fight it!
#1
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 324
fight it!
This hideous attack on the average worker is utterly disgraceful.
I lived in the Blue Mts 3 years back. Traditionally a conservative area, even here the new Howard Employee laws sicken the population.
http://bluemountains.yourguide.com.a...ews&m=7&y=2005
I lived in the Blue Mts 3 years back. Traditionally a conservative area, even here the new Howard Employee laws sicken the population.
http://bluemountains.yourguide.com.a...ews&m=7&y=2005
#2
Re: fight it!
Originally Posted by eatstatic
This hideous attack on the average worker is utterly disgraceful.
I lived in the Blue Mts 3 years back. Traditionally a conservative area, even here the new Howard Employee laws sicken the population.
http://bluemountains.yourguide.com.a...ews&m=7&y=2005
I lived in the Blue Mts 3 years back. Traditionally a conservative area, even here the new Howard Employee laws sicken the population.
http://bluemountains.yourguide.com.a...ews&m=7&y=2005
I think it's about time Labor got into the real world. Howard has finally found the gumption to stand up to these layabout union agitators. Good Luck to him.
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: fight it!
Which bit from the article, this one ?
I remember the rhetoric from 1997 and the last significant changes to industrial relations.
The sky did not fall in then as predicted by Labor.
In fact, the opposite has happened.
Almost 700,000 Australian workplace agreements have been entered into since they were introduced, and those on them earn far more than workers on awards.
The sky did not fall in then as predicted by Labor.
In fact, the opposite has happened.
Almost 700,000 Australian workplace agreements have been entered into since they were introduced, and those on them earn far more than workers on awards.
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: fight it!
Originally Posted by hevs
Nice
I do know that it is all politics, and the world would be a better place without many politicians (in some respects) !!
In my opinion.....
The current government is doing what they think is best, because they can.
The current opposition is opposing, because that's what they get paid to do.
The Unions are winning all they way with increased memberships, due no one knowing for sure what will happen, and union membership is seen as an insurance against the things that are said to be about to happen.
Right or Wrong, that how I see it
I see that the comments on the drop to two weeks annual leave have gone quiet, since reading that is what the Labor Controlled WA government already have in place, without the problems that were said would actually happen
#6
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Re: fight it!
The main confusion is on what rights one has in a company under 100 people. Misinformation from both sides seems to be the order of the day. Harmonising business rules across Australia will help bring down compliance costs. Sadly the 100 person company will limit the risks some bosses on are willing to take. Any reduction in annual leave will see me out of here.
#7
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Re: fight it!
Here is one interpretation that worries me.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...704564763.html
For that reason, he is not too concerned about the Government's attempts to debunk the message. "We haven't lied about anything," says Combet. "Are 3.6 million people going to lose their unfair dismissal protection or not?" He refers to the ad where a young mother, who fears she will lose her job because she can't accept a late order to work, asks in a trembling voice, "Who's going to look after the kids?" Says Combet: "If that woman works at a firm with fewer 100 people [that is, 99 per cent of businesses] is she going to have access to unfair dismissal provisions or not? No. Everything in them is true."
And it remains true, despite the Government's efforts to pretend otherwise. On radio on Thursday, Howard said the ad was misleading because it suggested the woman would be sacked because she had to stay home to look after a sick child. That would still constitute unlawful dismissal, he said. But he got it wrong. In this ad the woman is sacked because she is called to work at late notice - her children aren't sick. That's legal under the proposed laws.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...704564763.html
For that reason, he is not too concerned about the Government's attempts to debunk the message. "We haven't lied about anything," says Combet. "Are 3.6 million people going to lose their unfair dismissal protection or not?" He refers to the ad where a young mother, who fears she will lose her job because she can't accept a late order to work, asks in a trembling voice, "Who's going to look after the kids?" Says Combet: "If that woman works at a firm with fewer 100 people [that is, 99 per cent of businesses] is she going to have access to unfair dismissal provisions or not? No. Everything in them is true."
And it remains true, despite the Government's efforts to pretend otherwise. On radio on Thursday, Howard said the ad was misleading because it suggested the woman would be sacked because she had to stay home to look after a sick child. That would still constitute unlawful dismissal, he said. But he got it wrong. In this ad the woman is sacked because she is called to work at late notice - her children aren't sick. That's legal under the proposed laws.
#8
Re: fight it!
So a poll has been done that shows 'most australians' are against it... Against what? as ever ask them to cite the 4 things that irritate or worry them and you will no doubt get the rhetoric about the holidays being cut, etc, which is all nonsense - read any press story about it and the headline is ' threat to 4 weeks holiday ' then the story proceeds to quote some union muppet saying 'if they do this blah blah blah family blah blah blah threat blah blah US Style holidays blah blah blah' followed by 1 paragraph at the bottom Categorically denying that the new laws allow any involuntary reduction of holidays!! yet its a whole page of crap about it being taken away by 'howard'.
Im with ABC - the power that is causing the most noise is the unions because they are facing a real threat to their membership fees since collective bargaining and award wages may well come under pressure in favour of individual performance and individual negotiations. Quite frankly the days of employing people at a rate because of the 'skill' they have are long gone - it should be reward based and market based. I dont expect to get paid the same as all of my colleagues I expect to get paid based on my individual performance , If I chose to be a lazy arse then I get paid less and eventually find myself at risk, if I work my nuts off for the company I get rewarded and stay out of the threat zones.
I think visas to Cuba are freely available for those that want them, but Russia may no longer be to peoples liking
Im with ABC - the power that is causing the most noise is the unions because they are facing a real threat to their membership fees since collective bargaining and award wages may well come under pressure in favour of individual performance and individual negotiations. Quite frankly the days of employing people at a rate because of the 'skill' they have are long gone - it should be reward based and market based. I dont expect to get paid the same as all of my colleagues I expect to get paid based on my individual performance , If I chose to be a lazy arse then I get paid less and eventually find myself at risk, if I work my nuts off for the company I get rewarded and stay out of the threat zones.
I think visas to Cuba are freely available for those that want them, but Russia may no longer be to peoples liking
#9
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Re: fight it!
Originally Posted by spalen
So a poll has been done that shows 'most australians' are against it... Against what? as ever ask them to cite the 4 things that irritate or worry them and you will no doubt get the rhetoric about the holidays being cut, etc, which is all nonsense - read any press story about it and the headline is ' threat to 4 weeks holiday ' then the story proceeds to quote some union muppet saying 'if they do this blah blah blah family blah blah blah threat blah blah US Style holidays blah blah blah' followed by 1 paragraph at the bottom Categorically denying that the new laws allow any involuntary reduction of holidays!! yet its a whole page of crap about it being taken away by 'howard'.
Im with ABC - the power that is causing the most noise is the unions because they are facing a real threat to their membership fees since collective bargaining and award wages may well come under pressure in favour of individual performance and individual negotiations. Quite frankly the days of employing people at a rate because of the 'skill' they have are long gone - it should be reward based and market based. I dont expect to get paid the same as all of my colleagues I expect to get paid based on my individual performance , If I chose to be a lazy arse then I get paid less and eventually find myself at risk, if I work my nuts off for the company I get rewarded and stay out of the threat zones.
I think visas to Cuba are freely available for those that want them, but Russia may no longer be to peoples liking
Im with ABC - the power that is causing the most noise is the unions because they are facing a real threat to their membership fees since collective bargaining and award wages may well come under pressure in favour of individual performance and individual negotiations. Quite frankly the days of employing people at a rate because of the 'skill' they have are long gone - it should be reward based and market based. I dont expect to get paid the same as all of my colleagues I expect to get paid based on my individual performance , If I chose to be a lazy arse then I get paid less and eventually find myself at risk, if I work my nuts off for the company I get rewarded and stay out of the threat zones.
I think visas to Cuba are freely available for those that want them, but Russia may no longer be to peoples liking
#10
Re: fight it!
As much as I never thought I would have to do this,, but I agree with Eat Static...
these new laws are disgraceful... I work for a company that has under 100 in one office and only 40 in another.. already we have started looking at peoples contracts, salaries etc....dont think this wont happen to you.. its good for the country etc.. it isnt..
I have never joined a union in my life (good Jersey boy...) and probably wont here either,, but wont be staying with my company much longer, not with the way they are planning things as soon as this becomes law.
if you want rights, I would shout out now.. these laws are not about smashing the unions that maggie did (rightly or wrongly) these are about helping businesses control staff at lot more... People coming over should realise that they have less job security over here than in the UK, they will be expected to work longer hours (and not claim) and get paid less....
sorry if this upsets some rose coloured people, but hey. it aint all pretty down here...
these new laws are disgraceful... I work for a company that has under 100 in one office and only 40 in another.. already we have started looking at peoples contracts, salaries etc....dont think this wont happen to you.. its good for the country etc.. it isnt..
I have never joined a union in my life (good Jersey boy...) and probably wont here either,, but wont be staying with my company much longer, not with the way they are planning things as soon as this becomes law.
if you want rights, I would shout out now.. these laws are not about smashing the unions that maggie did (rightly or wrongly) these are about helping businesses control staff at lot more... People coming over should realise that they have less job security over here than in the UK, they will be expected to work longer hours (and not claim) and get paid less....
sorry if this upsets some rose coloured people, but hey. it aint all pretty down here...
#11
Re: fight it!
If you are good at what you do then I cant see what anything the government passes through affect you. Employers don't want to sack people just for the sake of it. It costs many thousands of dollars to find someone new train them up, loss of productivity etc.
Unions are for everyone to get the same pay rate, even for those that do sweet f*** all.
If you do a good job, you deserve to get paid accordingly, and if your employer cant then I am sure there is plenty more that can.
Unions are for everyone to get the same pay rate, even for those that do sweet f*** all.
If you do a good job, you deserve to get paid accordingly, and if your employer cant then I am sure there is plenty more that can.
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: fight it!
Originally Posted by Siren & Brian
If you do a good job, you deserve to get paid accordingly, and if your employer cant then I am sure there is plenty more that can.
IF these "new rules" do actually come into effect, it will create great openings for anyone wanting to create good businesses, employing the right people, and doing well.
Let the employers that treat good people badly or unfairly sink their own businesses. I've employed many people from my competitors in the past, where I have been able to offer better employment terms etc, not because I had too, but because it gave me the advantage in getting the best staff, and the best results from them
#13
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Re: fight it!
Originally Posted by ABCDiamond
Any employer that loses good staff by implementing rules that are not fair, is asking to lose their business.
IF these "new rules" do actually come into effect, it will create great openings for anyone wanting to create good businesses, employing the right people, and doing well.
Let the employers that treat good people badly or unfairly sink their own businesses. I've employed many people from my competitors in the past, where I have been able to offer better employment terms etc, not because I had too, but because it gave me the advantage in getting the best staff, and the best results from them
IF these "new rules" do actually come into effect, it will create great openings for anyone wanting to create good businesses, employing the right people, and doing well.
Let the employers that treat good people badly or unfairly sink their own businesses. I've employed many people from my competitors in the past, where I have been able to offer better employment terms etc, not because I had too, but because it gave me the advantage in getting the best staff, and the best results from them
A lot of those polled probably recall the early nineties where walking out of one job meant no job. There has to a balance however going from one extreme of making it almost impossible to fire someone for bad performance to being able to fire someone for a being sick. Why have one extreme for companies under 100 people and the other for larger companies?
#14
Re: fight it!
The reason the laws are different for under 100 is to encourage new business startups.
that woman on the TV advert.... how long will she stay wokring for i.c.weiner inc after they pull that stunt on her? 1 week, 2 weeks? and then i.c.weiner inc has to re-train someone else.... its burnt money- straight off the bottom line. Working at dick smiths or even the local newsagent requires advertising to hire, training, hoping they wont steal from you (so supervision) etc etc etc... the costs of losing.replacing/hiring are huge compared to keeping someone happy just by not being an arse!
Every employed person has the right to hunt for another job. And if they're in a level of job whre the employer is such a jerk that they behave the way everyone fears then moving should not be such a huge issue..... eg stacking shelves at woolworths is the same as stacking shelves at coles. Being a electrician for one company is the same as for another. ( I mean after they've teated you like a jerk and you want to move)
Why the hell would a company consciously set out to establish 100 company sub-divisions, with all the admin, overhead, etc involved in doing it just so they could hav ethe opportunity to conspire to treat staff so badly that they would have cases for unfair dismissal and avoid it ? .... come on...
Or maybe I cant see through my own conscience , being a real life employer an 'all....
More likely to suffer are those in the small-small business - so drop the limit to 50 and it still applies... drop it to 25... it still applies... drop it to 10 .... ?
that woman on the TV advert.... how long will she stay wokring for i.c.weiner inc after they pull that stunt on her? 1 week, 2 weeks? and then i.c.weiner inc has to re-train someone else.... its burnt money- straight off the bottom line. Working at dick smiths or even the local newsagent requires advertising to hire, training, hoping they wont steal from you (so supervision) etc etc etc... the costs of losing.replacing/hiring are huge compared to keeping someone happy just by not being an arse!
Every employed person has the right to hunt for another job. And if they're in a level of job whre the employer is such a jerk that they behave the way everyone fears then moving should not be such a huge issue..... eg stacking shelves at woolworths is the same as stacking shelves at coles. Being a electrician for one company is the same as for another. ( I mean after they've teated you like a jerk and you want to move)
Why the hell would a company consciously set out to establish 100 company sub-divisions, with all the admin, overhead, etc involved in doing it just so they could hav ethe opportunity to conspire to treat staff so badly that they would have cases for unfair dismissal and avoid it ? .... come on...
Or maybe I cant see through my own conscience , being a real life employer an 'all....
More likely to suffer are those in the small-small business - so drop the limit to 50 and it still applies... drop it to 25... it still applies... drop it to 10 .... ?
#15
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Re: fight it!
Originally Posted by spalen
The reason the laws are different for under 100 is to encourage new business startups.
that woman on the TV advert.... how long will she stay wokring for i.c.weiner inc after they pull that stunt on her? 1 week, 2 weeks? and then i.c.weiner inc has to re-train someone else.... its burnt money- straight off the bottom line. Working at dick smiths or even the local newsagent requires advertising to hire, training, hoping they wont steal from you (so supervision) etc etc etc... the costs of losing.replacing/hiring are huge compared to keeping someone happy just by not being an arse!
Every employed person has the right to hunt for another job. And if they're in a level of job whre the employer is such a jerk that they behave the way everyone fears then moving should not be such a huge issue..... eg stacking shelves at woolworths is the same as stacking shelves at coles. Being a electrician for one company is the same as for another. ( I mean after they've teated you like a jerk and you want to move)
Why the hell would a company consciously set out to establish 100 company sub-divisions, with all the admin, overhead, etc involved in doing it just so they could hav ethe opportunity to conspire to treat staff so badly that they would have cases for unfair dismissal and avoid it ? .... come on...
Or maybe I cant see through my own conscience , being a real life employer an 'all....
More likely to suffer are those in the small-small business - so drop the limit to 50 and it still applies... drop it to 25... it still applies... drop it to 10 .... ?
that woman on the TV advert.... how long will she stay wokring for i.c.weiner inc after they pull that stunt on her? 1 week, 2 weeks? and then i.c.weiner inc has to re-train someone else.... its burnt money- straight off the bottom line. Working at dick smiths or even the local newsagent requires advertising to hire, training, hoping they wont steal from you (so supervision) etc etc etc... the costs of losing.replacing/hiring are huge compared to keeping someone happy just by not being an arse!
Every employed person has the right to hunt for another job. And if they're in a level of job whre the employer is such a jerk that they behave the way everyone fears then moving should not be such a huge issue..... eg stacking shelves at woolworths is the same as stacking shelves at coles. Being a electrician for one company is the same as for another. ( I mean after they've teated you like a jerk and you want to move)
Why the hell would a company consciously set out to establish 100 company sub-divisions, with all the admin, overhead, etc involved in doing it just so they could hav ethe opportunity to conspire to treat staff so badly that they would have cases for unfair dismissal and avoid it ? .... come on...
Or maybe I cant see through my own conscience , being a real life employer an 'all....
More likely to suffer are those in the small-small business - so drop the limit to 50 and it still applies... drop it to 25... it still applies... drop it to 10 .... ?
Last edited by bondipom; Jul 10th 2005 at 8:38 am.