>>It's ridiculous. The previous system worked fine. The concept of taking a 'sickie' has unfortuantely become an ingrained part of aussie workplce culture. This could be overturned by having an end of year bonus for those who had taken little or no sick time off work. Sometimes in life you just have to use a carrot rather than a stick.<<

I think you demonstrate why Australia is so far away from the rest of the world in attitude.

Sick leave is - or should be - a "virtual" leave. If a workforce is say 100 strong (and these figures are off the top of my head) and the average number of days off sick per head is 5 per year, there are 500 "available" sick days. Someone might be ill for three mnoths and use 100 of them but many others won't be sick and the average works.

It's like insurance - very like it in fact: where would insurance be if everyone felt entitled to claim regardless of whether they had suffered a loss? Well, it WOULDN'T work - and that's one of the problems of Australia: if you like, the LaLa land factor.

I agree that the culture of having a 'sickie' is a problem. However, remember that this is the country that when it won the America's cup the then PM came out and said any boss who sacked a worker for taking the day off after the win "is a bum".

That is the level of how far into the OZ psyche this thing is. Reality is youc annot come in like a farkin dictator and just screw peopel into the ground and justify it cos you make more money out of it. Ultimately companies that do that will lose.

New Managerialism is a dead ideology and those with any real insight know it only too well! TQM as practiced by the Japanese was far more successful as a management theory.

Unable to comment as can't say I've heard it. If he did say this, then his comment was irrisponsible and ill thought out if meant in that context. Does't make it right either

Agreed. Which is why test cases will set the right and proper standards.


That's a matter of opinion. Any company that changes it's management style to incorporate staff decisions, intelligent / knowledgeable debate, joint decision making, personal development and macro thinking.....is the way to go. But with a "them and us" mentality, Aus is a long way off.

Is it? Although a brilliant concept, TQM works best for some companies and not others. Total Quality Management costs a lot of money, can be very time consuming and bureaucratic with certificates needed to do everything [which some companies cannot afford].....and may work best in cultures where Eastern mentality is ingrained by it's very culture to think of others before ones self. It also means the whole workforce has to think big picture and what's best for the consumers, business and market place overall.

This way of working will not be ingrained here in Aus unless and until there are responsibilities taken on both sides, which is exactly why the changes in workplace reform has begun

>>TQM as practiced by the Japanese was far more successful as a management theory.<<

Nothing could be further from the Japanese work ethic than the Australian work ethic.

I do agree wholeheartedly that an employer who disregards his employees' feelings won't get far in the long run. But it is a two way process, and I have seen the unions in Oz behaving disgracefully during the last thirty years and more: perhaps management attitudes are partly due to this?

FWIW I think that the PM's comments as reported are very ill-thought-out, as were his comments on the Gallipoli affair last year.

100% spot on!

You make some very valid points. The most successful period of industrial relation in OZ from my understanding was during they Hawke years when Bob Hawke as PM ran with what was known as "The Accord". Of course the fact that he had been a former Head of the ACTU gave him valuable insight and contacts which no doubt helped.

Just as an employer should not be so short sighted as to treat employees simply as replaceable non-identities it also behoves employees (through their unions and associations) to listen to employers and value the business as it provides them with a livelihood. It really is a two way street and both parties need to come to the table and be prepared to listen to each other and negotiate to reach consensus. Thsi would ultimately benefit both sides.

Don't know anything about the Bob Hawke years and his relations with the unions and any improvements made, but given the terrible state of work ethics here, I have my doubts. My guess, given the way things are, is he probably did the "mateship" thing and kept things sweet rather than improve matters in real terms

As for your highlighted comments; agree 100%

Thanks for your comments the Hawke 'Accord' years bottom line , were based on reaching consensus thru both parties listening to and negotiating with each other. Quite a successful approach. Unfortuantely the 'new right' faction of the ALP pushed the economic rationionalism thing (as did their NZ labour counterparts) and started screwing the average joe bloggs, it has continued and escalated under the Libs.

NZ Labour has gone back to its values pre-1980s but unfortuantely the wages issue has never been properly addressed and is a major contributor to people leaving NZ when combined with the cost of living there.

Australia now looks set to go down the same path