Wage Rises

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.
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.

Click to expand...

Tech,

You have hit the nail on the head.

Specialise in something and name your rates.

Snake

Snake Pliskin said:

Tech,

You have hit the nail on the head.

Specialise in something and name your rates.

Snake

Click to expand...

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

tech/a said:

Face to face there are only 16 of us.

Click to expand...

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)

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

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!

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

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.

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...

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!

..

Click to expand...

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.

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...

Rafa said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?