The official IR reform thread! (2 Viewers)

[spin spin sugar]

a little bit, it was referred to in a couple of lectures, but mostly discussed in tutorials. we were expected to mention it in the exam for a few topics too.

 

[Generator]

Another bump.

ACTU mounts campaign against Fed Govt's IR changes (The World Today)
Chamber of Commerce to launch offensive against unions IR ads (PM)

I'm kind of hoping that the BOS IR debate will reignite, some day. If not, oh well.

 

[Sarah]

Another bump.

ACTU mounts campaign against Fed Govt's IR changes (The World Today)
Chamber of Commerce to launch offensive against unions IR ads (PM)

I'm kind of hoping that the BOS IR debate will reignite, some day. If not, oh well.

Hmmm.... it's a bit dangerous to speculate though? No one knows exactly what the effects will be yet.

You could start the debate up on a certain aspect e.g penalty rates but the changes which come in may not impact them. That's just an example.

 

[spin spin sugar]

the ideology and motivation behind the reforms is still fucked, regardless of it's specific outcomes regarding specific aspects of it.

 

[Generator]

Hmmm.... it's a bit dangerous to speculate though? No one knows exactly what the effects will be yet.

True, but a bit of scare-mongering (be you in favour of the current stance of business lobby groups or the unions (a simplistic binary representation, I know)) never goes astray .

Still, the apparent disregard for the rights of the employees in favour of business interests, the claims to a supposed mandate (one exists, but not for the radical policy that was announced) and what we know of this government means that there is more than enough reason to speculate as to what may emerge.

 

[Sarah]

True, but a bit of scare-mongering (be you in favour of the current stance of business lobby groups or the unions (a simplistic binary representation, I know)) never goes astray .

Still, the apparent disregard for the rights of the employees in favour of business interests, the claims to a supposed mandate (one exists, but not for the radical policy that was announced) and what we know of this government means that there is more than enough reason to speculate as to what may emerge.

Fair enough. But after talking to ppl i know who work in industrial relations, even they've told me they're uncertain as to the outcomes once changes take place. Even they're only speculating as to what will happen

 

[Xayma]

Fair enough. But after talking to ppl i know who work in industrial relations, even they've told me they're uncertain as to the outcomes once changes take place. Even they're only speculating as to what will happen

As it always happens.

GST was to mean the death of small business, VSU is to mean the death of all campus life (don't start this up, I'll just point out the legislation is different to WA to the extent that it can't be used as a precedent), and IR is to mean the death of the workers.

 

[Generator]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...-urges-minister/2005/06/28/1119724637388.html

Hold out for a bargain, urges minister
By Nick O'Malley Workplace Reporter
June 29, 2005


The Workplace Minister, Kevin Andrews, has urged employers not to bow to unions' demands for pay deals before the Government's industrial relations changes become law.

In what is just one part of the hidden battle between the Government and the unions, Mr Andrews wrote to the Master Builders Association twice to ask its members to delay negotiations with unions.

And in what appears to be a new worry for the Government, church leaders yesterday asked to meet the Prime Minister, John Howard, to discuss their concerns about his industrial agenda. The Reverend John Henderson, the general secretary of the National Council of Churches, said: "The value of each worker is not as a commodity, but as a person, a human being, loved by God. Our community has values that are more important than economics."

In April Mr Andrews wrote to Brian Seidler, the executive director of the MBA, to say "the Government would be concerned about employers acceding to union pressure to renegotiate existing agreements" before their expiry. Five days later an MBA executive wrote to the association's members to tell them the MBA "shares the minister's concern that 'members should carefully consider their response' to any union approaches".

Mr Andrews wrote to the MBA again to spell out the increased penalties unions risked if they engaged in illegal industrial action. Again his concerns, and an outline of the tougher penalties, were passed on to members.

Construction unions have been racing to renegotiate three-year agreements before the industrial relations changes pass to the Senate in August.

"We've got about 1200 agreements that expire on October 31; we've now renegotiated close to 400," said the state secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Andrew Ferguson. "Normally you would start negotiating [in] August, September to wrap it up in October."

He said more agreements were pending and 15,000 workers in NSW were already covered. Since March, the union has worked hard but quietly to renegotiate agreements, careful not to attract the attention of Mr Andrews' office.

Mr Ferguson claimed other employers had been told they risked losing government contracts if they did not toe the line. "This pressure on employers has been systematic and unrelenting," he said.

The NSW president of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, Tim Ayers, said he expected his union would sign two major agreements before the end of August, two months before their expiry. "Employers want sensible negotiations with us. We are not going to tolerate unfair Government interference in our negotiations," he said.

The secretary of Unions NSW, John Robertson, said unions were planning to target Liberal MPs in marginal seats to "make them understand how concerned their constituents are".

A spokesman for Mr Andrews denied employers had been threatened, but confirmed Mr Andrews had encouraged them to delay negotiations until the new laws were in force.

However, the minister has yet to convince his own staff, with employees in his Melbourne office downing tools for two hours yesterday over stalled enterprise bargaining negotiations.

the ideology and motivation behind the reforms is still fucked, regardless of it's specific outcomes regarding specific aspects of it.

To think that Howard has claimed that his Government is concerned with practicalities rather than ideology.

 

[katie_tully]

I see one good thing come from it.
Previously where you couldn't fire somebody purely based on poor performance at work, always turning up late, etc.. you now can. I suppose this would benefit the larger companies and their efficiency rate...
I've been told accounts of people in the state health system, nurses even, who don't turn up to work on time or are generally lazy. Before these reforms it was never enough to fire them.

 

[White Rabbit]

I see one good thing come from it.
Previously where you couldn't fire somebody purely based on poor performance at work, always turning up late, etc.. you now can. I suppose this would benefit the larger companies and their efficiency rate...
I've been told accounts of people in the state health system, nurses even, who don't turn up to work on time or are generally lazy. Before these reforms it was never enough to fire them.

But it's only workplaces with <100 employees, where the problems regarding unfair dismissal occur. It wouldn't make a big difference with nurses as a large proportion of us are employeed under NSW Health Dept and therefore have more than 100 employees under them.

I hought you could fire someone based on poor performancein regards to being late and such - at least give them warnings which would result in termination.

 

[katie_tully]

But it's only workplaces with <100 employees, where the problems regarding unfair dismissal occur. It wouldn't make a big difference with nurses as a large proportion of us are employeed under NSW Health Dept and therefore have more than 100 employees under them.

I hought you could fire someone based on poor performancein regards to being late and such - at least give them warnings which would result in termination.

I know it's going to affect the smaller businesses more dramatically, or people who work for them...

I think the greatest fear with this is that people are now going to expect employers to abuse the system.

The problem with the nurses was that they couldn't be fired by head of the hospital, and this was especially the case with agency nurses.

 

[Enlightened_One]

I can see both sides of this damned issue and the real problem will be the difference between each scenario. We couldn't hire a farm worker before this because we had no guarantee of getting rid of them if they were useless (and we had too many work safety laws to worry about), so I can see the upside.
The downside is that some employers in some places have the monopoly because their isn't enough jobs for all those wanting work and so employers can offer shit deals and awards etc and they'll get workers because of the intense competition.
Those new federal laws concerning getting people back to work and off welfare add to this problem.

Still, most of us on this forum are safe, we'll all have degrees (which has to count for something), and Legal Aid will almost certainly take me.

 

[katie_tully]

Problem we had with hired help was the same, not to mention all the OHS stuff we had to implement...different topic.

 

[Meldrum]

One thing that's complicating the issue are the bloody "lay-man's-terms" ads that are doing the rounds. They show bipolars who are orgasmically happy with their employer in one scenario, they manically depressed with them in the next...the bullshit has to stop.

I just want ads which explain the issues without the bullshit. An ad with a table. Pro's and Con's, let people make up their own damn minds.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Is anyone protesting with their Union on frdiay or has already participated in protesting?

 

[katie_tully]

my school is ....

 

[White Rabbit]

I'm suppose to, I'm with the NSW Nurses Union.

 

[White Rabbit]

NSW Nursing Homes and Unfair dismisal laws

Thats certainly something to be concerned about, not only for nurses but also residents within these nursing homes.

 

[Sarah]

Another angle to the IR reform debate

http://radar.smh.com.au/archives/2005/06/strike_out.html

 

[White Rabbit]

It's true, most young people don't care about Unions, but that is because of ignorance. The KFC example - I was activley told how terrible the union was, how I'd suffer tremendously under it's conditions - and looking back now I realise it was nothing short of scare tactics perpetrated by employers who ignored many workers rights at the time. Perhaps the real reason young people aren't joing Unions is simply because they're never given the right to.

On employment, information on the Union should be made available however it never was for me - and I went through 4 jobs throughout High School, and even after entering a full-time position as a Bakers assistant, I was never offered any information at all regarding my Union. It wasn't until I left my bakers position (due to a dodgy manager who insisted on screwing my pay up for a good 4 pay-days straight.) and took a job at the Airport that I was formally introduced to the Unions, and met union reps who would actually fight for workers rights. I knew bits and peices before, and had asked employees about joining the unions - and they had replied by telling me they'd rob me blind and tie me into contracts I wouldn't want etc - but I had not known nearly enough. I joined then, I saw a pay rise within my first 6 months and my union rep fight the company who a breach of workers rights occured, from defending an employee from an overbearing manager, to taking issues to court and fighting on an employees behalf. The 'higher-ups' in that company tried many underhanded techniques (i.e. refusing to pay penalty rates on christmas day and informing employees only after they'd worked) and were always held accountable by the Union.

If anything, it supports the Unions. Education for younger workers is needed, rather than employers conveniantly ignoring the Unions all together. Hell, I'm 19 and have been involved with 2 unions already and do not feel $3 oit of a $500 payslip is 'daylight robbery' and as a student, the NSW Nurses Federation will even take issues their associate members have with their educational insitution - when Sydney Uni culled their B. Nursing courses, the federation did what it could (which was very little due to Sydney Uni announcing their decision at the last minute). As far as I see it, Unions are imperative to mainatining workers rights - something the Howard government has little regard for.