jad n rich

Cant believe the work reform protests got so many aussies protesting, 120,000 turned out in Melbourne alone.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...-28101,00.html

spalen

all too scared they'd be fired for taking time off....

jad n rich

probably casual workers, boss didnt need them today

HUP

Do you support the reforms then ?

worzel

As an outsider this appears to be similar to when Thatcher took on the unions in the 80's. Award Rates seems a strange concept to someone like me who entered the UK work place in the 90's, has never been a member of a union etc. The best form of job protection I have is that if they don't treat me well I have a strong enough cv to stick to fingers up at my boss and walk out knowing I could be in another job by the end of the week.

I am not setting out to be controversial (although I expect a certain sort of response) just after some background. Can anyone fill me in on the history, exactly what rights the unions fear being taken away etc?

ABCDiamond

One of the protest speakers, on TV tonight, mentioned about the reforms taking away Super.

jad n rich

Absolutely not. Workers rights in this country are way below the standards of UK and europe, Ive always felt very strongly its wrong to employ people for years/decades as casual now take away the small penalty they get for working if and when required. Too many families need to top up inconsistant income with benefits, or try to fit in several casual jobs to make ends meet. Think we feel strongly about it, as rich has worked in OZ for most of his 44 years, not once has he had a permanant job, holiday sickies etc its always been casual, only way out was self employment, still no holidays or sickies then

ABCDiamond

From what I have read, the main reforms that are creating tension are:

The Howard Government will be legislating to exempt businesses who employ up to 100 employees from unfair dismissal laws.
The Government will continue to protect all employees by providing a remedy for unlawful termination, which prohibits dismissal for discriminatory grounds such as race, colour, sex, union membership, pregnancy and so on.
This is a bit confusing although the difference maybe in the terms "unfair" and "unlawful" termination.


For businesses with over 100 employees, the Government will better balance the unfair dismissal laws so that employees covered will be required to have been employed for six months before they can pursue an unfair dismissal remedy. This is an extension of the current 3-month qualifying period.
The employer would then have 6 months instead of 3 months to fire an employee without fearing a complaint.

mr mover

NO equation, Britain in the 80,s was fed up to the back teeth , with constant striking, so Thatcher had a clear mandate. If she had tried the same thing here, with coal miners , she would have been "fanny slapped in to history", they are very productive ,and most strikes are concerned with Safety& occ situations. And Australia being such a small market, "sticking your fingers up " at the boss only goe,s so far till you become Known ,"as he who sticks his fingers up".. and they avoid you.................. mm, ps Sorry if this is the response you expected, cheers

spalen

for the record I support the reforms.

In uk you can get whacked up to 6mths and you can terminate without cause - realistically as an employer you need that to catch out the sheisters. I'd like to see some stats on who expects to get fired every 6mths - because any business that can afford to hire/train/lose/hire/train/lose is doing very well indeed and burning money. People are seen as a valuable resource in business I cant see any rationale for believing that a company will hire /fire/ just because they can.... In fact in UK you can employ someone for up to 2 years and still get away with firing them without cause - the employee cannot bring unfair dismissal.

The people most worried about this seem to be the unions, is that because they are worried that their power base has just been eroded ....

honeybob

Someone I work with, who is a reliable and hardworking person, was told by the boss that their probationary period was finished next week..... congratulations! As a result, her pay would drop $2 per hour as she now had the luxury of knowing her job was 'safe'...

worzel

No need to apologise. I want to know how it is. If the public is behind the unions then as you say it is completely different. I guess I am lucky to be highly skilled/qualified and feel more powerful than the firms that employ me. Many people aren't so lucky.

jad n rich

Scanning the footage of the march in melbourne yesterday, the crowd was far more diverse than union heavies, women, educated, professionals, student type age groups even retired were concerned enough to offer support.

The people more likely to be affected are those working for small companies (under 100) and casual workers, most of those people would never see a union.

I think from the UK people probably assume only unskilled people are employed without proper rights, but its not the case, many professionals, skilled and educated are employed casually in australia too.

bondipom

I don't know about the miners here but the battle with the wharfies and the continuing dispute with the CFMEU does have some resemblance to the eighties in Britain. The 2 unions also have a sinister background with blackmail and coersion through violence and the assistance of the mob. Unionised building sites are run by the unions unless the builders pay off the mob who will then pay off the unions. Where public sector buildings are in progress it is us the taxpayer who is ripped off.

Anyone know what provisions there are in the IR proposals to counter the criminality involved with the CFMEU?

The federal state split of power where IR rules are involved complicates matters further. All the states are labour and anti change whilst the driver is a coalition government with control of both houses. Both sides may say they have a mandate. Some of it is also a power battle with the states battling for continued influence with industrial relations.

The 100 company limit proposals will mainly affect non-unionised staff in smaller companies. The unions are more worried about being bypassed with workplace agreements but are fighting the proposals by appealing to non unionised staff who will be affected.

ABCDiamond

It's also a great opportunity for the Unions to increase their membership numbers. And they will say anything they like to create reason to join a union.

I know of one person who has decided to join one, based on being told that they would lose their compulsory super under the reforms !

The main problem with all this, is knowing what and who to believe. They are all as bad as each other.