Vash the Stampede

ABC.

hawk2005

the phrase "aussie battler" is one of the most stupid & overused phrases in Australia

For battler read "underachiever".

The sooner the IR laws bring the dinosaur like building unions to their knees the better it will be for Australia -their mafia like closed shop intimidatory tactics belong in the stone age

Vash the Stampede

I agree that the unions need to be broken. I am not a union member, and never have been. Some of them are little more than glorified thugs, and they are far too powerful; the federal government needs to clip their wings, like Thatcher did.

But these new IR laws have nothing to do with unionism per se; they're all about the exploitation of workers by unconscionable employers.

How would you like to work in a place where (a) you had no protection from unfair dismissal, (b) the boss could sack you and force you to re-apply for your job with a 20% drop in pay, and (c) the boss was under no obligation to pay you award rates, and could force new employees to sign a Workplace Agreement of his own choosing?

Not to mention the gutting of the Industrial Relations Commission,which no longer has the power to set minimum wages, or arbitrate in disputes.

NedKelly

What a bunch of numskulls. I hope their employers dock a days pay.

Centurion

I agree. Having been in business in the UK and an employer I had hoped to do the same here albeit on a smaller scale. After finding out legislation requirements I do not think that I will ever employ someone in Australia within the current framework and cultural climate. Small business is hard enough sometimes. I shall remain a happy sole trader.

I also think its hard ot strike a balance between small and big business needs and protection of the employees. However, these IR reforms are necessary or Australia may wake up in a few years and realise that the rest of the work marched on without us.

Its very reminiscent of the Thatcher unionist clashes to a degree.

kiwi_child

June 27, 2006 10:00

THE large turnouts at today's protest rallies against the Federal Government's new workplace laws are no surprise, the Democrats and the Greens say.

Some estimates have put numbers at this morning's Melbourne rally at more than 100,000, while an estimated 40,000 attended a rally in western Sydney.
Others held elsewhere across the country were well attended.

Australian Democrats employment relations spokesman Andrew Murray said the industrial relations fuse was well and truly lit.

"The new federal IR regime is unfair, un-Australian and unwise, and is to the detriment of Australian fair-go values," Senator Murray said.

"This new act just goes too far. Mr Howard cannot avoid the inevitable reaction.

"Every new agreement that cuts wages and conditions, every workplace injustice, every workplace unfairness, every mean rogue employer who has been given his head by Mr Howard - they will all be nailed to the coalition door."

Greens senator Rachel Siewert said the first wave of workplace changes was starting to hit.

"Job security, the safety net of minimum award conditions, and the very idea of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work have been sacrificed for a flawed ideology," she said.

"WA has already experienced how individual workplace agreements can impact on women, with the pay gap between men and women doing exactly the same work widening from 19 per cent to 27 per cent over the last decade.

"The race to the bottom is playing out before our eyes."

courtesy: http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/stor...005361,00.html

NedKelly

Well the Greens would say that wouldn't they. They are just a bunch of watermelons. Green on the outside and red on the inside.

Wol

LOL - never heard that one before!

Vash the Stampede

If people want to protest, that's fair enough; they have a democratic right to do so. And considering the impact of these new laws, I'm delighted to see Aussies out on the street and standing up for themselves.

Having said that, I believe that anyone who protests during work hours without permission from their employer is a hypocrite. You can't call for workers' rights whilst simultaneously ignoring workers' obligations.

People should protest in their own time, not their employer's. Arrange to take some of your annual leave, use a TOIL day, or whatever; don't just walk out on your job and leave your employer in the lurch.

phoenixinoz

Vash.... most workers here in Aus understand the changes even if they don't particularly like them. They know Aus needs to improve it's GDP and needs to keep up with the rest of the world, particularly the Asia Pacific's.

Yes, there seems some unrest, however the majority accept changes need to occur. People in general also understand these workforce reforms will improve on the employees side once employers have got their act together.

From what's been reported so far, although there is *some* unrest [and this is and was expected]...there isn't the passion to protest that some would like us to believe, albeit the strong unionists are fighting their corner. There's lots of scare mongering, especially from the unions, however people in general seem to be seeing it for what it is i.e industrial reforms...to eventually improve working conditions.

Aus has a long way to go in terms of workers rights and employee conditions. Part of this is also about improving the quality of management and management thinking....and the current ethos of *she'll be right* / *mateship* and *nepotism* that exists big time over here. Aus is like the UK was some 15/20 years ago and unless they move on...then nowt changes.

If we do what we've always done, we'll get what we've always got.

And Aus can't afford to.

kevinl

I don't know enough about all the implications on the reforms to comment fully but the company I worked for, start a new job on Monday, has had the workplace agreement for a number of years.

We did not get any loading for overtime, we did not get public holidays unless we booked them from our anual leave and they were approved by management, no unions or shop floor representation.

The result: high staff turnover, if it wasn't for apprentices being tied for 4 years the turnover would be unmanagable, low moral, no-body will work overtime, poor management/shop floor relations.

Yes the unions in some industries have had too much power and abused it but now, just as Thatcher did, the pendulum has swung too far the other way and employers are now in the position to take unfair advantage.

I ran a small business in the UK and would like to eventually be in that position again.I always had the attidude that running the company was a team effort where the employees had a stake in it as much as I did and were not just a commodity to be taken advantage of or compete with to see who could get the upper hand.

I think the goverment should be trying to strike a balance between the needs of the employers and the employees.

Kevin

Vash the Stampede

This is all very true, and I agree with you in principle. But come on, this thing about no unfair dismissal protection for companies with less than 100 employees... that's most of the business in Australia, for crying out loud! Why didn't they make it 25 employees, or even 30?

If this legislation is so bloody fantastic, why doesn't the UK have it already? I don't hear of UK businesses being free to sack people on a whim, provided that they have less than 100 employees. I don't hear of UK employers being free to force employers to re-apply for their own jobs at a lower rate of pay.

So just how good is it, really?

From where I'm standing, all I can see is lower wages, a higher rate of employee turnover, little or no protection from unfair dismissal, and people being forced to re-apply for their jobs at a lower rate of pay.

Which part of this scenario am I expected to be happy about? Where's the incentive for workers? Where's the incentive to develop company loyalty, or good employer-employee relations?

I can understand that it's all good for the employers, but how the hell does it benefit anyone else? And what's the point of sticking it to the workers, when they're the ones who generate cashflow in the first place?

I am delighted to see the unions getting it in the neck; they deserve it, and they've had it coming for a long time. But beating up the punters... well, that's very different. Punish the unions, not the workers!

A happy worker is a profitable worker; an unhappy worker is a drain on the company.

And a worker with little job security, no protection from unfair dismissal, no protection from unfair contracts, no protection from a boss who can force him to re-apply for his own job at a lower salary, and limited assistance from the IRC, is a very unhappy worker indeed.

CORKER

Aren't the IR rules taking the edge off the unions...a bit like Maggie did in the 80's..It was bad at first but now if anyone gets sacked or mistreated in the UK you take them to an employment tribunal. (not many of these in the 80's....but thousands now)......Isn't it just a matter of time before these kick off in Aus.???

Corker

Vash the Stampede

They are taking the edge off the unions, which is a very good thing and should have been done years ago. But they are also screwing the workers IMHO - and that is a very bad thing.

We do have employment tribunals - but I doubt if they will see much action, because the new IR legislation states that business with less than 100 employees are immune from unfair dismissal laws:
ABC News.

So your boss can sack you for no good reason, and you have no way of fighting him unless you're on an individual contract and you're prepared to find yourself a lawyer.

That's not a step forward; that's a giant leap backwards into the Dark Ages. It's the sort of thing you find in 3rd World nations.

Buzzy--Bee

Hmmmm... careful... people might say -

"like Australia?"



Buzzy