OT - IR bill

[Ext User(Steve nunya)]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1502305.htm

I have to say this has me concerned.
I have been mainly a lib voter but if this IR bill goes through
that will change. So many things about this seem just wrong.

[Ext User(Footy Facts)]

"Steve nunya" <dont@bother.com> wrote in message news:dkuf8k$lno$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1502305.htm
>
> I have to say this has me concerned.
> I have been mainly a lib voter but if this IR bill goes through
> that will change. So many things about this seem just wrong.
>
>

unless you are a small to medium business owner
the idea that most bosses are pricks and will sack
people and implement draconian conditions
(which btw isn't possible and is just more spin)
is just Labor spin, fact is most of us care about our staff
and know that happy staff are far more productive
than unhappy staff.

gF

[Ext User(Footy Facts)]

"Mr Black" <mrblack@aanet.com.au> wrote in message news:4372ce83$1_1@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..
>
> _____________________________________
> "Steve nunya" <dont@bother.com> wrote in message
> news:dkuf8k$lno$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1502305.htm
>>
>> I have to say this has me concerned.
>> I have been mainly a lib voter but if this IR bill goes through
>> that will change. So many things about this seem just wrong.
>>
>>
>
> The IR bill is just another example of what happens in government when one
> party has ultimate power and you remove the checks and balances.
> We live in a country that is practically a police state.
>
>

lol, we live in a country where the people voted
and gave the government a mandate no matter
what spin you put on it. We also happen to live
in a country where we have the luxury of knowing
that in under three years from now if you don't
like it you can vote for another party safe in the
knowledge that the sitting Government will
gracefully exit power if they lose the election

if you feel this is the definition of a police state
you should try living in almost every Asian/African
nation where police state is reality not fantasy

gF

[Ext User(Steve nunya)]

Footy Facts wrote in message
<4372d22a$1_2@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com>...
>
>"Steve nunya" <dont@bother.com> wrote in message
news:dkuf8k$lno$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1502305.htm
>>
>> I have to say this has me concerned.
>> I have been mainly a lib voter but if this IR bill goes through
>> that will change. So many things about this seem just wrong.
>>
>>
>
>unless you are a small to medium business owner
>the idea that most bosses are pricks and will sack
>people and implement draconian conditions
>(which btw isn't possible and is just more spin)
>is just Labor spin, fact is most of us care about our staff
>and know that happy staff are far more productive
>than unhappy staff.
>
>gF
>
not sure "most" know that.
Have worked for a couple of small to meduim bussiness.
some are good others are down right pricks.
$$$$ rule, people come second.
the fact you dont have the right to choose,
esp if a school leaver or on the dole.
you say no to a job and lose all support
And its all crap that it's easier to find
work if your working. that may work for professionals
with connections and who you know matters as much as what,
but for the working class it's bull.

ATM these rules will not affect me but I worry about my kids.
dont be fooled FF these rules will hurt the working class.
there are a lot of greedy pricks rubbing their hands just waiting.

[Ext User(Mr Black)]

_____________________________________
"Steve nunya" <dont@bother.com> wrote in message
news:dkuf8k$lno$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1502305.htm
>
> I have to say this has me concerned.
> I have been mainly a lib voter but if this IR bill goes through
> that will change. So many things about this seem just wrong.
>
>

The IR bill is just another example of what happens in government when one
party has ultimate power and you remove the checks and balances.
We live in a country that is practically a police state.

[Ext User(Ron Burgundy)]

"Footy Facts" <footyfacts@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4372d384$1_2@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com:

>
> "Mr Black" <mrblack@aanet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4372ce83$1_1@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..
>>
>> _____________________________________
>> "Steve nunya" <dont@bother.com> wrote in message
>> news:dkuf8k$lno$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1502305.htm
>>>
>>> I have to say this has me concerned.
>>> I have been mainly a lib voter but if this IR bill goes through
>>> that will change. So many things about this seem just wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The IR bill is just another example of what happens in government
>> when one party has ultimate power and you remove the checks and
>> balances. We live in a country that is practically a police state.
>>
>>
>
> lol, we live in a country where the people voted
> and gave the government a mandate no matter
> what spin you put on it. We also happen to live
> in a country where we have the luxury of knowing
> that in under three years from now if you don't
> like it you can vote for another party safe in the
> knowledge that the sitting Government will
> gracefully exit power if they lose the election
>
> if you feel this is the definition of a police state
> you should try living in almost every Asian/African
> nation where police state is reality not fantasy
>
> gF
>
>
>

Damn right.

--

I'm Ron Burgundy

You stay classy, San Diego.

[Ext User(Neil Green)]

"Footy Facts" <footyfacts@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4372d22a$1_2@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..
>
> "Steve nunya" <dont@bother.com> wrote in message
> news:dkuf8k$lno$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1502305.htm
>>
>> I have to say this has me concerned.
>> I have been mainly a lib voter but if this IR bill goes through
>> that will change. So many things about this seem just wrong.
>>
>>
>
> unless you are a small to medium business owner
> the idea that most bosses are pricks and will sack
> people and implement draconian conditions
> (which btw isn't possible and is just more spin)
> is just Labor spin, fact is most of us care about our staff
> and know that happy staff are far more productive
> than unhappy staff.
>
> gF

Noble sentiments FF, and they make good sense.
But if that's the case then why change the system we have now?
It seems to have served us well.

[Ext User(Gerrit 't Hart)]

"Steve nunya" <dont@bother.com> wrote in message
news:dkulm3$ntf$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
>
SNIP

> >> I have been mainly a lib voter

SNIP lots of other stuff

> these rules will hurt the working class.

Sounds to me the language you are using is either taken straight from Labor
Party (or Union) rhetoric - in which case you are unthinking,

or

If this is your own terminology I doubt very much if you have ever voted
"lib"

Gerrit

[Ext User(Footy Facts)]

"Neil Green" <nrgreenNOSPAM@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4372ec8d$0$22779$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "Footy Facts" <footyfacts@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4372d22a$1_2@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..
>>
>> "Steve nunya" <dont@bother.com> wrote in message news:dkuf8k$lno$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1502305.htm
>>>
>>> I have to say this has me concerned.
>>> I have been mainly a lib voter but if this IR bill goes through
>>> that will change. So many things about this seem just wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> unless you are a small to medium business owner
>> the idea that most bosses are pricks and will sack
>> people and implement draconian conditions
>> (which btw isn't possible and is just more spin)
>> is just Labor spin, fact is most of us care about our staff
>> and know that happy staff are far more productive
>> than unhappy staff.
>>
>> gF
>
> Noble sentiments FF, and they make good sense.
> But if that's the case then why change the system we have now?
> It seems to have served us well.
>

because there are over 2000 awards
this is just nonsensical!

the changes will see very little impact on small business
(< 5 employees) as they tend to require very flexible
work conditions and being small teams if they don't
work together well then the squeaky wheel is usually "oiled"
very early in the piece. This profile fits most of my customers
and my experience has been that as soon as they find
good reliable employees they bend over backwards
to keep them because they are open usually 12*7
ands thus they aren't there all the time and have to trust
their business and livelihood to the employees.

The other thing this spin neglects to mention is
the risk business owners take. They put their
livelihood on the line every day, and if they can't generate
enough income then they go bust, sure any employees
would go down with them but they don't have
1st/2nd/3rd mortgages on everything they own
and I sure as hell reckon a business owner has a right
to run his business the way he likes. If people
don't like it they have the choice as a consumer not to buy
their products and send them a message, its the crux
of a decent laissez-faire system!

the other thing that gets up my nose is the typical
"holier than thou" attitude of Left Wing politics
as somehow being more honest and "for the people"
than Middle of the Road Liberal, if that was the case
Labor would have convinced the electorate to vote for them

gF

[Ext User(Neil Green)]

"Footy Facts" <footyfacts@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43730039$1_2@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..
>
> "Neil Green" <nrgreenNOSPAM@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4372ec8d$0$22779$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>
>> "Footy Facts" <footyfacts@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4372d22a$1_2@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..
>>>
>>> "Steve nunya" <dont@bother.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dkuf8k$lno$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1502305.htm
>>>>
>>>> I have to say this has me concerned.
>>>> I have been mainly a lib voter but if this IR bill goes through
>>>> that will change. So many things about this seem just wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> unless you are a small to medium business owner
>>> the idea that most bosses are pricks and will sack
>>> people and implement draconian conditions
>>> (which btw isn't possible and is just more spin)
>>> is just Labor spin, fact is most of us care about our staff
>>> and know that happy staff are far more productive
>>> than unhappy staff.
>>>
>>> gF
>>
>> Noble sentiments FF, and they make good sense.
>> But if that's the case then why change the system we have now?
>> It seems to have served us well.
>>
>
> because there are over 2000 awards
> this is just nonsensical!
>
> the changes will see very little impact on small business
> (< 5 employees) as they tend to require very flexible
> work conditions and being small teams if they don't
> work together well then the squeaky wheel is usually "oiled"
> very early in the piece. This profile fits most of my customers
> and my experience has been that as soon as they find
> good reliable employees they bend over backwards
> to keep them because they are open usually 12*7
> ands thus they aren't there all the time and have to trust
> their business and livelihood to the employees.
>
> The other thing this spin neglects to mention is
> the risk business owners take. They put their
> livelihood on the line every day, and if they can't generate
> enough income then they go bust, sure any employees
> would go down with them but they don't have
> 1st/2nd/3rd mortgages on everything they own
> and I sure as hell reckon a business owner has a right
> to run his business the way he likes. If people
> don't like it they have the choice as a consumer not to buy
> their products and send them a message, its the crux
> of a decent laissez-faire system!
>
> the other thing that gets up my nose is the typical
> "holier than thou" attitude of Left Wing politics
> as somehow being more honest and "for the people"
> than Middle of the Road Liberal, if that was the case
> Labor would have convinced the electorate to vote for them
>
> gF
>

Total deregulation would be fine as long as it applied across the board.
I'm all for anarchy myself.
But I'd like to know where you find a middle of the road Liberal these days.
Howard and Co. make Malcolm Fraser look like a bleeding heart leftie.
All politicians suck IMO.

[Ext User(David Clayton)]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:09:27 +1100, Footy Facts wrote:

>
> "Neil Green" <nrgreenNOSPAM@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4372ec8d$0$22779$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>
>> "Footy Facts" <footyfacts@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4372d22a$1_2@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..
.........
>> Noble sentiments FF, and they make good sense. But if that's the case
>> then why change the system we have now? It seems to have served us well.
>>
>>
> because there are over 2000 awards
> this is just nonsensical!
.........
And there will still be 2000 awards, because these changes don't directly
replace any of them.

Considering that these changes are supposed to be all about "choice", it
is possible that every employer will have a different "award" for each of
their employees, how does that make things "simpler"?

And people talk about spin...........

--
Regards, David.

David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
(Remove the "XYZ." to reply)

Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have,
intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have.

[Ext User(Steve nunya)]

Gerrit 't Hart wrote in message
<4372ef32$0$14228$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>...
>
>"Steve nunya" <dont@bother.com> wrote in message
>news:dkulm3$ntf$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
>>
>SNIP
>
>> >> I have been mainly a lib voter
>
>SNIP lots of other stuff
>
>> these rules will hurt the working class.
>
>Sounds to me the language you are using is either taken straight from Labor
>Party (or Union) rhetoric - in which case you are unthinking,
>
>or
>
>If this is your own terminology I doubt very much if you have ever voted
>"lib"
>
>Gerrit
>

Wrong on both accounts.
I have supported Howard in just about every thing else.
dont have a prob with the new terrorist laws, Iraq, US or even
the GST (well ok that did annoy me but not too much)
But I did spend a lot of time when younger on the factory floor.
I saw a lot of stretching of the rules then. these are the people who'll
lose.

[Ext User(Ian Galbraith)]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:09:27 +1100, Footy Facts wrote:

[snip]
>> Noble sentiments FF, and they make good sense.
>> But if that's the case then why change the system we have now?
>> It seems to have served us well.

> because there are over 2000 awards
> this is just nonsensical!

At my job there are 2 awards. With the IR legislation there are likely to
be 2000 AWAs which have to be separately managed. How is this better?

[snip]

--
You Can't Stop The Signal

[Ext User(Footy Facts)]

"David Clayton" <dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:pan.2005.11.10.20.52.40.46579@XYZ.myrealbox.c om...
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:09:27 +1100, Footy Facts wrote:
>
>>
>> "Neil Green" <nrgreenNOSPAM@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4372ec8d$0$22779$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>
>>> "Footy Facts" <footyfacts@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4372d22a$1_2@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..
> ........
>>> Noble sentiments FF, and they make good sense. But if that's the case
>>> then why change the system we have now? It seems to have served us well.
>>>
>>>
>> because there are over 2000 awards
>> this is just nonsensical!
> ........
> And there will still be 2000 awards, because these changes don't directly
> replace any of them.
>
> Considering that these changes are supposed to be all about "choice", it
> is possible that every employer will have a different "award" for each of
> their employees, how does that make things "simpler"?
>
> And people talk about spin...........
>
> --
> Regards, David.
>
> David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com
> Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
> (Remove the "XYZ." to reply)
>
> Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have,
> intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have.
>

because it means that a business can develop
a common set of conditions for all employees
at a workplace.

consider my mate Wiz who runs a clothing print business
he has 15 - 25 staff depending on workload
and they are covered by 6 different awards
Manufacturers, Services, Electrical, General, Transport & Textile
now the ACTU spin likes to take it down to individuals
and push the spin about how there will be a "different" award
for each worker but Wiz already has to contend with this
and workers on one award enjoy better conditions than
workers on other awards.

So the delivery van guy brings to the workplace no more or less
than the screen printing guy and gets different conditions due to his
award then how is this different to "individual" contracts

Fact is Wiz has already started putting together a "common"
workplace agreement and he knows that the only way he can
push this through is to offer conditions that at least match
awards and the end result will be one set of overall "work"
conditions but he also recognises that pay rates are a separate
issue, because some workers do bring more to the company
or are in short supply (eg Electricians) and so he split
his agreement into two parts a work conditions and a pay rate
schedule thus he has one "award/agreement/contract"
but can still cater for individuality.

There are many businesses like Wizs' that are cyclical
and he does need to bring flexibility into his workplace
because as it stands now if he has to knock back work
if it overlaps with other jobs simply because the awards
basically prevent him (and his workers) from having
the place open 24*7 at those times.

oh and your last statement

> Considering that these changes are supposed to be all about "choice", it
> is possible that every employer will have a different "award" for each of
> their employees, how does that make things "simpler"?

1. wouldn't you think that instead of being forced into an award
that the opportunity to choose is choice
2. I didn't say it would make things simpler but any smart
business will take the opportunity to flatten his workplace
award structure which would certainly simplify things

gF

PS: I also totally 100% support the removing of compulsory
student union membership at university, when I went
in the late seventies I steadfastly refused to join
and despite all their jumping up and down like a bunch
of snotty nosed prep kids I never did!

[Ext User(Epigram)]

On 11/11/2005 06:24:48 "Footy Facts" <footyfacts@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "David Clayton" <dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.11.10.20.52.40.46579@XYZ.myrealbox.c om...

>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:09:27 +1100, Footy Facts wrote:

>>> "Neil Green" <nrgreenNOSPAM@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4372ec8d$0$22779$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...

>>>> "Footy Facts" <footyfacts@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4372d22a$1_2@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..

>> ........

>>>> Noble sentiments FF, and they make good sense. But if that's the case
>>>> then why change the system we have now? It seems to have served us
>>>> well.

>>> because there are over 2000 awards this is just nonsensical!

>> ........ And there will still be 2000 awards, because these changes
>> don't directly replace any of them.

>> Considering that these changes are supposed to be all about "choice", it
>> is possible that every employer will have a different "award" for each of
>> their employees, how does that make things "simpler"?

>> And people talk about spin...........

>> -- Regards, David.

>> David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com Melbourne, Victoria,
>> Australia. (Remove the "XYZ." to reply)

>> Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
>> measure of how many questions you have.

> because it means that a business can develop a common set of conditions
> for all employees at a workplace.

> consider my mate Wiz who runs a clothing print business he has 15 - 25
> staff depending on workload and they are covered by 6 different awards
> Manufacturers, Services, Electrical, General, Transport & Textile now the
> ACTU spin likes to take it down to individuals and push the spin about how
> there will be a "different" award for each worker but Wiz already has to
> contend with this and workers on one award enjoy better conditions than
> workers on other awards.

> So the delivery van guy brings to the workplace no more or less than the
> screen printing guy and gets different conditions due to his award then
> how is this different to "individual" contracts

If Wiz considered his employees to be valuable (or invaluable), then he'd
already have induvidual contracts in place, playing his employees _more_
than the award requires. Fairness all-round and no mucking about with what
award should apply to whom.

> Fact is Wiz has already started putting together a "common" workplace
> agreement and he knows that the only way he can push this through is to
> offer conditions that at least match awards and the end result will be one
> set of overall "work" conditions but he also recognises that pay rates are
> a separate issue, because some workers do bring more to the company or are
> in short supply (eg Electricians) and so he split his agreement into two
> parts a work conditions and a pay rate schedule thus he has one
> "award/agreement/contract" but can still cater for individuality.

> There are many businesses like Wizs' that are cyclical and he does need to
> bring flexibility into his workplace because as it stands now if he has to
> knock back work if it overlaps with other jobs simply because the awards
> basically prevent him (and his workers) from having the place open 24*7 at
> those times.

Unless there is some sort of vacuum that exist around your mate Wiz's
company, he doesn't have to have his employees on the awards- as stated
before he can give better than the award if he wishes. Also no employer is
forced to have a full-time work force. Many companies which are cyclical
in nature have a part-time casual work force. This way they can hire when
busy, and release employees when needed. The employees that are released
can go straight onto Unemployment Benefits instead of the 6-12 week wait if
the employer writes to Centrelink saying that the employee was released due
to the cyclical nature of the business.

And in case employees are worried about part-time/casual work not entiling
them to long service leave or annual leave if they have worked the
equivilent to full-time employment, then the High Court has ruled that they
are entitled to such leave, and be paid for it, under the current system.

> oh and your last statement

>> Considering that these changes are supposed to be all about "choice", it
>> is possible that every employer will have a different "award" for each of
>> their employees, how does that make things "simpler"?

> 1. wouldn't you think that instead of being forced into an award that the
> opportunity to choose is choice 2. I didn't say it would make things
> simpler but any smart business will take the opportunity to flatten his
> workplace award structure which would certainly simplify things

Many businesses already have "flattened" workplace conditions. It is easy
to do so if the employer pays above-award rates.

This isn't IR reform. It's an IR change. When the Senior Commisioner of
the IRC in WA has publically stated that the proposed legislation is not
fair to employees under the unfair dismissal components, there is a need to
worry. I can quote Senior Commisioner Jack Gregor "dismissed employees
will have to pay for a lawyer to represent them in unfair dismissal. The
element of conciliation has been removed. The only winners here will be
the lawyers. This has been the evidence of the United Kingdom on which the
bill is based." And "Lawyers will push towards using the Equal Opportunity
Commission for their (dismissed) clients because it will be the path of
least resistance."

> gF

> PS: I also totally 100% support the removing of compulsory student union
> membership at university, when I went in the late seventies I steadfastly
> refused to join and despite all their jumping up and down like a bunch of
> snotty nosed prep kids I never did!

Nor did I. But if I did not pay the either the Guild Fee or the equivilent
to a charity, then I would not be enrolled. So the money went to a
charity. I had no intention of any of my money going to free wine and
cheese nights or, worse, election campaigns for the Guild by the Labor or
Liberal Parties.

That is a matter of political reform rather than workplace reform.

In WA, compulsory student unionism has been since removed, the only state
to do this. However after nearly a decade of voluntrary unionism, the
Gallop government is considering bringing back compulsory unionism because
students have become worse off, rather than better off as the Howard
Government claims.

For the record, I don't vote dogmatically for the ALP, Libs, Nats or
Greens. I'd kill myself before voting for Family First.
--

Toby

--
I saw a funny thing on the way here. So I laughed.

(If you really want to email me, you'd know the address)

[Ext User(d e k e r)]

Steve nunya wrote:
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1502305.htm
>
> I have to say this has me concerned.
> I have been mainly a lib voter but if this IR bill goes through
> that will change. So many things about this seem just wrong.

didn't notice the OT bit. i thought at first the irish were so
uproarious at the biffo in the last IR game that they'd handed us a bill
for their medical expenses

deker

[Ext User(Steve nunya)]

d e k e r wrote in message
<4373f4a7$0$14205$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>...
>Steve nunya wrote:
>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1502305.htm
>>
>> I have to say this has me concerned.
>> I have been mainly a lib voter but if this IR bill goes through
>> that will change. So many things about this seem just wrong.
>
>didn't notice the OT bit. i thought at first the irish were so
>uproarious at the biffo in the last IR game that they'd handed us a bill
>for their medical expenses
>
>deker


LOL

[Ext User(David Clayton)]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:24:48 +1100, Footy Facts wrote:
>
> "David Clayton" <dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com> wrote in message
........
>> And there will still be 2000 awards, because these changes don't
>> directly replace any of them.
>>
>> Considering that these changes are supposed to be all about "choice", it
>> is possible that every employer will have a different "award" for each
>> of their employees, how does that make things "simpler"?
....
> because it means that a business can develop a common set of conditions
> for all employees at a workplace.
>
They can develop them all they like, they still cannot (in theory...)
force people off their current Awards (until they expire), so there isn't
much simplification in the short-term, is there?

> consider my mate Wiz who runs a clothing print business he has 15 - 25
> staff depending on workload and they are covered by 6 different awards
> Manufacturers, Services, Electrical, General, Transport & Textile now the
> ACTU spin likes to take it down to individuals and push the spin about how
> there will be a "different" award for each worker but Wiz already has to
> contend with this and workers on one award enjoy better conditions than
> workers on other awards.
>
> So the delivery van guy brings to the workplace no more or less than the
> screen printing guy and gets different conditions due to his award then
> how is this different to "individual" contracts
>
So the manager also gets different conditions to either of those two guys,
is that going to change too?

> Fact is Wiz has already started putting together a "common" workplace
> agreement and he knows that the only way he can push this through is to
> offer conditions that at least match awards and the end result will be one
> set of overall "work" conditions but he also recognises that pay rates are
> a separate issue, because some workers do bring more to the company or are
> in short supply (eg Electricians) and so he split his agreement into two
> parts a work conditions and a pay rate schedule thus he has one
> "award/agreement/contract" but can still cater for individuality.
>
Awards are a set of *minimum* conditions, if this (or any) employer
dealing with multiple Awards doesn't already bring up all of his employees
up to a common set of conditions, then he will want to save money by
having a different set of conditions.

It will most likely be that the overall conditions will go in a direction
that won't do the employees any favours at all.

> There are many businesses like Wizs' that are cyclical and he does need to
> bring flexibility into his workplace because as it stands now if he has to
> knock back work if it overlaps with other jobs simply because the awards
> basically prevent him (and his workers) from having the place open 24*7 at
> those times.
>
If you want employers to be able to use workers by having them work
non-standard hours, then by all means be honest and say that is the reason
of these changes, because it's "London to a brick" that such changes won't
leave the employees better off than they currently are (the Victorian
hospitality workers are a prime example of this).

> oh and your last statement
>
>> Considering that these changes are supposed to be all about "choice", it
>> is possible that every employer will have a different "award" for each
>> of their employees, how does that make things "simpler"?
>
> 1. wouldn't you think that instead of being forced into an award
> that the opportunity to choose is choice

Awards are a set on *minimum* conditions that don't really force anything
but a base to start from. If you are saying that an Award makes it too
expensive to have people work out of "normal" hours, then that is the the
essence of these changes - allowing employers to do what *they* want
cheaper than they currently can.

There is nothing whatsoever to prevent employers now treating all of their
employees with a "standard" set of conditions, as long as they meet the
minimums set out in each relevant Award (and a lot of Awards seem to have
very similar, if not identical, conditions in them).

> 2. I didn't say it would make things simpler but any smart
> business will take the opportunity to flatten his workplace award
> structure which would certainly simplify things
.........
But the Federal Government is spending millions of taxpayer dollars
telling us how this will "simplify" things.

It's still a hoary premise that "flattening" a workplace structure will
make any material difference to a business as most of the employees will
be doing different functions at different pay rates.

Unless everyone is on the same conditions, same hours and same pay - and
that includes management - then there will be differences at a workplace.
Whether those differences are based on Awards is of little practical
difference.

--
Regards, David.

David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
(Remove the "XYZ." to reply)

Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have,
intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have.

[Ext User(Colin Kynoch)]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:47:24 +1100, "Footy Facts"
<footyfacts@yahoo.com>after much thought and consideration decided
that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:

>
>"Steve nunya" <dont@bother.com> wrote in message news:dkuf8k$lno$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1502305.htm
>>
>> I have to say this has me concerned.
>> I have been mainly a lib voter but if this IR bill goes through
>> that will change. So many things about this seem just wrong.
>>
>>
>
>unless you are a small to medium business owner
>the idea that most bosses are pricks and will sack
>people and implement draconian conditions
>(which btw isn't possible and is just more spin)

You really are full of shit.


>is just Labor spin,

Not really.

>fact is most of us care about our staff
>and know that happy staff are far more productive
>than unhappy staff.


Yet a lot of small to medium businesses will attempt to reduce the
conditions of their employees. And many of them have already done so.

I can give you many examples of where small to medium size businesses
have done so in the past, and the new laws will give them more scope
too be bastards.

Colin Kynoch

[Ext User(Colin Kynoch)]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:56:47 +0800, "Gerrit 't Hart"
<gthart@sad.au>after much thought and consideration decided that the
following would improve the lives of those that read it:

>
>"Steve nunya" <dont@bother.com> wrote in message
>news:dkulm3$ntf$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au...
>>
>SNIP
>
>> >> I have been mainly a lib voter
>
>SNIP lots of other stuff
>
>> these rules will hurt the working class.
>
>Sounds to me the language you are using is either taken straight from Labor
>Party (or Union) rhetoric - in which case you are unthinking,
>
>or
>
>If this is your own terminology I doubt very much if you have ever voted
>"lib"

Are you suggesting that John Howard has never voted Liberal?

Colin Kynoch