Workplace reg changes.

[Jamie XR6]

Originally Posted by John McMaster

Jamie It gladdens my heart to see that what I and others stood up for in the 60's has paid off.
More power to you stick it out get the best deal you can..and then go and work for the private sector to bolster your pension earnings

You bet.

I've seen a lot of changes in my 20 years and we are closer to the private sector than ever before.

The ADF has had to change, they were spending too much money training people only to have them walk out and get a civie job for more money.

Mind you the Airforce is the closest thing to civies in uniform but then, that's always been the case :

[MO]

Originally Posted by Jamie XR6

You bet.

I've seen a lot of changes in my 20 years and we are closer to the private sector than ever before.

The ADF has had to change, they were spending too much money training people only to have them walk out and get a civie job for more money.

Mind you the Airforce is the closest thing to civies in uniform but then, that's always been the case :

Yep that was my branch,was in from 66' to 72' just can't beat the RAAF.

[Tote]

A couple of thoughts:

I've been employed by both big companies and small business, small businesses which are going to be exempted from unfair dismissal in my experience didnt ever take much notice of the laws anyway. I was sacked with no other entitlements than holiday pay due to a downturn in business because I was the highest paid employee. The boss figured that he could hire two monkeys for what he was paying me. The effort required to get an unfair dismissal case heard was way too hard and what would it have achieved ? who wants to work for a company that dosent want you ? they would only have framed me for stealing or something eventually anyway.
I now work for a multinational computer company who's HR department have ethics are no better, they do stuff like change the policy regarding the use of our company cars without notifying employees (we pay 15K pre tax for the cars) and know that they can get away with it because no one is going to take on their legal might.

Having said that I dont know that the changes are a good thing, I've yet to hear a balanced discussion on exactly what it means and who will be affected.
The union movement have been using scare tactics in their ads IMHO

For those that are whining about the Liberal government's power in the senate, get used to it, that's how our parlamentry system works. Someone must have ticked the Liberal box on the senate paper for them to be in this position. If you feel that strongly about it join the local branch of your favourite party and get involved, maybe then we will have an opposition party that is electable.

It kind of annoys me that the "battler" is always brought up in discussions by the pollies and the media. In this age of university education I would think that the average family income would have to be at least 70K a year. I've got mates who drive trucks and are paid more than that, if both people are working its not very hard to go above $82,000 where most assistance for child care etc cuts out. We are looking at paying $2000.00 per month for child care for our two kids so that my wife can go back to work.
I'm sure that we aren't the only people in the same boat, for me political parties who stick up for the people earning $30,000 a year have little relevence.
I realise that there are a lot of young people here who are on low wages at the moment but by the time most of them get to 30 they should be earning reasonable money, they are not the battlers that the media seem to be referring to, its always the "average family" who earn 30k a year, I don't think that there are that many people out there that fit that description.
Feel free to flame me on the last point as I do work in Canberra so maybe I am out of touch with the real world. I just think the opposition would do better if they were more focussed on improving the lot for middle income earners, hell I might even vote for them !

Regards,
Tote

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by John McMaster

I guess there is really only one thing to say here......UNITY IS STRENGTH...become a member of your respective union and fight this.

Here here!

Originally Posted by Citric XR6

What worries me is that people in jobs like mine (freight train driver) are reporting to managers with abosolutely no experience or qualifications in the industry. Its a problem that has come about in the last few years with privatisation and we're constantly fighting with the managers over whats needed to get the job done eg: Loco maintainance, shift requirements etc.

We get the same problem over at the ferries. Lots of middle to upper management with absolutely no maritime experience whatsoever. Most of them have yet to set foot on deck and see what the real problems are. The turnover of managers every couple of years does little to help things.

Originally Posted by Psycho Chicken

Personally I reckon most of the people whinging about it are the bludgers who expect everything to be given to them. Get off your **** and make yourself worthwhile to you boss, they won't give you the flick then.

As far as that is concerned in most competitive workplaces, you are just a number. Doesn't matter a rats **** how skilled or experienced you are at your job, or how much of a brown noser you are.

Originally Posted by John McMaster

OK I was a union sec/rep for over twenty years...I can tell you there will be those that will exploit the new system. An example in the sugar industry if your employed for 12mths you have to be made permanent..what do the bosses do let you go at 11mths and 2 weeks,then rehire you again after a month.
So what happens to lsl,super etc?

I've seen it already happen at our workplace. We had casuals on probationary periods of three months, and then employment terminated. They were then rehired after the three month period, with NO accruement of sick leave, long service leave or super.

I don't see anything positive come out of the changes to the Workplace Relations Act. It will be the race to the bottom for employers in the labour market. Free market forces in overdrive.

Summation of data used from the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training (ACIRRT)

Non unionised certified agreements and Australian Workplace Agreements are associated with cost cutting, particularly with the spreading hours of work at employees' expense. Certified union enterprise agreements are more likely to deal with the quality of working life, family friendly employment issues, training and development and productivity improvement. Overall the union alternative provided employees with better pay, particularly in the private sector, and conditions. The [data] shows the union and non union streams increasingly diverging between what have been called the 'high' and 'low' roads of employer strategy.

[chippa6]

I am totally against these proposed changes. On the surface everyone is talking about how the laws will affect them, but as many have said in the thread - If you are doing a good job you have nothing to worry about - WRONG. It all boils down to feeling secure and the sense of stability. You might get on with your current manager, what happens if they get a promotion and a new manager is brought in who does not get along with you, or they have a chip on their shoulder, under these new laws they CAN get rid of you. !!!

It will obviously have ramifications for the majority of workers in companies with under 100 employees for which the changes are targeted towards - BUT, it will also follow on the employees who feel that the changes wont affect them because their company has more than 100 employees.

How, well for example I know of a major home electrical retailer that has staff from different positions within the business employed by different companies. eg Admin staff, wharehouse, sales etc etc. this means that even though 150 people might work at XXXXX, the 50 wharehouse staff are employed by X company and so on. They now will lose any recourse for majority of the rights they have under the current IR legislative framework. and If the new laws are brought in, Unions will have very limited ability to to provide benefit to their members.

There has always been a power imbalance. That is whole point of Unions, to even up the scale.
We need to really get behind our unions now mroe than ever to provide a United voice, as I believe none of us wants to see the scales less in our favour.

[MNM96]

Originally Posted by svo347

Yeah right chook, what if the boss didnt like you for whatever reason, he can sack you with out another excuse.

Hey,
I managed to Feed, Clothe, Educate, House, Transport, Entertain etc my family, while still enjoying the odd Crownie, before I got a job here, I'll manage after.
If you work hard, your employer will be stoked with you.
If you are unhappy with the new regulations, its probably cause you are a bludger, and are only currently employed because your boss can't sack your lazy dot because of the dumb unfair dismissal laws. You are most likely the reason these laws have been changed.
This is not anti Union talk. I appreciate the need for the Unions. If I worked for a large company(say 1000 workers at a site) I would join. In a smaller company, where you have a boss on site, if you can't discuss problems direct with him, you are better off elsewhere.
Just my two bobs worth!

[jthommo]

Whilst not completely on subject, here is a little story on tax cuts...
Subject: Theory on Tax Cuts

Now, get you calculator out and see if you can understand this one.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten people go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

They ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a problem. "Since you are all such good customers," the owner said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four were unaffected, they would still eat for free. What about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get their 'fair share'?

The six paying customers realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. If they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and the sixth would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same amount, and proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so - The fifth, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. The first four continued to eat for free. Once outside the restaurant, they began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth, pointing to the tenth diner "but they got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that they got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh. "Why should they get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine surrounded and beat up the tenth diner.

The next night the tenth diner didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without number ten. When it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

[XD 351 Ute]

Well I can't wait to be working 15 different part time jobs while being paid $1.50 an hour just to scrape a living together.

It will happen, it's just a matter of when.

Ed

[Work Horse]

I own a small business and employ staff.
I have had several negative experiences with unions over the years, I am no apologist for them.
Workplace relations, and the laws/guidelines governing them need urgent reform.

Having said that I believe we all should be very concerned about what the government is purposing.

Many people will be disadvantaged by the changes. People who are the most vulnerable and the least able to stand up for themselves.

It is also a fairly obvious attempt to reduce the power of the unions. Many people may not care for unions or the Labor party, but a strong opposition is vital to a strong democarcy.

Apparently, the time and money employers are going to save by these changes will mean more jobs? Sorry I'm so bogged down with GST compliance I hardy have time to think.

Workplace regulation reform is long over due. Bending over 3 millon workers and the unions at the same time is not required.

Be afraid! This government has too much power!!

[bindi]

I don't like these changes at all. It's just more rights taken away from us.

[Sylox]

Originally Posted by XD 351 Ute

Well I can't wait to be working 15 different part time jobs while being paid $1.50 an hour just to scrape a living together.

It will happen, it's just a matter of when.

Ed

I agree its going to be great fun throwing even more of my time away to cut a living. I make most of my income at the moment from doing crazy Over -time at bogus hours. My base hourly rate is absolute crap (although above the award). Now I'll lose my sick pay - holiday pay - OT rates - w/e rates. On top of the tax i pay I will be making SFA. And if you dont like your new $2 per hour rate we can now sack you and grab one of the 50000 others off the un-employment line.
Unfortunately living in the country it isnt as easy to just get a job at another workshop etc. I can see I'll be forced to move to the city and take up night work again.
Anyone making good money has no idea on how hard this is going to make it for the low income earners.

[Ghiadude]

Im lucky enough to work in a place where im paid fairly well, but i come from a place where money was scarce and my job was constantly on the line. I am a firm believer in " a fair days pay for a fair days work" and i cant see how this will help anyone except maybe wealthy (comparitively) business owners . It allows them to sack bludging workers YES but it also allows them to be ruthless with people they have personal issues with. and that is UN_AUSTRALIAN! to those that dont think that there is families that earn less than 30k combined......your living in a dream world and before you ask yes me and my wife struggled for ages and beleive me it wasnt through lack of trying. What i feel sometimes happens on issues like this is that people dont act because it probably wont effect them i hope it doesnt, but this country is about sticking up for people less fortunate than yourself. Lets also not forget that this law will allow the casualisation of the workforce as a whole... if you havent done casual work yourself presonally, please dont even try to comment.

Not everyone is in a nice job. not everyone has a trade or a degree to fall back on. not everyone lives in the city and have a smorgasboard of jobs to choose from.

In short the government is proposing changes that will make us competitive in the world market. they do this by governing for the few, not for ALL.

[SpoolMan]

Originally Posted by tx3dude

In short the government is proposing changes that will make us competitive in the world market. they do this by governing for the few, not for ALL.

I agree, if we end up with a Free Trade Agreement with China we have 2 choices, we drastically lower wages in manufacturing or we close down manufacturing down in Australia.
It will be impossible to compete with so many billion people over in China working for a few dollars a week on even par.
There living stantards are very much different to ours.

[gtfpv]

TO THINK IT ALL STARTED WHAN WE ACCEPTED CASUALISATION IN JOBS WORKING ALONGSIDE PEMANANTS WITH DIFFERANT CONDITIONS then after 20 years we get new breeds of workers that think they are doing well working 2 or three casual jobs . meanwhile govt goes about making secondary boycott strikes i;;igal from thier a downhill run . shortage of trianing . and you geussed it free trade . and of course increased immigration working visas. and no right to complain , but we're doing better now than we ever have in the history of australia , so they keep telling us . and they should know,nobody strikes anymore the truck drivers dont block the freeways the schools hospitals transport and police and ports dont shut down together , so everyone must be happy.( not for the fact they can be personally sued )how about employers now can they be held accountable for instant dissmisal with a replacement casual coming in as your walking out. everyone is so happy that we all just feel so confident that our children are going to grow up and have it at least as good as we had it . well we better anyway because if we dont the only way for the people to have a say will be to put it all on the line . but on that note if companies piad more attention to unions and got them involved in fiar dissmissles the bludges would have to pick up or ship out. so what do yuo think the real agenda is here . ican tell you one thing .they are not after the casual workforce or the small business workers .

[Mustang Dave]

Great topic! _2:

Now who voted for Mr Howard?..............Not me ! out:

I work for toyota australia, I am in the union(1st time in my 20 year working life).They held a meeting told us all the scary facts, I dont believe everything they say,but I would rather have them then not.

Does anybody here have a current workplace agreement?

Toyota's has just been renewed last week for another 4 years, so we will be covered untill 2009. After that who knows...........

[chippa6]

Hey Mustang Dave, my GF is on AWA for her position and thought she wouldn't be affected for a while at least - but as with the vast majority of AWA's and also CA's they only modify areas of need to suit the company or nature of the business/industry and very few actually have provisions regarding dismissal and allowable matters.

In short it is simply a modification of the award and all areas not modified are the same as the award or current IR legislation. In my Gf case it means that her wages are set for a period of years (above award) but with trade offs with regards to sick pay, hours of work etc. But she will be affected by the proposed changes to dismissal legislation etc.

I think a lot of people are just now beginning to see the bigger picture and how these changes might seem bad on the surface, But, with a deeper look and seeing how these changes will follow through into many areas of our everyday working life you really start to appreciate how VERY BAD the situation could become.

As I said in my previous post - My safety Blanket is is feeling secure in my job where I do work hard and produce results, but the changes will take away that safety blanket, who wants not to feel secure and stable in their job?

[RED_EL_XR8]

Originally Posted by svo347

Yeah right chook, what if the boss didnt like you for whatever reason, he can sack you with out another excuse.

This one always has me wondering, I guess I'm taking the simplistic view but if the boss, managers ect do not like you, why in Hell would you want to continue working there?

[Citric GT]

Originally Posted by Mustang Dave

Great topic! _2:

Now who voted for Mr Howard?..............Not me ! out:

Me...: only because I didn't want Latham coming in at such a sensitive time - with Iraq etc.

Luckily, I'm on an EA that runs till December 2006. The only problem is that its an EA that only covers about 40 of us in NSW. Now I can see why my huge company, Pacific National (the old Freightcorp, Freight Australia and National Rail Corporation) has created divisions of divisions of divisions of the company. With the exception on Hunter Valley Coal division we are just about all working in small teams and divisions which seems to fit in with the "under 100" rule.

It will be an interesting time over the next few years and I'm not particularly looking for to it.

The worst part is that I'll have to delay my new car purchase till I see how I'm going to be affected!:

[pauljh74]

It's certainly not just the "bludgers" who are worried about these changes. I've been working in the same company for 10 years and don't believe I will be sacked because of the standard of work I do. I am looking for more work as the business is quiet and most of the guys in my area are working minimum shifts.

With these new rules, all it would take is to have a personal disagreement with a boss and he'll kick you out - even if your work performance is good. Then there's the shifty employers who underpay their staff and will simply sack them if they complain. Maybe someone will try to uphold safety standards and cop the ire of the boss for that. The government's line is it will create more jobs - how can that be? The only way they can do that is to split existing jobs into smaller jobs and employing extra people, or to sack existing workers. All this will do is shuffle around unemployment figures to make the government look good. The reduction of award entitlements or "simplification" will only leave workers worse off.

An example of what can happen is evident by the dispute at Kemalex Plastics. The company wants to put all workers on contracts with few benefits and they have to get their own public liability insurance. Despite this low act, the government will not act. Giving businesses more scope to fire people will only lead to cases far worse than this - that are legal.

[svo347]

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

This one always has me wondering, I guess I'm taking the simplistic view but if the boss, managers ect do not like you, why in Hell would you want to continue working there?

Quiet possibly they may not have enough qualifications to do anything else ie could be a trainee, or possibly you have been working there for afew years more than happy with the work you do & the staff around you, then your boss quits & a new one is appointed etc.

[Quasi]

Originally Posted by svo347

Well Im surprised that no one has started a thread on this so here goes.
Do you think the new laws they are trying to put thru are fair, I mean seriously look at the big picture.
If the laws change under the current proposition, you can easily get fired from your job, no more unfair dismissal, you also will not get sick leave benefits, annual leave entitlements & no more double bubble on public holidays etc. Just one flat rate!!.
No more 10 hr breaks off between shifts etc....
IMHO i believe it will only make the little people trying to get ahead, lag further behind....
Your view...

"The sky is falling...the sky is falling"

A workplace agreement is only a contract. It shows an agreed amount of money, for an agreed number of hours. Outside that is overtime, unless you are silly enough to sign a contract that states otherwise.

As for sick and rec leave...don't be bloody stupid. If you sign an employment contract that states you get no leave then you would be gauranteed a lifetime job.......as the company b*$#h who gets taken out the back and butt f*&$%d by every other person in the workplace......cause you would deserve it.

The exception, of course, is if you are employed as a casual staff member. In this case you don't amount to a pile of cold bird droppings and aren't entitled to s*%t anyway

If you haven't given the boss a reason why would he sack you?

[svo347]

its called reality, he just doesnt have to like you,you may not fit into his idea of a presentable employee but you you still do your job properly, also personalities

[MNM96]

Originally Posted by Citric XR6

Me...: only because I didn't want Latham coming in at such a sensitive time - with Iraq etc.

I'm with you. Who honestly wanted a bloke, as the Leader of the Country, who argued with a cabbie about the price of a fair, and Broke his ARM because of it!
If he was in charge, when David Wood was held hostage, he would have passed a law to go and beat up all foriegners! ing_sm :gren:
No Thanks py:

[csv8]

Remember, Adolph Howard said no GST. No troops for IRAQ. No one will be worse off under my IR CHANGES. My left ball plays jingle bells then ,if you believe that. I am a nurses union rep, and we are very worried, as we are Federally covered. Loose penalty rates and people will loose houses etc.

[MO]

Originally Posted by csv8

Remember, Adolph Howard said no GST. No troops for IRAQ. No one will be worse off under my IR CHANGES. My left ball plays jingle bells then ,if you believe that. I am a nurses union rep, and we are very worried, as we are Federally covered. Loose penalty rates and people will loose houses etc.

The Federal Awards have to all intents and purposes been left untouched,at this stage.
I'm curious as to who you work for to have a Fed Awd as a nurse considering most nurses I know are covered by State Awards.

However this is only the thin edge of the wedge,look out if they regain power at the next election.
Which reminds me will it be Howard or Costello.

On another point when the last minimum wage case went through the Gov't argued for a $44.00 p/w reduction in the min wage.

Think ourselves lucky that the IR (possibly decided that as its demise was near they) put up the wage.

[347Stroker]

Adolph Howard is the lowet, most evil person to ever run this country in my opinion.
He is only riding on the back of the wealth and success of Hawke/Keating labour years, and now he is going to lay in the boot.....

Lets take the first home buyers grant for a start...

It was now so easy for all to get a house, use the grant as a deposit, and off you go, buying your first house.
So now alot of people, that would otherwise be renting, are now home owners.....
All these people owning houses one day get hit with higher interest rates, and they are struggling to make ends meet, just to pay the repayments......
See where this is going, now the employer knows this, and can make the employee work longer hours, worse shifts, any days......and the employee has nothing he can do, because its either the SACK, or LOSE the family home...

Look at the bigger picture, Howard wants us to all be scared and drive down our wages to be competitive with Asia...

I wish I knew who voted for him, because in all of my questioning, I have never not once come across someone proud enough to admit to voting for the FOOL!!!

[MO]

Well I don't know if you've read my posts,but if you have you will see that I DID NOT vote lib.

[347Stroker]

Originally Posted by John McMaster

Well I don't know if you've read my posts,but if you have you will see that I DID NOT vote lib.

I'm with you brother, and yes, I read all of the thread, and its funny to see how dillusional some people really are....
UNITY IN STRENGTH

[MO]

Originally Posted by Quasi

"The sky is falling...the sky is falling"

A workplace agreement is only a contract. It shows an agreed amount of money, for an agreed number of hours. Outside that is overtime, unless you are silly enough to sign a contract that states otherwise.

As for sick and rec leave...don't be bloody stupid. If you sign an employment contract that states you get no leave then you would be gauranteed a lifetime job.......as the company b*$#h who gets taken out the back and butt f*&$%d by every other person in the workplace......cause you would deserve it.

The exception, of course, is if you are employed as a casual staff member. In this case you don't amount to a pile of cold bird droppings and aren't entitled to s*%t anyway

If you haven't given the boss a reason why would he sack you?

Quasi; you do live in your own little world don't you, get a grip on reality sport,there are ppl out there who do not have the smarts or experience to negotiate an AWA.

Thats why we have unions...to make sure that the disadvantadge out there are not exploited by the capitalist beaugois who are only there to line their pockets at the workers expense.

I see you work in the ACT...a protected species no doubt?

Sorry about typos but will fix later.

[Dark Horse]

I've seen an AWA, it's far from a pretty sight.