How The IR Changes WILL AFFECT YOU !!

[KELDO_XR8]

My biggest concern with these changes is that we didnt hear anything of them till just before the howard government was due to take control of both houses. In this country there is such a large split between the two major parties that there should be an avenue for agrument, however with howard having control over both houses, he can push through this bill regardless. I will openly admit that i dont know the full details of these reforms, im just worried that there will be negative effects on people who wont have an effective voice in parliment.

[parawolf]

Originally Posted by KELDO_XR8

My biggest concern with these changes is that we didnt hear anything of them till just before the howard government was due to take control of both houses. In this country there is such a large split between the two major parties that there should be an avenue for agrument, however with howard having control over both houses, he can push through this bill regardless. I will openly admit that i dont know the full details of these reforms, im just worried that there will be negative effects on people who wont have an effective voice in parliment.

Right-o, so how do you want an effective voice in parliment with a majority government. You can take union action and strike (affecting the economy and industrial relations, as well as Australian as a place for future developement from foreign investers view on an international scale), or you can complain where no-one gives a toss, or, you can be thoughful about it, and assert your democratic right and communicate, in writing, to your local Liberal, Labour and whatever else member of parliment using a concise well worded responses.

Now some people might not be educated enough to do this on their own. However this is what you pay your union fees for. Get your workplace union rep to assist you with this. Do this and make sure its done without union bias, and written in a way that a MP will understand and take notice. You are a voter and a person in his electral district that they MUST take care of. If they don't take care of you, they won't get their local votes thus affecting their future pay and comfortable superannuation.

There are more ways to skin a cat, its just that Union's don't use them

[pauljh74]

Originally Posted by parawolf

Why wouldn't they guarantee this? because at renegotiation time, it means that it comes down to the individuals wants and needs from their employer and how well they can bargin for it as a result of how good/productive an employee they have been.

There are employers out there that will see these new laws as an opportunity to push workers around. Employee won't sign that AWA with no penalty rates? Sack them. There's 5 more available unemployed who will. With the exemptions from unfair dismissal for the 99% of companies that employ less than 100 employees it is possible. The new laws count on the goodwill of employers to do the right thing - this won't be the case with many of them. At negotiation time, if you increased productivity by 10%, do you think you'd be offered 10% more. I'd say it would be closer to 5%. My own supervisor and another equal level co-worker of his had to take on a significant part of a vacating manager's duties, who was not replaced, they were not offered any more money at the time and have only just recently received a whopping 4% increase.

Now you might argue that this process benefits the smart or the cunning? does it? you can still be a member of your union and ask your union rep to advise you and potentially sit in on negotiations. Why can't the unions telling you this? because it would be too much work for them.

No I said if you (not actually referring to any one person) were smart you'd see that the majority would be vulnerable to being worse off. Less rights doesn't equal better off in my opinion.

And guess who should be most scared by these changes? those that it would be too much work for them to care about their future.

I myself have more than 10 years as a casual with one employer working 5 days per week. I work 50 weeks of the year and have public holidays of course. I'm a casual yet I now have accrued long service leave. I believe that the only reason my employer would get rid of me is if the company closed down or I suddenly decreased my performance substantially or through misconduct - unlikely. Our section has been cut by 2/3rds due to a number of factors, yet I'm still there.

I am currently applying for a full-time job, I'm on the short list of 5 people for 2 positions. I listed my supervisor as a reference. I believe I will get a good reference. I'm far from a undesirable employee. Yet I am still worried about the new laws. The job I applied for is now offering only afternoon shifts, which I can do and it also offers a 17.5% loading due to the hours. Penalty rates are under threat - and it is unfair to think that a person who works odd hours should now get less when he has to sacrifice going to social events that their 9 to 5 working friends work, or not see much of their family because they are starting work when the kids get home from school. If you have an agreement that takes this into account and remunerates you for it - fantastic for you. But by reducing the base conditions for AWAs, it leaves vulnerable workers - which is a large percentage - open to losing money.

I'm worried because the area I work in there are few full-time jobs advertised and most ads for workers are usually by employment agencies looking to recruit on-call casuals. So because supply appears to exceed demand in this example, I and many others in a similar position can be given 2 choices - accept what is on offer that would most likely leave you worse off than the award, or go elsewhere.

The Howard government never had the mandate for these laws. They have been markedly altered since the election to the point where the people who voted Liberal are voicing their strong disapproval. His approval rating has dropped 20% in one month - hardly a vote of confidence.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/as...a.howard.reut/

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by pauljh74

........
The Howard government never had the mandate for these laws. They have been markedly altered since the election to the point where the people who voted Liberal are voicing their strong disapproval. His approval rating has dropped 20% in one month - hardly a vote of confidence.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/as...a.howard.reut/

The Government has a mandate to run the country. John Howard is not a President, the Liberal Party runs the country, he is leader of the Party. The Party makes decisions has a whole, with the leader leadership.

54% approval rating is better than any other previous Prime Minister.
http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/no-su...321850793.html

He is unique in the 30-year history of opinion polling in Australian politics. A leader always takes power with a stock of public hope and trust, and then depletes it as he goes about the difficult business of governing. In Howard's case, he has broken all precedent by building public approval the longer he stays in power. This is clear in his approval rating. The latest Newspoll, this week, gives him 54 per cent, a remarkably high rating at any phase of a prime ministership but stunning for a man who has been in power for more than nine years.

[parawolf]

Originally Posted by pauljh74

The job I applied for is now offering only afternoon shifts, which I can do and it also offers a 17.5% loading due to the hours. Penalty rates are under threat - and it is unfair to think that a person who works odd hours should now get less when he has to sacrifice going to social events that their 9 to 5 working friends work, or not see much of their family because they are starting work when the kids get home from school. If you have an agreement that takes this into account and remunerates you for it - fantastic for you. But by reducing the base conditions for AWAs, it leaves vulnerable workers - which is a large percentage - open to losing money.

These benefits are only under threat if you let them get under threat. Start mailing your local liberal MP and other political parties MP's to get them to understand your problems, your future concerns and how this will effect them. If you ask for a response, they are required (by law I believe) to give you one.

You are fortunate that you get 17.5% leave loading, I certainly don't get that for working afternoon shift at my current place of work, however i'm part of the Union. Should I sack my union representatives? No because this is an agreement I personally signed up for when I agreed to take on the job. I believe other things in my job are more important than the money. Things like flexible work time and flexible work days, time off in lieu, workplace conditions, workplace toolset, management treatment of employees.

These things to me are more important and allow me to travel home on public transport without worrying what the hell is going on tomorrow, or if i'm going to have a job tomorrow.

Think of this. My current employer has about 70 people in full time positions and contracts. So i'm just as much at stake as you might be or anyone else. However I know that if they attempt to switch 70 people into individualised workplace agreements, is that everyone is going to want mixed agreements with different benefits and different legal representation. Do you really think, this small company is going to maintain with an external legal firm 70 different contracts as well with the external accountants 70 different pay agreements. Logistically that would be a nightmare for them and it would massively inflate legal and accounting costs away from operational budgets and profit lines. Seriously it is not going to happen and for a 70 head of staff company the accountant would tell the manager to get their head checked as they will be flushing raw profit down the drain.

[svo347]

54% approval rating is better than any other previous Prime Minister.

I think you will find its alot lower than that now..

[KELDO_XR8]

Parawolf,
it seems to me that you may have taken my above post a little out of context. the Howard governmaent has already stated that they are not willing to change the particulars of this new poicy and why should they/ they can push it through regardless. I dont believe im complaining somewhere where no one gives a toss, i was under the impression that this was an open discussion forum? il go write a letter now to little johnny sayin that i dont like his ideas and i guess il wait for him to appear at my doorstep, appologize and change everything. i think not.

keldo

[parawolf]

Originally Posted by KELDO_XR8

Parawolf,
it seems to me that you may have taken my above post a little out of context. the Howard governmaent has already stated that they are not willing to change the particulars of this new poicy and why should they/ they can push it through regardless. I dont believe im complaining somewhere where no one gives a toss, i was under the impression that this was an open discussion forum? il go write a letter now to little johnny sayin that i dont like his ideas and i guess il wait for him to appear at my doorstep, appologize and change everything. i think not.

keldo

Thats because he doesn't care about you. He cares what the liberal party members think because that is who elects him to be Prime Minister, not you and I. However who nominates the Liberal Party Members? You and I. Now, if you threaten them with removing their vote, as a result of some proposed legistation, they will take notice and respond to you in some form.

That is how the democratic process works, as a result of using the chain of command.

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by bindi

Agreed, scum sucking bastards... and not just this government, ALL governments, and actually all politicians :nutsycuck Just IMHO.

Well the problem is that those politicians are the best we have, and that we don't have anyone any better. If everyone gets so critical and passionate about politics then they should form the ultimate opinion - run for parliment!

[Brutal~EBII]

Forgive me for just a moment, and allow me to prattle on...

When the architecture of the nation's government was layed out before Federation, there was not the plural alignment of political muscle as evident in Parliament today, There was three loosely alligned bloc's, the Labour movement, the Protectionists and the Free Traders. After Labour displayed considerable political clout, Alfred Deakin united the latter bloc's the Protectionists and the Free Traders, in the Deakin 'Fusion' of 1909. The point? The constiutional writers were not to foresee the duality of party politics in Australia. I agree with Keldo, and further the constitution must be updated to achieve accountable government, For no party in australia, wether practicing Mandate or Trustee style politics, should ever have to power to push through reforms without debate, and members should be free to vote inline with their consciences, not along the party line.

Jarrod

[MO]

Jarrod;may I point you in the direction of two books...forget the constitution...it only counts when there is nothing else to fall back on.

Firstly;...ARBITRATION IN CONTEMPT..proceedings of the H.R.Nicholls Society.
ISBN 0 9588386 0 7

This book contains the blueprint for the current IR chages and was published in 1986,some of the authors include...Costello,Spry.QC etc,nowhere does Howard get a mention...crafty little rodent!

The second book is a dramatised historical account..of the start of the Labour Party in Australia...it is Land of Hope,an australian family saga;by Gay Scales..1986...ISBN 0 85561 062 x.(Pbk),ISBN 0 85561 057 3.(Hbk)

Now I am given to assume you have some prior political/sociological education and will seek to read these books.

The first had a very limited print run..but should be in library...the second was a series on Aunty t.v. and should be readily available.

[RED_EL_XR8]

Originally Posted by csv8

How the proposed industrial relations changes will affect you at work...

And we've see it already, you guys play dirty, please union movement no more Sunday Drop In Bar-B-Que's. Oh no, no more all the wealthy send all you money to Lenin now, please oh please not another weekend Bar-B-Que.

Your Union, United! You'll never be divided! but not staying too late cos we have full employment in the morning. :sm_drool:

[MO]

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

And we've see it already, you guys play dirty, please union movement no more Sunday Drop In Bar-B-Que's. Oh no, no more all the wealthy send all you money to Lenin now, please oh please not another weekend Bar-B-Que.

Your Union, United! You'll never be divided! but not staying too late cos we have full employment in the morning. :sm_drool:

RED...back in your box until you've read the texts...then tell me you believe TOTALLY..what you you have just expounded.

[RED_EL_XR8]

Originally Posted by John McMaster

RED...back in your box until you've read the texts...then tell me you believe TOTALLY..what you you have just expounded.

I believe you should be able to sack someone just cos you don't like them yes. !!!Remember apprenticeships? They existed when you could.
No-one is going to run their business into the ground paying for some dippy 19yo apprentice to have a break-up with his girlfriend !

Ditto for paternity leave etc, when is desire to bear sprogs an employers financial responsibility?

And before the jibes, I see something in the AFF terms & conditions about political threads, so maybe this crud should have been euthanized long ago.