Punish the poor, reward the rich!

[Klogg]

That’s all well and good but without being personal how big’s your mortgage and how many kids to suppoort?

For many, they’ll need the new employer to be pretty keen to make it work and that’s where things get difficult. Some will, many won’t.

I’m fortunate in that I can choose what I do and for whom with self employment as a fallback option but many are not so fortunate. They need that next pay and they need to keep some agreement regarding time of work or leave arrangements or whatever. That makes jumping ship a major exercise unless they can find a suitably agreeable employer who’ll bend the rules for a new employee in a run of the mill role. Some will, many won’t.

I'm 32, have no mortgage (don't own a house) but will be buying in cash quite soon, in Melbourne's inner east. Wife and 1 child to support.

I can go without a job for minimum ten years at this point, without a problem. I've put myself in a position where I've saved the majority of my income precisely so I'm not so dependent on my employer.

And anyone can do it. Mr money mustache is a great place to start, if you're interested.

 

[SirRumpole]

I think the thing is that the economy has to work for everyone, not just a few .

Some people don't seem to realise that the economy runs on consumer spending, if people don't buy, business fail. Of course there is the export industry where consumers are overseas , but the majority of the economy is down to our domestic consumption. If people are just scraping by in their employment then they are not spending as much as they could be to keep the economy going, and while I admire thrifty people who save as much as they can and invest it, the circulation of money via spending is important to the economy too.

Business tax cuts might produce the expected results in 10 years time although I have my doubts on how much of those will go on employment of people and how much on machines/software .

If tax cuts are to be given they should go to the consumers first who will spend in the economy and create demand and therefore jobs. And the lowest income earners will spend more of any tax cut because they haven't got the things they want at the moment. Business income will therefore increase as consumer confidence increases.

Demand usually generates supply, not the other way around.

 

[IFocus]

Hey Klogg
"Work choices was great. It allowed an employer and employee to decide on their own contractual agreement, within the confines of the law. "

I went through this period as a supervisor for a multinational American based chemical company who embraced Non Work Choices........there were no choices seriously.

How do you think a semi skilled or tradesperson is going to fare negotiating an agreement against a multi billion dollar companies HR department backed up with consultants and lawyers?

My experience was they are not going to do to well and all contacts are the same with a few bread crumbs thrown around for people to fight over.

Like Amazon the law / rules favored the company not the employee the whole point of the exercise is to weaken the workers power to negotiate and to suppress wages / conditions and we know this works very well this is not a free market mechanism its a dictatorship.

All this before we even get to safety standards being by passed for production rates complain and you're fire not pretty in a highly hazardous chemical plant.

A simple test for this is to measure which way the transfer of wealth is travelling and we all know how that's going.

 

[tech/a]

I’m a small business owner
The more I reward my employees
By wage,commissions,incentives,and
Bonuses.
The more profitable my company is.
The more loyal my employees are

This attracts a superior work force and
Clients like a moth to a light.

 

[PZ99]

Work choices was great. It allowed an employer and employee to decide on their own contractual agreement, within the confines of the law.

If both parties consent to the arrangement, how is it bad?

Because a lone employee doesn't have the strength to negotiate anything other than what the employer is offering. Take it or leave it. That's your work choice. So it all comes down to how decent and reputable the employer chooses to be. Having seen the behaviour of the banks of late, the supermarkets, the 7/11's, the Dominoes pizza's and the like... they are anything but decent employers. So if we ever take that Workchoices path again eventually a large chunk of the workers in this country will simply go broke... then probably spend the rest of their life on welfare.

I had a mate who lost his house because of Workchoices. Nothing great about that. Anyway I've discussed this at length in other threads so I won't go into it here because this is an obvious troll thread designed to antagonise and I don't think it's worth the airtime that it's getting quite frankly...

So I'll just sign off by wishing you well with your future IT endeavours

 

[Klogg]

Because a lone employee doesn't have the strength to negotiate anything other than what the employer is offering. Take it or leave it. That's your work choice. So it all comes down to how decent and reputable the employer chooses to be. Having seen the behaviour of the banks of late, the supermarkets, the 7/11's, the Dominoes pizza's and the like... they are anything but decent employers. So if we ever take that Workchoices path again eventually a large chunk of the workers in this country will simply go broke... then probably spend the rest of their life on welfare.

I had a mate who lost his house because of Workchoices. Nothing great about that. Anyway I've discussed this at length in other threads so I won't go into it here because this is an obvious troll thread designed to antagonise and I don't think it's worth the airtime that it's getting quite frankly...

So I'll just sign off by wishing you well with your future IT endeavours

"Because a lone employee doesn't have the strength to negotiate anything other than what the employer is offering. Take it or leave it."

This seems like victim mentality. If I'm providing more value than other workers, I'll get paid more. Three times I've handed in my resignation and received a counter offer with a 15% increase or more - and there are many far better than me...
This is not because Workchoices are BS, but because the employer thought I was providing value.
If you've restricted your realm of employment to 7/11, where you're easily replaced with 2 hours training, then why should you be paid more? Put in some effort, up-skill yourself, then maybe you have a leg to stand on when bargaining. Basically, take responsibility for yourself, because no-one else will.


"I had a mate who lost his house because of Workchoices."

I don't know much here, but I can only assume that his employer either bargained him down to lower pay, or removed him from the company because he could be replaced more cheaply. I'm only guessing.
If either of these are true, WorkChoices is not to blame. If this is the case (big if), then your mate clearly over-leveraged himself, bought a house he could not afford, then blamed the changing terms of employment for losing his house. But, I'm guessing, and if you would like to discuss this point further, I'd love to hear more detail.


"I won't go into it here because this is an obvious troll thread designed to antagonise and I don't think it's worth the airtime that it's getting quite frankly"

Because people don't agree with you, it's an obvious troll? Please, get off your high horse. It's been a relatively clean thread up to this point...

 

[Klogg]

I went through this period as a supervisor for a multinational American based chemical company who embraced Non Work Choices........there were no choices seriously.

How do you think a semi skilled or tradesperson is going to fare negotiating an agreement against a multi billion dollar companies HR department backed up with consultants and lawyers?

If that person is delivering well above the average, I'd say they're paid well above the average.

Sales roles are typical in this manner. If you sell, you get commissions, because you're more valuable to the company. This applies to other roles as well.
There are times when people go too far (e.g. Freedom insurance), but sooner or later, we all sit down to a banquet of consequences...


As for quality/standards - if the company breaches these a few times, the company goes under. Quite simple really. We all saw what happened with the rockmelon listeria outbreak. Supermarkets were throwing them out by the tonne...


"I’m a small business owner
The more I reward my employees
By wage,commissions,incentives,and
Bonuses."

Great way to put it. It's reciprocal. If the employee gives effort over and above expectations, they'll be paid over and above the standard.
If they're no good, they'll eventually be asked to leave the company.

 

[sptrawler]

Murdoch labelling low-income earners as bludgers is hilarious given that he is an A-Grade tax avoider.

Any income earner, is 'worth their weight in gold', these days. We put too little emphasis on any wage earners and way too much emphasis on those on welfare. IMO

 

[sptrawler]

I’m a small business owner
The more I reward my employees
By wage,commissions,incentives,and
Bonuses.
The more profitable my company is.
The more loyal my employees are

This attracts a superior work force and
Clients like a moth to a light.

I bet you get rid of the lazy ones, pretty quickly and reward the hard working conscientious ones.
Also I bet you help the conscientious ones, who stuff up, but are trying to do the right thing.

That is the benefit of a small company.
In a large company, it is difficult to reward endeavour.
They are usually under a group agreement, the useless ones get the same as the best ones and it is impossible to get rid of anyone.
So in the end the good ones leave, because you can't reward them, and the useless ones stay and bitch about management.

 

[CanOz]

Every economy needs taxpayers to avoid a default on sovereign debt. Developed nations with a high level of welfare and entitlements need even more. They should be welcome in the form of:

1.) Children, lots of kids, offspring from the citizens!
2.) Immigrants, smart, ready to work and start businesses and buy houses!
3.) Lots of citizens willing to work later rather than retire.
4.) Big Businesses should be welcome and pay a competitive rate of tax that attracts them and keeps them.

Its just math....nothing more.

 

[sptrawler]

Every economy needs taxpayers to avoid a default on sovereign debt. Developed nations with a high level of welfare and entitlements need even more. They should be welcome in the form of:

1.) Children, lots of kids, offspring from the citizens!

That's exactly what Costello said, and introduced the baby bonus, he was bagged for middle class welfare. Much better, just to allow anybody that arrives in a boat access.

2.) Immigrants, smart, ready to work and start businesses and buy houses!

No much better just to let anybody in even if they are on welfare for the rest of their lives, it is numbers that matter, we need to get to 50million ASAP.

3.) Lots of citizens willing to work later rather than retire.
That is easily fixed, raise the retirement age, they've already done that. Those who save and think they are going to be self funded, just take money off them.
4.) Big Businesses should be welcome and pay a competitive rate of tax that attracts them and keeps them.
They should be taxed by volume, on the finite resources they remove, no one on either side of politics wants to do that, because both sides are paid by the same masters IMO.

Its just math....nothing more.[/QUOTE]

 

[Smurf1976]

Thankfully I’ve had mostly excellent managers throughout my career but one bad experience years ago taught me a lot.

Sociopaths are a small % of the population but such people are disproportionately attracted to positions of power over others. As such they are a greater, still small but greater, % of managers.

As I and the entire team discovered, the absolute worst thing to do should you find yourself working for such an individual is demonstrate high performance. That’ll paint a great big target on your back, note back not front, and you’d better be moving on real quick should that occur. Note that any chance of a positive reference is already gone at that point so don’t bother asking.

With a bit of luck you never encounter such a person but there’s a few of them around.

It was years ago but I remember that meeting as though it were yesterday. I am the steamroller and you are the road about to be flattened. That’s an exact quote by the way said to the entire staff at the time by a new senior manager.

Changed my world view somewhat. I’ve been more to the political Left ever since. Had this experience not occurred then I’d be more inclined toward supporting things like Work Choices. I have however seen how that sort of thing could be massively abused and I will not forget.

No comment as to where other than to say it wasn’t the power industry and this was years ago although to my understanding the same individual is still doing much the same.

At a personal level in hindsight it was a blessing in disguise but for others it was the opposite.

 

[sptrawler]

Thankfully I’ve had mostly excellent managers throughout my career but one bad experience years ago taught me a lot.

Sociopaths are a small % of the population but such people are disproportionately attracted to positions of power over others. As such they are a greater, still small but greater, % of managers.

As I and the entire team discovered, the absolute worst thing to do should you find yourself working for such an individual is demonstrate high performance. That’ll paint a great big target on your back, note back not front, and you’d better be moving on real quick should that occur. Note that any chance of a positive reference is already gone at that point so don’t bother asking.

With a bit of luck you never encounter such a person but there’s a few of them around.

It was years ago but I remember that meeting as though it were yesterday. I am the steamroller and you are the road about to be flattened. That’s an exact quote by the way said to the entire staff at the time by a new senior manager.

Changed my world view somewhat. I’ve been more to the political Left ever since. Had this experience not occurred then I’d be more inclined toward supporting things like Work Choices. I have however seen how that sort of thing could be massively abused and I will not forget.

No comment as to where other than to say it wasn’t the power industry and this was years ago although to my understanding the same individual is still doing much the same.

At a personal level in hindsight it was a blessing in disguise but for others it was the opposite.

Funny that our profession must attract them, I have had a Manager that I told was a F&$*# disgrace, and I've had a shop steward tell me that if it was the last thing he did he would have me sacked. Same era.
I don't know where the Manager is now, but the shop steward is now a Manager.
That's why I lean slightly right, too many incompetent workers, put their hope in the hand's of people who in actuality don't give a $hit about them IMO.
Having said that, generally I have found all but two of my managers, to be excellent, especially those that came through the engineering ranks.

 

[Smurf1976]

Having said that, generally I have found all but two of my managers, to be excellent, especially those that came through the engineering ranks.

All the best managers I’ve had, had some sort of practical background.

Engineering, trades, one was media, but they were all from a background where things needed to be done and deadlines were driven by real factors not just what someone decided.

The dud had a degree in business, an incredible degree of arrogance, and upon investigation a history of running things down not growing them.

No comment as to who or where other than emphasising that it was not a state owned electricity generation business and it was years ago.

 

[sptrawler]

All the best managers I’ve had, had some sort of practical background.

Engineering, trades, one was media, but they were all from a background where things needed to be done and deadlines were driven by real factors not just what someone decided.

The dud had a degree in business, an incredible degree of arrogance, and upon investigation a history of running things down not growing them.

No comment as to who or where other than emphasising that it was not a state owned electricity generation business and it was years ago.

Well my manager was party to setting our KPI's for our bonus, to higher efficiencies, than were achieved on commissioning 40 years prior.
The shop steward, who was the biggest bully I've ever met, when he left one of the top executives said "it is a sad day, to see him go". I thought WTF.
Yet he had all the muppet's in the work place, eating out of his hand, go figure.
Maybe independent thinking is a thing of the past.

 

[luutzu]

Well my manager was party to setting our KPI's for our bonus, to higher efficiencies, than were achieved on commissioning 40 years prior.
The shop steward, who was the biggest bully I've ever met, when he left one of the top executives said "it is a sad day, to see him go". I thought WTF.
Yet he had all the muppet's in the work place, eating out of his hand, go figure.
Maybe independent thinking is a thing of the past.

Who did that muppet shop steward bully? You lazy no good plebs right?

So the exec weren't kidding to miss him and his tough love for the workers.


Geez man, whatever happened to the old Aussie past time of cutting down those over achieving (or just lucky sperm) tall poppies?

Talk about over breeding and being on welfare. How's that Queen's grand daughter's wedding ey? Or that state funeral (i.e. taxpayer's funded) for Kerry Packer some years ago...

I guess we prefer our welfare recipients rich.

 

[sptrawler]

Who did that muppet shop steward bully? You lazy no good plebs right?

Typical of you, I never said he was a muppet. But when you are bullying, who cares about accuracy?

So the exec weren't kidding to miss him and his tough love for the workers.

The exec's didn't miss him, he is now a manager.

Geez man, whatever happened to the old Aussie past time of cutting down those over achieving (or just lucky sperm) tall poppies?

Talk about over breeding and being on welfare. How's that Queen's grand daughter's wedding ey? Or that state funeral (i.e. taxpayer's funded) for Kerry Packer some years ago...

I guess we prefer our welfare recipients rich.

Well I'm not too worried about ending up an a pension, it doesn't sound too bad to me.

 

[IFocus]

If that person is delivering well above the average, I'd say they're paid well above the average.


"I’m a small business owner
The more I reward my employees
By wage,commissions,incentives,and
Bonuses."

Great way to put it. It's reciprocal. If the employee gives effort over and above expectations, they'll be paid over and above the standard.
If they're no good, they'll eventually be asked to leave the company.

The US has been promoting this ethic for decades and for decades wages growth have been flat the numbers just don't support your position for the majority.

I too have been a top earner (oh to be humble) for what I did but I appreciate that was the exception everyone else didn't.

Again wealth transfer has been from people like us to the top .5%.

As PZ said this has been done to death before cheers

 

[PZ99]

"
This seems like victim mentality. If I'm providing more value than other workers, I'll get paid more. Three times I've handed in my resignation and received a counter offer with a 15% increase or more - and there are many far better than me...
This is not because Workchoices are BS, but because the employer thought I was providing value.
If you've restricted your realm of employment to 7/11, where you're easily replaced with 2 hours training, then why should you be paid more? Put in some effort, up-skill yourself, then maybe you have a leg to stand on when bargaining. Basically, take responsibility for yourself, because no-one else will.

Most large employers don't care about your work ethic. They just want to maximise their profits by paying you the least amount they can get away with.
Who's playing the victim? Last time I checked, it was the employers doing all the whinging about pay rates. Most people don't have the luxury of just resigning and job hopping - they need stable employment, especially when applying for a home loan. Your situation is vastly different to most.

I don't know much here, but I can only assume that his employer either bargained him down to lower pay, or removed him from the company because he could be replaced more cheaply. I'm only guessing.
If either of these are true, WorkChoices is not to blame. If this is the case (big if), then your mate clearly over-leveraged himself, bought a house he could not afford, then blamed the changing terms of employment for losing his house. But, I'm guessing, and if you would like to discuss this point further, I'd love to hear more detail.

It was a transport company with about 200 workers and when their agreement finished in 2007 they were offered a crappy deal where weekend workers were around $300 a week worse off. Workchoices was entirely to blame because it allowed that deal to eventuate. It's a bit unrealistic to say he over-leveraged himself when the IR laws were subsequently changed without being taken to an election and no prior warning given.

Because people don't agree with you, it's an obvious troll? Please, get off your high horse. It's been a relatively clean thread up to this point...

That's a dishonest assertion and I didn't say anything remotely like that - you just invented it and used it to gain a quasi brownie point for the sake of nothing.

The reason I said it's a troll thread is because the original poster was baiting others by linking tax cuts from a budget statement to robbing the poor to pay the rich. Read the thread and see the responses.

 

[Klogg]

Most large employers don't care about your work ethic. They just want to maximise their profits by paying you the least amount they can get away with.
Who's playing the victim? Last time I checked, it was the employers doing all the whinging about pay rates. Most people don't have the luxury of just resigning and job hopping - they need stable employment, especially when applying for a home loan. Your situation is vastly different to most.


It was a transport company with about 200 workers and when their agreement finished in 2007 they were offered a crappy deal where weekend workers were around $300 a week worse off. Workchoices was entirely to blame because it allowed that deal to eventuate. It's a bit unrealistic to say he over-leveraged himself when the IR laws were subsequently changed without being taken to an election and no prior warning given.


That's a dishonest assertion and I didn't say anything remotely like that - you just invented it and used it to gain a quasi brownie point for the sake of nothing.

The reason I said it's a troll thread is because the original poster was baiting others by linking tax cuts from a budget statement to robbing the poor to pay the rich. Read the thread and see the responses.

"Most large employers don't care about your work ethic. They just want to maximise their profits by paying you the least amount they can get away with."

Not true, I've always worked for large employers. In fact, the large banks are almost always willing to bid more for you, if you're providing value.


"Most people don't have the luxury of just resigning and job hopping - they need stable employment, especially when applying for a home loan. Your situation is vastly different to most."

It's different because I made it that way. I don't know if you've noticed, but people overpay for security in many industries (IT especially, contract rates are 30-40% above the full-time equivalent). The only time you'd need to overpay for security is when you NEED the steady paycheck... like when you have a mortgage.
There's nothing special about what I'm doing.


"It was a transport company with about 200 workers and when their agreement finished in 2007 they were offered a crappy deal where weekend workers were around $300 a week worse off. "

I agree, it sucks given he was already in the situation. But an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Did any of the workers try to get an additional source of income before **** hit the fan? (online business, weekend work, etc.). Did anyone factor this in before getting their mortgage, instead of assuming their pay would only ever stay the same or go higher?

I can go on, but you get the point.


"The reason I said it's a troll thread is because the original poster was baiting others by linking tax cuts from a budget statement to robbing the poor to pay the rich. Read the thread and see the responses."

I'm sorry, I completely missed that. My apologies.