A.W.A "s ARE THEY REALLY NEGOTIABLE ?? like the govt says ???

gtfpv · 16-02-2007, 02:15 PM

THIS IS NOT meant to be a political debating thread .

my wife was offered a job at an interview today . the employer said that 80% of thier workforce are on AWA 's . it is a casual position, and thepay is lower than expected . she thought she try and negotiate a better deal in order for her to take the job. the interviewers face dropped , and he apoligised saying that everyone here is on the same pay in equal positions .
and that he cannot negotiate ????? WTF . ??? ANYHOW it paid $18.64 /hr my wife is currantly on double that for the work she does + benifts etc .
after 3 months it becomes a permanant P/T pos . shift at the same pay.
the interviewer said that this is a company workers agreememt .. NOT A MANAGEMENT POSITION and only managers agreements can be negotiated . ( discrimination) anyhow she basically politely said no. now 96 people applied . 5 are being interviewed they said she is the best for the job . i'm wondering who the others are ie . school leavers , mums returning to work , or released prisoners trying to start again ????

my questions are these ?????

has anyone negotiated an AWA. for the better .
has anyone written thier own AWA . and negotiated with the company.
or is it mostly a sign here or F /OFF DEAL.

because this is not what our HUMBLE GOVT TELSS US ABOUT WORKERS CHOICE "
:monkes: .

Kommandant · 16-02-2007, 02:35 PM

I was young and nieve when I started work on the AWA (still am I guess) and I just accepted what my boss gave me in the agreement (which to me wasnt bad).

Work mate of mine worked out his own agreement, he makes a little less hourly then i do, but after midnight he gains an extra $12 over me.

And we do the same work! (security car) - Wish I had negotiated!

My boss is a great bloke though, So i guess you can only negotiate when you arn't working for a complete f-wit.

Casper · 16-02-2007, 02:41 PM

I deal with award rules on a daily basis.. the "Company" is full of manure, anyone is allowed to negotiate an independent contract if they wish (within the guidelines of the work choices act as is rolls out), there is no law against it. Its simply a case of the company being too lazy/stupid/arrogant/cheap to do it... or it is heavily unionized and they don't want to risk upsetting the apple cart. Nothing at all to do with government of any type, place the blame fair and square at the companies feet.

The Yeti · 16-02-2007, 04:21 PM

The company is workign with in the bounderys of the law, these 5 people being interviewd and the rest of the companys work force all know where the door is if they dont like what they are getting, if everyone there thought it was that poor they would move on then inorder to get people to do the job the company would have to lift their pay and conditions to level that they can both make money and keep staff turn over at a reasonable rate

after the last election all the scare mungers were crying that once the new laws came in to place there would be mass sackings and every one would be out of work trigering a resesion, well put simply it didnt happen, why becasue business knows that with out its people no matter how unskilled these people may be, they have no business. There were some sackigns and some rather unfair form what I understand but there are 3 sides to every story and at the end of the day if you dont like it you know where the door is dont let it hit you on the **** on the way out.

that being said I personaly dont agree with the current work place laws but I do feel there needed to be change sooner, or later the penjulum will swing back and find a common ground. IU personaly have never been on a AWA even when I was on the tools I negotiated my terms what I beleived was a fair package it must have been becasue the company agreed to it.

eb_5litre · 16-02-2007, 04:40 PM

Gee, too bad if your in a remote area with limited choice and no prospect of relocating.

The Yeti · 16-02-2007, 05:08 PM

As I said I dint agree with the current laws but you cant tell me said small business in a the remote town should have to put up with a dodgey emplyee taking them for all there worth either as I said there needs ot be common ground

4Vman · 16-02-2007, 05:18 PM

Yes.. the sky didnt cave in, the worlds worst recession didnt eventuate and were experincing the country's lowest unemployment rates that i can remember....

eb_5litre · 16-02-2007, 05:19 PM

Well the question is "are they negotiable".... the answer is - No, not always.

4Vman · 16-02-2007, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eb_5litre

Well the question is "are they negotiable".... the answer is - No, not always.

EVERYTHING is negotiable, its an employees market out there now, you just have to be enthusiastic and smart.

Outbackjack · 16-02-2007, 06:26 PM

Why wont the Government release the stats on all the AWA's that have been imposed over the last 12 months? I know why, can anyone else guess?

4Vman · 16-02-2007, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

Why wont the Government release the stats on all the AWA's that have been imposed over the last 12 months? I know why, can anyone else guess?

Cause it means nothing and nobody cares?

GCFordChic · 16-02-2007, 06:54 PM

Sounds like your wife was offered a position under a collective agreement based on a national award for either skill level (like pharmacy assistant award level 1, level 2 etc) or job type (like a checkout chic all adult workers paid the same, up to the company if they pay award or higher). With the introduction of the new workplace laws there was mass hysteria centred around the fact that people believed their collective agreement would be replaced by individual agreements (AWAs) and that everyone would be screwed over by having to negotiate individually.

I am assuming the position was for a fairly large company with many people doing the same level job as your wife. I also assume the interviewer was a manager, but not the owner/CEO of the company and is not willing to make decisions to negotiate pay when the company policy is probably to pay according to the state or national award (which covers rate of pay, working conditions, penalties etc). Many companies continue to have staff on collective agreements because of the difficulties and time it would take to negotiate with every employee.

So I don't think your story has much to do with AWAs, except that a company did not seem to want to employer her under one.

As for your question... my fiancee recently got promoted and has an individual agreement. We managed to get a substantial amount extra per year without losing any entitlements and the contract contained no 'dodgy bits'.

It depends on the employer, the company, their experience with other employees, and the employees work ethic, quality and suitability.

Outbackjack · 16-02-2007, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Cause it means nothing and nobody cares?

I care. But you are correct. It is all irrelevant now as most of Australia sees the Howard Government for what they are. Unless there is another Tampa or children over board. It's all over for "work choices".

Cheer all.

Casper · 16-02-2007, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

I care. But you are correct. It is all irrelevant now as most of Australia sees the Howard Government for what they are. Unless there is another Tampa or children over board. It's all over for "work choices".

Cheer all.

I more step towards a "political discussion" and this thread is closed.

4Vman · 16-02-2007, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

I care. But you are correct. It is all irrelevant now as most of Australia sees the Howard Government for what they are. Unless there is another Tampa or children over board. It's all over for "work choices".

Cheer all.

Its irrelevant because AWA's are negotiable and not the bad thing that some want to paint them as.
I know of plenty of very rewarding and healthy AWA's.
AWA's are a good thing because the allow the employee to negotiate.

Sourbastard · 16-02-2007, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Its irrelevant because AWA's are negotiable and not the bad thing that some want to paint them as.
I know of plenty of very rewarding and healthy AWA's.
AWA's are a good thing because the allow the employee to negotiate.

aslong the employer is open to negotiation and the employee has a position to negotiate from. Not everyone does, and they take what they can. Thats one of the original reasons unionism was created.

I wont argue about right or wrong, people can make their own judgements, but the above simply outlines the way it is.

nugget378 · 16-02-2007, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Its irrelevant because AWA's are negotiable and not the bad thing that some want to paint them as.
I know of plenty of very rewarding and healthy AWA's.
AWA's are a good thing because the allow the employee to negotiate.

Dont agree Norm,the negotiation goes as far as take it or leave it and thats it for the vast majority of unskilled or semi skilled work,while there might be the odd instance of a certain type who is un loseable to the company which will of course turn out different,whats the bet these are the examples trotted out to promote this rort..

CrankR · 16-02-2007, 07:40 PM

Can't we talk political' in the bar? S'pose not?

Anyway, I have just gone through the whole AWA thing at work. Reading through the agreement we all got to vote whether we liked it or not. Things did get changed to be fair to everyone and in the end everyone was happy.

The pay system was the main change which put alot of people out until it was all explained.
Basically we were graded based on skill level and the level u fell into was paid at a certain rate. In the end we ended up with a pay that was similar to what we were getting anyway. I saw my boss a few days later about a pay rise and walked away with my pay rate + 5%. I was stoked as it was about a dollar an hour better.
The reason i got more than others with the same skill level was, and i argued, that "they might have the same level... but i do the jobs more efficiently and at a better quality than them.

That could be a good arguement for your wife.

4Vman · 16-02-2007, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nugget378

Dont agree Norm,the negotiation goes as far as take it or leave it and thats it for the vast majority of unskilled or semi skilled work,while there might be the odd instance of a certain type who is un loseable to the company which will of course turn out different,whats the bet these are the examples trotted out to promote this rort..

I think that is choice in itself though mate, wouldnt you like to know what your employer is like before you take the job? Unemployment figures are very low, and frankly quite worrying IMO, there just isnt the appropriatly skilled people out there for the avaliable jobs, i really dont believe there are too many employers in the drivers seat at the moment. Ive got many friends who own or work in business's looking for staff, and my Wife also works in recruitment, they simply cant find people to fill jobs, and they're from a wide and diverse market spread.

DODDO · 16-02-2007, 07:57 PM

I care. AWA's are bad for the workers of this country. Great for business owners, no doubt. You cant tell me that all companys will 'negotiate' with you better pay, coditions etc, or even equal what you would recieve if you were on a standard award agreement, not an AWA.
You here these radio broadcasters, like Allan Jones, selling AWA's saying that they are a great thing, that they should know because they are on them. They are only great for them. Let me explain.
They have large audiences, which brings in big advertising contracts, which makes the station lots of money. When these broadcasters negotiate agreements, they are'nt going to lose. The station will do whatever they can to keep them there, because they simply make them money, so in turn, they wont lose because they are wanted. They are unique. The announcers are in a win/win situation.
For the smaller people in the workforce, which is the majority of us, we are not unique. There is always going to be somebody who can do your job and will do it for less money. Therefor, we can be sold off and replaced.
The government wont release figures on AWA's, because with Kevin Rudd at the helm of the Labor party who's very good contender for the next prime minister, will sink the Liberal party.

But as its been previously stated, it depends on who you work for

I have too much to lose on an AWA. I have great conditions, pay and benefits from my employer. They will NEVER give me the same benefits, because it will cost them too much.

Cheers.

nugget378 · 16-02-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

I think that is choice in itself though mate, wouldnt you like to know what your employer is like before you take the job? Unemployment figures are very low, and frankly quite worrying IMO, there just isnt the appropriatly skilled people out there for the avaliable jobs, i really dont believe there are too many employers in the drivers seat at the moment. Ive got many friends who own or work in business's looking for staff, and my Wife also works in recruitment, they simply cant find people to fill jobs, and they're from a wide and diverse market spread.

While I agree that in good economic times most will not be disadvantaged,its when hard times hit that they will hit even harder with out some form of safety net.
Having been an employer an employee,and currently self employed sub contractor I tend to see it from both points of view,but these laws dont sit well with me in the long run,90% of the employers (contractors) I know,dont look past this months bottom line,and some shaft people at the drop of a hat,how much worse will it be in worse times with less employment?
What gets me is in my industry they work mostly on a pecentage of cost,so if the paid more-projects cost more they themselves would make more,but they cant see past the ingrained type of thinking to see this,not only that,but with less regulation you always get the shonk who undercuts and ruins it for everyone else..

4Vman · 16-02-2007, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nugget378

While I agree that in good economic times most will not be disadvantaged,its when hard times hit that they will hit even harder with out some form of safety net.
Having been an employer an employee,and currently self employed sub contractor I tend to see it from both points of view,but these laws dont sit well with me in the long run,90% of the employers (contractors) I know,dont look past this months bottom line,and some shaft people at the drop of a hat,how much worse will it be in worse times with less employment?
What gets me is in my industry they work mostly on a pecentage of cost,so if the paid more-projects cost more they themselves would make more,but they cant see past the ingrained type of thinking to see this,not only that,but with less regulation you always get the shonk who undercuts and ruins it for everyone else..

What we need to understand and never forget is "if" and that's a BIG "IF" times get tough businesses MUST be in a position to adjust quickly to remain competitive, as harsh as this sounds its better for allot of people to take a small pay cut and keep their jobs than a company get locked into a ratchet wage system that ultimately means the business goes broke everyone looses their job and no one gets anything. Competition for "good" employees is fierce, and this competition is pushing wages up in allot of areas.
I do agree though that shonks tend to ruin it for everyone, but that's been happening for decades, its not just a recent occurance, AWA's have neither helped nor hinderd that.

GCFordChic · 16-02-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DODDOAU

I care. AWA's are bad for the workers of this country.

I have too much to lose on an AWA. I have great conditions, pay and benefits from my employer. They will NEVER give me the same benefits, because it will cost them too much.

Cheers.

So you remain on a collective agreement. When the workplace reforms came in you did not get told to go to an individual agreement and (as you believe) lose all the benefits that a collective award has gotten you, or get out...

So why are you seemingly so afraid of and angry about them? All the things the ads on telly told us would happen haven't happened to you yet and nothing says that it will.

Lots of employers don't want to take the time with individual agreements and still offer collective awards which have everything they need in them and they know they wont be taken to the tribunal over unfair conditions of employment etc.

I don't think there is anything to argue here. AWAs are individual between the employer and the employee. The margin for negotiation differs depending on the variables I suggested before as well as a multitude of other things.

4Vman · 16-02-2007, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GCFordChic

So you remain on a collective agreement. When the workplace reforms came in you did not get told to go to an individual agreement and (as you believe) lose all the benefits that a collective award has gotten you, or get out...

So why are you seemingly so afraid of and angry about them? All the things the ads on telly told us would happen haven't happened to you yet and nothing says that it will.

Lots of employers don't want to take the time with individual agreements and still offer collective awards which have everything they need in them and they know they wont be taken to the tribunal over unfair conditions of employment etc.

I don't think there is anything to argue here. AWAs are individual between the employer and the employee. The margin for negotiation differs depending on the variables I suggested before as well as a multitude of other things.

Very well said, IMO there's been way too much unfounded and totally unsubstantiated negative press created about this topic, when the reality has been happy "business as usual" for the vast majority of hard working decent Australians.

DODDO · 16-02-2007, 08:39 PM

The only reason that im still on a collective agreement, is because im under a state award. Our union has signed with my employer a common law contract, which does not change any conditions or pay for another 3 years. So it hasnt effected me...yet.

nugget378 · 16-02-2007, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Very well said, IMO there's been way too much unfounded and totally unsubstantiated negative press created about this topic, when the reality has been happy "business as usual" for the vast majority of hard working decent Australians.

As well as alot of spin and window dressing,some people will never see the forest for the trees,ill leave it there.
Heres a give away,go back and look at economic doctrine in the 20's and see where that led...

Outbackjack · 16-02-2007, 09:00 PM

Lets look at the origianl post,and here is what was said....

the interviewer said that this is a company workers agreememt .. NOT A MANAGEMENT POSITION and only managers agreements can be negotiated . ( discrimination) anyhow she basically politely said no. now 96 people applied . 5 are being interviewed they said she is the best for the job . i'm wondering who the others are ie . school leavers , mums returning to work , or released prisoners trying to start again ????

96 people for one job. Isthis the workers paradise that other posters are eluding to?? So the company employee that makes prospective new employees offers cannot negotiate outside of the maximums that have been imposed on them. I thought work choices was supposed to give the prospective new employee the ability to negotiate....... obviously in this case this is not what has happened. We dont know what the job is what was being applied for, or the other terms and conditions..... This is a simple case of what the "un-skilled" ( and by un-skilled" I mean people that only their loyality and time to offer) are up against. It's fine for us (people with qualifications that are in demand) to sit here and say how all this is acceptable, but some of us, not me, dont really care about "other people".

Lets go back 40 years and look at all the un-killed migrants that came here from all parts of Europe. They got here and promptly worked their butts of and got ahead. But what protected them was minimum levels of employment conditions. Work Choices has stipped all these kind of folks T&C's back to only 5 gurarantees.

When the main driver for the Australian economy has slowed, and it will, what has Australia have to offer? The main driver is the resources boom. Dont get me wrong, this is good for Australia, at the moment. But what will happen when it slows. it is not prudent Government management that has given this country is current boom. It is China. And to a lesser extent India. These booming economies are what has given Australia a hand up, because we have what they need for now. Here is what the Australian worker is up against. A good mate of mine, not a freind of my cousins best mates girl freind, some one that I went to school with, is into ladies knickers. has been for years. he once , about 12 months ago employed 11 people to make a line of ladies, well, kinky underwear. He was selling these to myers, david jones and some other outlets. A set of "knickers" would retail for around $300. He sold these to the reatiler for about $150. Cost to him about $40. Now he has "let all his Australian workers go". Why, well after a recent trip to china, he can now get his undies made for $30. Still sells them for $150.

Here are the conditions that China imposes on Chinese factory workers in the garment industry.

Salary $US150 a month.
Hours 07:30 till 19:30 Monday till saturday.
Hoildays. None.
If a female worker gets pregnant and has to leave, she is fired and her last months pay is forfeited to the employer to cover "re recruitemet costs.
Sick pay.... None.
These conditi9ns are set by the government. And because the factory is south and only gets down to 0 degress in winter they dont have to install heating.

Is this where Australia is heading......

Gotta go swimming see ya later

GCFordChic · 16-02-2007, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

I thought work choices was supposed to give the prospective new employee the ability to negotiate....... obviously in this case this is not what has happened.

YES - Ability to negotiate if the employer is hiring on an AWA.
NO- Negotiation on a collective agreement.

I think this is a case of a collective agreement being offered.

We have been told to hate AWAs. We have been told the 'little people' will get screwed because they are not able to look after themselves and negotiate. The unions have told us that collective agreements will be thrown out the window for unfair AWAs. I believe in this situation a collective agreement was on offer which had detailed, previously negotiated, sections.

It seems those against Howard and Workchoices and the union-worshippers should all be praising this employer for continuing to offer the 'fair' un-negotiable collective awards. Instead your view is being clouded by the fact the thread starter included AWA in the title (and I believe, mistakenly, assumed all employers hire on AWAs now and if they don't want to negotiate it is just unfair).

nugget378 · 16-02-2007, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GCFordChic

YES - Ability to negotiate if the employer is hiring on an AWA.
NO- Negotiation on a collective agreement.

I think this is a case of a collective agreement being offered.

We have been told to hate AWAs. We have been told the 'little people' will get screwed because they are not able to look after themselves and negotiate. The unions have told us that collective agreements will be thrown out the window for unfair AWAs. I believe in this situation a collective agreement was on offer which had detailed, previously negotiated, sections.

It seems those against Howard and Workchoices and the union-worshippers should all be praising this employer for continuing to offer the 'fair' un-negotiable collective awards. Instead your view is being clouded by the fact the thread starter included AWA in the title (and I believe, mistakenly, assumed all employers hire on AWAs now and if they don't want to negotiate it is just unfair).

Lets look at this another way.
The employer keeps it as a collective shop agreement for the sake of harmony,but the gov'ment dont care much since its called an AWA,and fits there agenda (for now)

mik · 16-02-2007, 09:34 PM

personnaly until recently i have worked for many bosses over 30 years i have worked for myself as a subby for some of those years and found there are some people that will take advantage at every oportunity to better themselves at the expense of others, and for those that think the majority are better off i do not believe it, i think its more like the case of the little bird in the cow pat.