I.R laws how have they affected you??

[moXJO]

Who has a horror story to tell about the new I.R laws. A friend of mine threw his truck driving job in because they changed the rates. He has had two jobs since ,and is receiving a lot more money now. The company that lowered their rates has since had to put them up again as they lost a lot of good drivers. So that’s as close to home as it has got just yet. Its early days, but I am interested in how the current laws have impacted people. You have to wonder how workers will fair when the economy hits the wall.

On the other hand I heard some shocking stories back in the days of unfair dismissal laws. One of our local ones was a lady stealing money from the till and safe then was caught on a newly installed camera taking the money and fired. She managed to sue for compensation and get her job back because employees were not aware a camera was there. Countless ones from friends with small business that couldn’t get rid of employees that didn’t want to work who took full advantage of the unfair dismissal laws back then.

Being a small business owner myself I have always looked after my employees. So the new I.R laws haven’t really had any effect on us. I’m not to sure how I will fair under Rudds system. And in its current form yes I am a little worried. I’ve had countless bad encounters with unions and their corruption and bully tactics in the past. One of the tradies here was recently forced to become a paying member to the unions.This was on threats by a union member that he would be kicked off the site and not allowed back to complete his work. It went to court and the unions were spanked over it but they are lodging an appeal.

Its the time wasted and the red tape created by these idiots that make life hell for the small business owner. The arrogance violence corruption and general rudeness I have dealt with from this mob has really made me sick to the stomach. But yes they are an essential part of the work place I'm just a bit one eyed after my dealings with them.

End of rant

 

[Sean K]

Good thread moXJO.

Fortunately, I sit in my office all day looking at a computer screen with no employees. It's just me.

I am right of the centre, so naturally I am more inclined to think the new IR laws will make most people and business more productive.

People have to earn their position in society and if they don't cut it, then adios!

It should be survival of the fittest in this animal world!

The lefties out there can start abusing me.

 

[tech/a]

I run a Small Company now 16 employees.

We are re doing the Workplace agreements with everyone now.
No employees are worse off.
Infact my employees tell me who should stay and who should go.
Being a Civil Construction Company THEY dont wish to work alongside a person who THEY have to support.
THEY want someone who helps them not HINDER them.

From an owners veiw I'll pay above average---actually well above average---to keep people in my organisation who WANT to be and PROVE to be above average.

My Company is only as good as those who make it up---they understand that THEY have a huge influence on MY INCOME and as such I expect performance---and as such THEY expect to be justly rewarded.
If they increase MY income they EXPECT---and rightly so-- to increase THEIR income.

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

I work for a government power company everyone here hates the idea of AWA's but I know alot of people who think they are the bee's knees.

The good thing is now with AWA's people generally get a higher pay etc but this is because of the current overall good economy.

The problem with AWA's is as soon as things slow down your AWA's will become less attractive ( after they expire and you sign a new one)

So basically for me I have good conditions such as ot pay etc if i basically sell those now on a AWA for more cash there is nor reason in future I will ever get them back and if things do slow down I could be faced with having to sign a new AWA for lower pay and no conditions.

I agree the AWA's are neccesary for small business and the economy as a whole to encourage a flexable work force but if we do have a recession or slow down thats when the AWA's will cause pain and heartache.

That said though, unfortunatly in a time of slow economic activity it is neccesary to lower peoples wages , conditions and be able to get rid of them. Especially for small business that will fight to survive

 

[mark70920]

People on AWA's etc have long been selling off their conditions. The fact is conditions retain their value long term, a day off is still worth a days pay, however if you trade that day off for say $300 today its worth a days pay in 5 years that $300 is more than likely half a days pay. Big employers will always try to get you to sell off your conditions because it is much easy to erode pay than conditions.
Same with penalty rates and level payments they will write these up in agreements like this your on $10 an hour your over time rate is your hourly rate plus $10 sounds good double time but in 5 years your rate is $20 an hour plus your $10 overtime rate only time and and a half now.
Your a level 1 at work getting a $1000 a week, level 2's get an additional $150 sounds good 15% for the next pay band, however in 5 years time your pay is $1500 level 2 get an additional $150 now only 10%.
While I feel for small employers trying to make ends meat, I know how big business works and unless the lower skilled employees are represented collectively they will zero bargaining power.

Any poltician or business person who says a low skilled individuals have bargaining power with a big business is deluded
How do you bargain with a multi billion dollar company with a team of lawyers and accountants when your just a labourer?

 

[Smurf1976]

I run a Small Company now 16 employees.

We are re doing the Workplace agreements with everyone now.
No employees are worse off.
Infact my employees tell me who should stay and who should go.
Being a Civil Construction Company THEY dont wish to work alongside a person who THEY have to support.
THEY want someone who helps them not HINDER them.

From an owners veiw I'll pay above average---actually well above average---to keep people in my organisation who WANT to be and PROVE to be above average.

My Company is only as good as those who make it up---they understand that THEY have a huge influence on MY INCOME and as such I expect performance---and as such THEY expect to be justly rewarded.
If they increase MY income they EXPECT---and rightly so-- to increase THEIR income.

Hit the nail on the head there tech.

That said, there are dud employers out there and there do need to be laws to protect workers from exploitation IMO.

I'm aware of one substantial ASX listed company that does practially all of its work via contractors who are being paid less now than they were 25 years ago. Most of those contractors, who are effectively de facto employees, are single person operations working from home. And now the company has started to impose stricter conditions on work performance etc whilst still doing nothing about incredibly low pay rates that are well under $5 an hour. (I have personally verified all of this apart from the claim, from one of their contractors, that rates are unchanged in 25 years).

I also know of a local small business that was attempting to pay truck drivers $8.50 an hour two years ago. I can't condone theft, but it doesn't surprise me that the company had a problem with employees stealing fuel especially. The wages they were paying were outright disgusting and suffice to say that this is ultimately the reason I no longer send any business their way. Others must have taken a similar view judging by the apparent decline in the company's overall business activities.

 

[The Mint Man]

People on AWA's etc have long been selling off their conditions. The fact is conditions retain their value long term, a day off is still worth a days pay, however if you trade that day off for say $300 today its worth a days pay in 5 years that $300 is more than likely half a days pay. Big employers will always try to get you to sell off your conditions because it is much easy to erode pay than conditions.
Same with penalty rates and level payments they will write these up in agreements like this your on $10 an hour your over time rate is your hourly rate plus $10 sounds good double time but in 5 years your rate is $20 an hour plus your $10 overtime rate only time and and a half now.
Your a level 1 at work getting a $1000 a week, level 2's get an additional $150 sounds good 15% for the next pay band, however in 5 years time your pay is $1500 level 2 get an additional $150 now only 10%.
While I feel for small employers trying to make ends meat, I know how big business works and unless the lower skilled employees are represented collectively they will zero bargaining power.

Any poltician or business person who says a low skilled individuals have bargaining power with a big business is deluded
How do you bargain with a multi billion dollar company with a team of lawyers and accountants when your just a labourer?

You mention 5 years over and over... My question is, how long do you think a contract goes for?
It would be unlikely for me to sign a 5 year contract!!!
Also, corect me if Im wrong but an individual can stay with the union negotiated EBA.

Now to answer the threads question, no it hasnt affected me.

 

[Rafa]

Article by Julia Gillard

AT Labor’s national conference last weekend, Kevin Rudd launched Labor’s new industrial relations plan, Forward with Fairness. It’s a comprehensive plan we are inviting the Australian people to judge. Labor’s decision to release its plan for a fairer workplace stands in stark contrast to the continuing deceit of the Howard Government on industrial relations (writes Julia Gillard).

The Howard Government deceived Australians before the previous election by not telling them of its plans for extreme and unfair industrial relations laws. It has deceived Australians about the impact of its system by refusing to release details of how John Howard’s Australian Workplace Agreements are hurting Australian working families. There is also a complete refusal to release any economic modelling to support Government claims about the benefits of these laws.

The Government continues to deceive working Australians by refusing to come clean on how it intends to make its laws tougher if re-elected. And it is deceiving Australians with false claims about Labor’s plans.

The Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Joe Hockey, have claimed that Labor’s proposed new industrial umpire, Fair Work Australia, is unconstitutional. The Howard Government has also claimed that under Labor’s system every new employee will be given a union membership form and that under Labor “no ticket, no start” will be back.

Each of these claims is completely untrue. Let’s set the record straight.

Labor is not re-regulating the workplace. Forward with Fairness gives employers and employees the freedom to negotiate the terms and conditions that best suit them. This will be achieved through a combination of collective agreements, awards and common law arrangements, a combination which presently covers about 90 per cent of Australian employees.

Labor’s plan is based on a decent, but limited, safety net of legislated minimum conditions and new, simplified awards. Our system will not be a system that allows overtime, penalty rates and redundancy to be lost without negotiation and without compensation.

Labor’s plan is not about union rights, it is about the rights of Australian working families to enjoy the benefits of the prosperity they help generate.

Under Labor, there will be no automatic right for unions to bargain on behalf of an entire workforce under our majority bargaining rules, no automatic right for unions to participate in collective enterprise bargaining, and our Fair Work Information Statement will tell new employees they have a right to choose whether or not to join a trade union. Indeed, some employers have said they are very keen for the new employees to know that they do not have to join the union.

Labor’s plan is to ensure the new independent industrial umpire is accessible to employers and employees across Australia when they want information or need assistance. And despite the Government’s desperate claims to the contrary, the structure and operation of Labor’s Fair Work Australia will be in accordance with the Constitution.

Labor’s plans to move forward with fairness have been criticised by unions and employers.

Labor has always understood that employers would prefer the Prime Minister’s Work Choices laws. After all, those laws have driven the pendulum radically away from the centre, towards the interests of employers and away from the interests of Australian working families. Labor does not apologise for creating a new balance.

But to those employers who are concerned about employment and productivity, Labor says study the facts, not the Howard Government’s wild claims.

Hockey likes to boast about the 276,000 jobs that have been created since Work Choices was implemented. However, total employment growth for the year to March 2005, pre-Work Choices, was 50,000 higher at 327,400.

Total employment growth for the year to March 1995, after the introduction of Labor’s industrial relations reforms by the Keating Labor government was 328,000. Australia’s productivity actually went backwards for the first six months following the commencement of Work Choices and is presently at just 1.5 per cent compared to a historical average of 2.3 per cent.

In truth, productivity grew by 3.2 per cent in the five years after Labor decentralised the labour market, and productivity grew by just 2.2 per cent in the five years after AWAs were introduced by Howard.

Free-market labour economist Mark Wooden said during his appearance on the ABC’s 4 Corners in September 2005: “There’s not a lot of evidence that individual contracts produce productivity ... the biggest gains for productivity still revolve around a system which is collective based.”

The Howard Government has also suggested that the declining number of industrial disputes in Australia can be attributed to Work Choices. Apart from being consistent with international trends, the fact remains industrial disputes fell by a greater proportion when Labor introduced enterprise-based bargaining in the early 1990s.

The Howard Government claims Australians on AWAs are always better off. However, statistical data and analysis of AWAs, both official and leaked, show very clearly these laws are ripping away basic conditions, such as penalty rates and overtime, from employees. Indeed, 44per cent of employees on AWAs lost all of the conditions the Prime Minister told them, in expensive taxpayer-funded advertising, would be protected by law.

As well as stopping the ripoff, Labor’s policy introduces a new era of family-friendly working arrangements to give Australian parents the choice of having a parent at home with a new baby for the first two years of the baby’s life.

While the Howard Government is steeped in the past, Labor’s industrial relations policy is focused squarely on the future. Labor believes Australians do not have to choose between having a strong economy and fairness at work. Australians can have both, should have both and deserve both. That’s moving Forward with Fairness.

Julia Gillard is the Opposition Deputy Leader and spokeswoman for employment and workplace relations.

Over to you…

 

[tech/a]

That said, there are dud employers out there and there do need to be laws to protect workers from exploitation IMO.

If your employer doesnt perform SACK HIM/IT.

They are stuffing with YOUR wages,your lively hood,your life style.

Just as bad employees stuff with mine!!

All too hard?
Want a law to protect me?
Not prepared to stand out from the next guy as a valued employee?
Expect your Employer to stand out and treat you well above average?

Yep you guessed it AWA's were implemented for YOU!!!

 

[mark70920]

You mention 5 years over and over... My question is, how long do you think a contract goes for?
It would be unlikely for me to sign a 5 year contract!!!
Also, corect me if Im wrong but an individual can stay with the union negotiated EBA.

Now to answer the threads question, no it hasnt affected me.

I am yet to meet anyone starting a new job who has been given the choice of an EBA or an AWA you take the AWA or you don't take the job , no choice.
Also I have never met anyone who has had the oppurtunity to go back to an EBA once on an AWA. Its a one way street.
WMC move there whole work force from Western Australia Work Place agreements to AWA's when the Gallop government came to power , my agreement went from saying 10 days sick leave , 4 weeks holidays etc to "as per company policy" Company policy can be changed at anytime and as the laws were relaxed with regard to minimum condition it meant the company could just change policy and change your condition with zero input from you.

Again it meant the big employer had all the power,

If you want a society where business and market rule unconditionally expect to see a country of haves and have nots , the USA is already there , the UK is not far behind , I don't want to live in such a country. We need a balance so we maintain a fair society. Otherwise start putting bars on your windows , employing security guards , guards dogs and maybe buy a gun or two (Just asked the South Africians what that is like)

 

[tech/a]

If you want a society where business and market rule unconditionally

Mark.
I really do find this way of thinking strange.
You DO have choices its only YOU or anyone in a similar position who CHOOSES not to make what they seem impossible choices.

Employers have as much right as the Employee to make demands on wages.
If you think its a one way street---change roads!!

 

[finnsk]

If your employer doesnt perform SACK HIM/IT.

They are stuffing with YOUR wages,your lively hood,your life style.

Just as bad employees stuff with mine!!

All too hard?
Want a law to protect me?
Not prepared to stand out from the next guy as a valued employee?
Expect your Employer to stand out and treat you well above average?

Yep you guessed it AWA's were implemented for YOU!!!

I agree, if you are not happy in your current employment leave there is plenty of work out there I have a small business myself and I only think it is fair that I can sack people on the same grounds as people who are working for me can leave at any time.

 

[moXJO]

On a side note I think younger employees in construction should be protected by the union, employers and employees. Too many times I have seen them put in harms way by their bosses or other employees. People forget they are fresh to the industry and don’t have any experience. Just because Joe Blow knows how to do it doesn’t mean he should be telling a kid to do something risky. And they will put their neck on the line to impress. They should be told that it’s ok to say no to a dangerous request. And more experienced workers should know better than to risk young lives.

 

[Rafa]

I agree, i advised my girlfriend to move from a medium sized family run company (based in SA) cause they treated everyone there like crap.

She now works for the Govt and loves it...

I went to the same process after graduating from Uni... after being exploited over the summer (worked for free and then given a starting contract of 29k per annum including super), i handed in my resignation in the next day and found a job in a large company. I'm on an AWA, but i am more than capable of doing my own negotiations are present, so no complaints.

But i can see how others might be exploited.

Funny enough, both the above mentioned companies, immediately came back with revised offers of an extra 10k when the recieved their respective resignations letters!

what a joke!

Its naive to think these companies will learn... but no, they will always find new suckers to exploit.

Both these companies are still around and thriving....

 

[The Mint Man]

Mark.
I really do find this way of thinking strange.
You DO have choices its only YOU or anyone in a similar position who CHOOSES not to make what they seem impossible choices.

Employers have as much right as the Employee to make demands on wages.
If you think its a one way street---change roads!!

I agree.
I think too many people have this entitlement mentality where they think they should be given the world and stuff the boss, however I think they fail to see the big picture, if the boss isnt doing well then they dont have a job!..... yet they will still feel entitled to it.
Now Im not saying that we all shouldnt be entitled to certain things.... I think fairs fair, if your an asset to your boss then you should be rewarded for it. If you dont feel your getting paid what your worth then start shopping around, Simple as that!

Just because Joe Blow knows how to do it doesn’t mean he should be telling a kid to do something risky.

Thought you had more sense then that Joe!!!:headshake

 

[2020hindsight]

gents , some good posts thanks
I heard John Button being interviewed on ABC - (apart from his belief that Libs are taking credit for many of Labour initiatives lol) - his thoughts of the new Labour proposals were that he was surprised that the Ind Relations Commmission would be disbanded if Labour got in (although obviously Rudd and Gillard believe that it has been stacked with management reps since Coalition have been in power). Presumably "Fair Work Australia" is just a way to get a new set of people on the judges bench in a hurry.

but he went on to say that "In good times, nobody cares - near full employment, and no boss can afford to give people a hard time, etc. BUT in bad times it's different, and you need something like the IRC and awards and unions" (in his opinion).

So I guess as long as Howard keeps employment high, then Labour will have the job ahead of them to sell the changes (on this point anyway) - but obviously if there's a downturn , then it's anyone's guess who'll get in (unlikely this year you'd think, but who knows?)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1906952.htm - Industry group hits out at Labor IR plan
The Australian Industry Group (AiG) says it is disappointed it was not consulted by Labor about its policy to scrap the Industrial Relations Commission (IRC).

PS for my next job, I'd like to sign up to be on the award rate applicable to "Boards of Directors" (bludy parasites lol)

PS I remain open minded on this - I also posted some comments on the thread about "full employment - a con?" , but they're not worth repeating lol. The devil will be in the detail, let's face it. Too far either way will mean someone loses out. (imo) People will be people, (and a few will exploit circumstances when presented with a chance) - and that goes for bosses as well as employees.

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1913816.htm

Mining body suggests IR compromise
There are signs the mining industry and the Labor Party could find some common ground in the stand-off over industrial relations.

Opposition workplace relations spokeswoman Julia Gillard insists Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) will be scrapped if Labor wins office but the Mines and Metals Association (MMA) says it is important to keep AWAs because of the flexibility they offer.

MMA chief executive Steve Knott says the association would be prepared to accept a return to the 'no disadvantage test' if Labor agreed to keep AWAs. He said his association's only proviso would be to ask that the award base was not "beefed up" by "ambit claims from unions and so forth."

Ambit claims are claims made by employees to a conciliation and arbitration court, which anticipate negotiation and are therefore more optimistic in their demands than the resulting agreement is likely to turn out to be.

"If it's a similar sort of framework they had in place prior to WorkChoices, then we'd be comfortable with that," Mr Knott said. He says mining executives need a commitment that industrial action will be curtailed under Labor.

"They don't want to go back to an arrangement where there's an opportunity for people to engage in industrial disputation over the silly things we had in the past, like the colour of toilet paper or the colour of ice cream or unions' bargaining fees," he said. "That's a real risk and we don't need to be in that zone."

 

[SteveM]

Mark.
I really do find this way of thinking strange.
You DO have choices its only YOU or anyone in a similar position who CHOOSES not to make what they seem impossible choices.

Employers have as much right as the Employee to make demands on wages.
If you think its a one way street---change roads!!

It's easy to have that attitude when you have the skills to back you up. I am a qualified electrical fitter, but it's been years since I saw a job advertised for an electrical fitter where I wish to work.

I spent 15 years working for a boss that didn't have your outlook, I was there for his benefit only. I didn't have the backing to work for myself so I had to put up with it. When I asked for long service leave, I was told that I couldn't have it all at once as it would harm his business. The next day I bit the bullet, gave notice and started my own business. If I had still been there, dependant on him with the IR laws as they stand Iwould be in a very difficult position.

 

[2020hindsight]

There are plenty of choices as to which news article to post, but since Johnny Howard's recent announcement's are so obviously a last minute "conversion on the road to the election in Damascus"... I'll post this one. No doubt others will claim Johnny finally genuinely saw that previous workchoice laws were open to abuse and that this is not just hollow attempt to gain back the middle ground (when it flies in the face of what he has expressed about his preferred option of most if not all of the power with the employer)

And don't you love the way the incumbent party always uses public money to advertise their policies leading into an election ?.

"Professor Stewart says how they are received could depend on whether the newly named Workplace Authority will have to go over hundreds of thousands of agreements in detail to make sure they meet the fairness test. "

And also , as for this legislation being ready for mid June sitting ?? As if that could be done in that time interval, lol.. UNLESS there was the carrot of an election driving them on

I just wish that the hypocrisy of these politicians were a little less glaring..blinding even.

As someone said , you still get the choice when you are offered a job,.. "so, make up your mind !! what's it to be, do you sign , or do I offer it to the next applicant? ":casanova: :headshake

Just as for the new Labour proposals - the devil is in the detail - and this fairness test looks a bit of window dressing, and empty rhetoric.

As the professor says .. either it's another useless form to fill in, or it's a genuine attempt to check the fairness - and in that case, the thrust of work choice ( to cut out anyone looking over the shoulder of employer or employee) will be lost / torn up.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1915169.htm WorkChoices ads waste taxpayers' money: Gillard
Labor says taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for advertisements promoting the softening of the Federal Government's WorkChoices legislation.

The Government yesterday moved to scale back the laws, introducing a fairness test for low and middle income workers to ensure they are adequately compensated for losing award conditions on workplace agreements.

Full-page ads appear in today's daily newspapers explaining the changes. Deputy Labor leader Julia Gillard says it is a waste of taxpayers' money.

"Mr Howard has already ripped $55 million off Australian taxpayers to pay for advertisements for his extreme industrial relations laws," she said. "Today he's back at it again with his hand in the purse and the wallets of Australians taking their money for advertisements that are just pure political propaganda."

Ms Gillard says Australians should not be fooled into thinking the changes will last. "I can't imagine Australians are going to believe these advertisements," she said.

"They know that Mr Howard has made false claims in the past about his extreme industrial relations laws and these ads make false claims again."

'Back-flip'. John Howard has spent more than a year defending WorkChoices to the hilt, saying while there might be room for fine-tuning, the fundamentals would remain in place.

Now Mr Howard admits his new 'fairness test' is a bit more than fine tuning. "There is unease, I recognise that and I don't mind responding to that unease, I don't mind indicating the Government's willing to listen to people's concerns, it's arrogant to pretend that there aren't some concerns," he said.

Andrew Stewart, a law professor at Flinders University, regards it as a back-flip. He says giving employers the ability to reduce their wages bill by driving down conditions was a central element of WorkChoices.

"For the Prime Minister and the Minister for Workplace Relations to say that now we need to do something about that is a major acknowledgment that the original package was unfair," he said.

Drafting legislation is now beginning in earnest, as the Government hopes to introduce the changes when Parliament sits in mid-June.

Professor Stewart says how they are received could depend on whether the newly named Workplace Authority will have to go over hundreds of thousands of agreements in detail to make sure they meet the fairness test. "If the system involves detailed scrutiny, that's going to add considerably to the cost and complexity of the agreement-making process," he said.

"If on the other hand it's more going to be a matter of filling in a form, then no doubt the Government's critics are going to say that the fairness test is just window-dressing.

"Whether this fairness test is going to be used in a really effective way to protect award conditions is going to depend on just how closely that new agency is prepared to scrutinise agreements."

PS For comparsion, here's a quote from Winston Churchill , a true stateman, quoting in turn from his father .. "Trust the People"

"Child of the House of Commons"

"I am a child of the House of Commons. I was brought up in my father's house to believe in democracy. 'Trust the people'—that was his message....I owe my advancement entirely to the House of Commons, whose servant I am. In my country, as in yours, public men are proud to be the servants of the State and would be ashamed to be its masters. Therefore I have been in full harmony all my life with the tides which have flowed on both sides of the Atlantic against privilege and monopoly....By the way, I cannot help reflecting that if my father had been American and my mother British, instead of the other way around, I might have got here on my own!"

—First of three speeches to a Joint Session of the States Congress, after Pearl Harbor, delivered 26 December 1941. (The others occurred in 1943 and 1952.)

 

[Mofra]

I'm probably in the minority here.

I have a metro-based office job.

I have sacrificed overtime, leave loading and 1 RDO per month (as a function of changing employer then signing a new agreement a few weeks ago).

My personal gross income is over 50% higher than it was 14 months ago, I am still protected by unfair dismissal laws, I now have scope to negotiate & I have received a bonus (due to individual work agreements) despite being full time for 6 months. I would not have otherwise been given one.

I have no doubt that some people feel threatened by the IR laws, however I am extremely happy with the opportunities I have been provided.