. Too many new plants being built leading to perfectly good machinery being mothballed. But now it's the opposite - stretched to the absolute limit just waiting for the inevitable multi unit trip and Melbourne grinds to a halt along with the Victorian economy. Neither seems able to get it right. Either the governemt overbuilding to extremes or the constant patch ups (second hand open cycle gas turbines) of the private owners.   

New Zealand didn't privatise electricity as such (they only sold about a quarter of the generation) but they did introduce competition. Since in a hydro-electric system (two thirds of NZ's power is from hydro) competition necessarily lowers efficiency as compared to integrated operation there wasn't much to gain. No surprise then that power production from hydro sources dropped (due to the efficiency loss of competition) whilst that from gas increased as did prices. Now the gas is running out and the whole country is paying the price for those who didn't understand about integrated hydro operation being inherently the most efficient way due to engineering factors. Typical econocrats not listening to engineers and messing up the economy as a result.

I could go on but I think I've made my point. Government messes things up as does private enterprise. We all pay either way. Some things (like operating an integrated hydro system) can only be done sensibly by monopolies. Technical reality precludes efficiency in the event of competition. In other cases, for example aviation, competition seems to have lowered fares a great deal. The Queensland government is good at running power stations, they're amongst the best in the world in fact, but the Victorian government made a complete mess of the very same task. The NSW government made a mess of the tunnel contracts and then the private builders made a mess of the physical construction just recently. 

So I think it's somewhat hard to generalise about public versus private ownership. There are just so many examples of successes and stuff ups on both sides. I know of one case of a government department doing work (fully costed) at about 25% the cost of the cheapest tender to the exact same standard. And there are other examples of government waste and inefficiency.


----------



## Kauri (7 November 2005)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Why should government not be running businesses? I think the best owner should be running a business whether that is public or private.




I couldn't agree more, especially with business that is considered essential. The only rider I would place on that is that the Govt/public should retain ownership but employ competent managers to run it without any poltically convenient interference.


----------



## Warren Buffet II (7 November 2005)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Mime.
> 
> Wouldnt you at least discuss it with your current employer before blinking?
> Giving them the opportunity to reward you for value seen by another employer---mind you sometimes the value offered to some cannot be seen by others.




Hi Tech,

You should give your employer an opportunity but you need to think why you are looking for another job in the first place, and why you are getting a better offer elsewhere? Are you underpaid?

Some years ago, I got an offer from one company that offered me 30% more than my employer, I talked to my employer and they said, "yes, we have a bit of low salaries here, we'll give you 20% more", and I said what?, where is the another 10%? and they said "you know, we need commitment and people staying helping the company:, and I said "Yes, but I need the company helping me too". So I left.

I believe you shouldn't ask your employer for more money or better conditions, they should see that and give it to you.

Clones


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 November 2005)

Kauri said:
			
		

> The only rider I would place on that is that the Govt/public should retain ownership but employ competent managers to run it without any poltically convenient interference.



Strongly agreed. Just thinking about it, most of the government-related stuff ups have been of a political interference nature. That includes most of the examples in my previous post - political interference causing big problems.


----------



## tech/a (8 November 2005)

Well there is some great stuff here.
Some "Out of the Square" thinking which will eventually find its place somewhere and benifit those who become involved.

Gohti
I do agree that small and Large business are vastly different. So you dont catch an elephant with a mouse trap. 
People have grown comfortable with benifits which are now taken as the "Norm" 4 weeks anual leave,Sick leave,maturnity leave,Compassionate leave,RDO's,leave loadings,overtime,penalty rates,Clothing allowences,Car allowences,living away from home allowences,above award wages.
Hell lets throw in free steak knives and a trip for 2 to Fiji.

*Its amazing that any work actually gets done!!!*

In the coming industrial revolution of the Asia region Governments and Industry have had the forsight to see ahead and recognise that if we dont place ourselves in a position where we can be competitive the current level of nearly full employment will be short lived.

There will always be companies who work closer with their employee both large and smaller.There will always be employees who will want everything and give nothing.

There will always be places where each will survive.

Your employment and your future will be determined by the choices *YOU* make.
If you choose to be led then stop whinging.
If you choose to determine *YOUR* own future then become very good at it---and do what Kris has done--*UNTIL* you find something you can be an *EXPERT* in/at.

When you control your own life its amazing how FUN it becomes---for you and everyone around you.

Warren 

The situaton you describe can be overcome by the employee asking for an employer assesment at anytime. Yes I agree that employers should reward outstanding effort and commitment and if prolonged then it should also be prolonged in reward. I have had a case where an Employee was head hunted and I felt they were on a really good wicket and the offer made to them was something I would not entertain. This will occur.There will always be differences in percieved value between employers and potential employers and ofcourse employees.
True also that some employers dont see or have the infrastructure to reward or give great employees the best opportunity to reach their full potential.


----------



## krisbarry (8 November 2005)

A good point to note:

Exploit the system a little more, *work smarter, not harder* .  Take advantage of penalty rates.

Take advantage of those free carparks in the evenings/weekends/public holidays.  I do and save over $700 a year in carpark fees, just because I work unsual hours.

Work when others dont want to work, that way you spend less time in your workplace and bring in more money.

If you have no children, then exploit those penatly rates, i say!  That is the reason why they are in place.

I have worked many Xmas days, New years Eve's, Easter's, Weekends, Weeknights etc.

I never have a boring social life as I find most of my friends work odd hours too.  Who works 9-5 anymore?

Don't be a dipstick and work for pennies, Use everything in your power to earn more!

There are plenty of low entry level jobs that can be exploited, just by working differently.


----------



## krisbarry (8 November 2005)

I was a dental assistant for a while and I earned $12.50 per hour, bloody underpaid for the study and knowledge needed for the job.  I used to spend 2 hours per day in peak hour traffic driving to and from work, doing the usual 9-5 job.  Was it worth it, not in a million years.

If you work in the city and deal with peak hour traffic and are are underpaid, get out into the suburbs, find another job.  Travel to your workplace in the opposite direction to the peak hour. etc

Plenty of ways to increase your wealth and free-time without much effort.  No need to study for a zillion years at uni, as plenty of graduates get crappy pay anyway.

Find that entry level job, my mate sell shoes on the weekends, he gets up to $33 per hour, for selling shoes, thats right shoes.  That is a much as my sister gets paid during weekdays as a doctor.  Doesn't sound fair does it?


----------



## tech/a (8 November 2005)

I certaintly agree Kris.

Employers will have no choice but to continue with incentives to attract employees working odd hrs.
If your or anyone is a valued employee I'm certain no employer begrudges paying high rates.

I actually push my guys like blazes to make their budgets.
It means $500 bonus to them for the month and if they miss it I want to know why!!

Working smarter and not harder has many connotations other than the literal.


----------



## krisbarry (8 November 2005)

My mum alway used to say, go get yourself a full-time job working 9-5, another "old sckooller"

I work half the amount of hours as she does and can bring in the same pay packet at the end of the week.

Now who is better off?

The worker with the 40 hour week job for stability or the 20 hour week worker with plenty of free-time...you decided?


----------



## tech/a (8 November 2005)

School not Sckool.

Anyway.
Kris currently that works well for you and your friends.

But as you get older the opportunities you enjoy now will be offered to those younger like you are today.
Short term Gains or Long term stability/financial security.

You decide.

Perhaps you could make good use of those "saved hrs'--Smarter not harder!!


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 November 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> I have worked many Xmas days, New years Eve's, Easter's, Weekends, Weeknights etc.
> 
> I never have a boring social life as I find most of my friends work odd hours too.  Who works 9-5 anymore?



This will be my 5th consecutive year of being at work or on-call (24/7) from mid-December to the end of January. I'm not complaining - $$$. Probably makes me one of the few people who drinks absolutely no alcohol over the whole Christmas / new year period though. Probably good for health...   

As for 9 to 5, it's normally 8 to 5 for me and quite often 8 to 6 but then there's the days off etc. I would much rather work longer hours on a given day than be one of those who works 6 or 7 days a week. Do that and you're living to work rather than working to live IMO. That said, I've done the 7 days thing before (admittedly not for long) and would do it again if there were a valid reason.


----------



## krisbarry (8 November 2005)

tech/a said:
			
		

> School not Sckool.
> 
> Anyway.
> Kris currently that works well for you and your friends.
> ...




The term used as school, is actually skool...ask ya kids they will tell you, now you are showing your age mate...LOL

Ever heard of old skool music...its revamped 80's and 90 music!

Tip: listen to Fresh-FM 92.7 on the FM band, I am assuming you listen to talkback on the AM band though. LOL


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 November 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Now who is better off?
> 
> The worker with the 40 hour week job for stability or the 20 hour week worker with plenty of free-time...you decided?



If it were me I would be taking $$$ from the 20 hour a week job but seeing if I could do another 20 hours either there or somewhere else to pump up the income.

At some point there WILL be a recession and work becomes very hard to find. A game of musical chairs where there are considerably more workers than available work and at some point you could well be unemployed. Best to bring in the money while the economic sun is shining in my opinion.


----------



## krisbarry (8 November 2005)

Just listening to Fresh FM right now and suprise, suprise, they are discussing unfair dismisal laws

www.freshfm.com.au

that is if your on the net, using braodband, you can listen live.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 November 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Ever heard of old skcool music...its revamped 80's and 90 music!



Ah yes! Revamped 80's music. Must get the records out and listen to the proper version...    

I'll start worrying about creativity when Stock, Aitken and Waterman make a comeback remixing Sinitta with Bros and Rick Astley... Or when someone thinks they can do a better job of singing Kids In America than Kim Wilde did.  

Actually, Kim Wilde is one of those from the 80's who can actually still sing pretty well live. Well she did two years ago in Melbourne anyway. Well I think so! Not that I'm a retro music freak though I am going to the Motley Crue concert next month.   As for something newer, if you get the chance to see Green Day or The Offspring live then it's worth going but give Simple Plan a miss IMO. Exact same antics live as on the "live" tracks on CD... And I will admit to having seen Shannon Noll live (supporting Bryan Adams) - a lot better than I expected. You might have guessed that I'm a bit of concert person and not really into techno...  :


----------



## Rafa (8 November 2005)

Kauri/Smurf, on futher reading, and considering the events with the Lane Cove fiasco...  Its obvious that businesses can't be trusted to provide essential services, becuase of their greed and propensity to cut corners and look for profits... so I have to agree with you there...

(apparently the tunnel was being in dug in an area not approved in the original coucil submission plans... 65m off course... and put it right under the residential appartment blocks!!!)

Essential services are a cash cows, as everyone needs them, and leaving it in the hands of businesses mean they have the consumer by the balls! i.e. prices go up, service goes down, etc...

Strangely enough, its these very same businesses who we now rely on to provide a happy, healthy work environment... and not exploit their employeers in the same way they exploint their customers... 

Is is just me, or is something not right here... how can we expect them to behave ethically with employers when they can't behave ethically with customers, etc...

PS: I know there are quite a few businesses run very ethically and are great places to work for... e.g. tech/A's business... but most businesses, run by humans, who are controlled by greed... hence, we need laws in place to promote ethical behaviour and to promote behaviour that will lead to better social harmony... 

if we end up with a class of business owners and class of workers... with massive differences in living standards and feeling of injustice (even if its unjustified), everyone will suffer. As the riots in France demonstrate, previous revolutions in other countries, things can get a lot lot worse... and it WILL effect everyone!


----------



## mime (8 November 2005)

I find it a little funny Kris that you enjoy the current economic conditions with multiple pay rises, yet you bag on the Govt that greatly helped create it.


----------



## krisbarry (8 November 2005)

Yes isnt it ironic that I do enjoy wage rises, dont we all?  But what is given in one hand is rapidly taken in the other.  The government are greedier than ever, remember that!  This is the highest taxed government in Australia's history, its easy to balance the books whens you grab so much tax isn't it?, as the ATO does. LOL


----------



## mime (8 November 2005)

That's because you are paying a large number of state taxes that where supposed to be abolished when the GST we introduced however the states reneged and kept them.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 November 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> This is the highest taxed government in Australia's history, its easy to balance the books whens you grab so much tax isn't it?, as the ATO does. LOL



And print so much more money as the RBA has been doing. It's hard to go broke when you just call the RBA and ask them to print you some more fiat currency. Until, that is, the markets work out what is going on...


----------



## Bloveld (8 November 2005)

University funding to be tied to lecturers signing AWA's, and their union being excluded from negotiations.

About time those militant socialist thugs were reigned in.
Many a time university lecturers walked off site halfway during a concrete pour!


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (8 November 2005)

krisbarry said:
			
		

> Yes isnt it ironic that I do enjoy wage rises, dont we all?  But what is given in one hand is rapidly taken in the other.  The government are greedier than ever, remember that!  This is the highest taxed government in Australia's history, its easy to balance the books whens you grab so much tax isn't it?, as the ATO does. LOL




Kris,

I think you mean ..." the highest taxing government".... not highest taxed. Generally the government taxes the nation. So, you are taxed.

To blame the Howard government on taxes is a bit unfair considering you pay state taxes also. The GST goes to the states and they pocket it without boosting spending on hospitals etc. Are taxes high in Australia? Yes, I agree with you there. 

Thanks for the radio link posted earlier. It really got me going today.

Snake


----------



## krisbarry (8 November 2005)

Of course silly me, thanks for the correction.  Yes I should have posted it as the highest taxing government. 

Thanks

To true, there are many state taxes too...one of which I think is only in South Australia, the "Emergency Services Levy".  A tax on every household that goes towards funding the emergency services-police, fire, ambulance etc.  

These services used to be funded out of the government purse, now they are 1/2 funded by this levy.

Another is slapped on water bills in SA is the river murray levy.

Poor home owners in SA are struggling to pay these extra fees/charges/taxes/levies.


----------



## mime (9 November 2005)

If anything the federal govt has cut tax. With income being reduced recently. There is no way Labor would cut taxes. It's not their way because the demographic they represent are people that depend on handouts and people without private investment. 

As people more and more people move towards private investment, support for Labor will continue to drop because people fear their ecomonic handling will cause them to loose out. So you should learn to love the Libs because they probably will be in office for a long time.

Even though I know Labor support a nice ideas such heavly investment in education (although with the current state of the public schools I'm questioning that.) and handouts, they will keep high taxes to pay for these causing business to move off shore followed by major unemployment and so on and so on.


----------



## Milk Man (9 November 2005)

> To true, there are many state taxes too...one of which I think is only in South Australia, the "Emergency Services Levy". A tax on every household that goes towards funding the emergency services-police, fire, ambulance etc.



 Queensland slaps the ambulance levy on the power bill. We have had problems because they put it on our wind machines because their system couldnt categorise them. Yeah, thats right mr Beattie, theres a leprecaun in there that pedals the wind machine and he needs ambulance cover. Now thats a good example of state govt taxing gone mad.


----------

