Anyone been a victim of the IR laws?

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Interesting how its not long before people start to show their real character and display their genuine prejudices.



Yes. These people get up in the morning, put their suit on... and walk out the door saying "man, i cant wait to go and scr*w some workers!!". They live to make people's lives difficult!

I mean - there's absolutely no chance that they have a passion for their job. Absolutely ridiculous to think that any of them have worked their asses off to get where they are.

Tall poppy syndrome is a horrible thing isnt it? So many people to cut down... such little time.



Oh, absolutely. How dare someone wear a whit shirt to work?!?!?!?!? Those damn elitists. Here's a tip for you tho - they're not earning anyhthing CLOSE to a mechanic @ $800 p/w



What's the story boys? You scared of guys that wear white shirts to work or something?

Seriously - im suprised it took 4 pages before people started taking swings at anyone who isnt a tradesman. "That's not really bloody work" right? Ever considered what it takes to be a CEO? Think you could give it a shot? Do you think all those fancy letters after someone's name came in a box of cereal?

No i wouldnt have thought so. Better part of a decade at university. Weeks away from family and friends, 100 hour weeks, placing your credibility and career prospects in the hands of those who work around you...

You couldnt force me at gunpoint to live that life.

But you could live without banks, right? You could live without insurance companies, yeah? All those pricks who run electricty and gas companies... those silly bastards who put a white shirt on and go sell computers - get rid of em. Who needs telephones, internet, fax machines - anyone who sells them or keeps the network ticking over can shove it up their jumper.

you make some good points there , believe me it's not personal to aspiring hard working people . and ceo's do work harder than a lot of people . but remember a lot of people working for them are working 7 days aweek as well. lots of ceo's are working monday to friday . just like lots of blue collar workers also . i am happy for people to work there way to the top , and create employment and wealth for themselves and others .
but mate big big big bosses and the likes in many many many industries have huge pay rises every year lots and lots of social life at company expenses .restaurant meals and holidays for all thier managers . free fuel, and luxury weekends away. whilst trying to cut expenses for those pathetic working bludgers . get real mate you cant denigh both sides exist . i can see it from both sides of the fence . everyone most people here who dont agree with my type of thinking are just full on liberal all the way ir reform , bowe down sir , yes mister priminister , we are all going forward , lets clean up the riff raff of which i am not one because i'm a good worker and i'm valuable to my company , you can be too, type peole , who disregard themselves as being mainstream society .
i think you have just shown your truew colours mate.

also how many of these , white shirt workers on less than $800 pw go and support workers rights . i often see them standing on balconies having a smoke , shaking their heads , when marching in a rally in town ( which let me say is rather embarrassing for myself , but how else do i make a piont and show that i oppose , and will take on the government ( any government that is ) to make make industrial relations , fairer for all , for my children as well when they enter the work force , and for those people on the balconies in their white shirts , shaking their heads , ( who may be on a lot less than myself ) and who would get the sac instantly for joining a rally to protect their own beliefs for australian rights. ( it's easier to disregard youself as one of them and shake your head isn't it.

[4Vman]

You can't just lump every business and every CEO in the same catagory, there are small and large businesses, privately owned and publicly listed (shares) Companies.
The unfair dismissal laws which seem to be 95% of people gripe only effect small businesses with less than 100 employees.
A CEO of a privately owned business is totally different to a CEO of a publicly listed company.
I have far more "wealthy" friends with only trade qualifications who run small trade based business's than friends with tertiary qualifications who own either small business's or in Senior management of large or publicly listed companys...

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

also how many of these , white shirt workers on less than $800 pw go and support workers rights . i often see them standing on balconies having a smoke , shaking their heads , when marching in a rally in town ( which let me say is rather embarrassing for myself , but how else do i make a piont and show that i oppose , and will take on the government ( any government that is ) to make make industrial relations , fairer for all , for my children as well when they enter the work force , and for those people on the balconies in their white shirts , shaking their heads , ( who may be on a lot less than myself ) and who would get the sac instantly for joining a rally to protect their own beliefs for australian rights. ( it's easier to disregard youself as one of them and shake your head isn't it.

Personally IMO striking and protest rallies do nothing for their credibility or "workers rights" but rather highlights the lack of understanding people have about the new laws and isolates the protagonists into an agressive minority group....
There was an attemp by a uni student group to get high school aged kids to take a day off school recently to protest the new laws, some of the protesting kids were interviewed about their reasons for protesting the new laws and they had absolutley no idea what the laws were other than they were told "they're no good"......

[Scott]

What's the problem with a successful CEO or MD taking a huge payrise whilst the company is laying people off? If the business is providing a service that is in demand and it is able to do so whilst becoming leaner, more responsive and more profitable, that's a good thing isn't it?

I thought the plan was to bring as much $ in the front door whilst letting the least $ out the back??

Whilst businesses get leaner, faster, cheaper and better, they open up more and more opportunities behind them by taking Australia to the Global Marketplace which in turn will accelerate and underpin our domestic growth.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by GMH8TR

What's the problem with a successful CEO or MD taking a huge payrise whilst the company is laying people off?

This circumstance would be a very isolated and rare thing if a business was loosing market share, however if their job and remuneration is based on improving profitability and growth then they're doing their jobs arent they.

If a company can shed staff and maintain output then IMO they were "too inefficient" before trimming.

If a company looses market share it HAS to shed staff to keep the door open.

Companys reduce staff to balance supply, demand and efficient work practices, not to just P!SS people off......
Nobody pats company's on the back when they employe people do they....

[XR Martin]

If you guys think its so bad, why dont you provide examples of countrys that have better conditions, wages, and employment percentage.

Most of Europe has high unemployment (15-20%) and is 50-70% with the youth, Asia is even higher and lower wages.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

you make some good points there , believe me it's not personal to aspiring hard working people . and ceo's do work harder than a lot of people . but remember a lot of people working for them are working 7 days aweek as well. lots of ceo's are working monday to friday . just like lots of blue collar workers also . i am happy for people to work there way to the top , and create employment and wealth for themselves and others .
but mate big big big bosses and the likes in many many many industries have huge pay rises every year lots and lots of social life at company expenses .restaurant meals and holidays for all thier managers . free fuel, and luxury weekends away. whilst trying to cut expenses for those pathetic working bludgers . get real mate you cant denigh both sides exist . i can see it from both sides of the fence . everyone most people here who dont agree with my type of thinking are just full on liberal all the way ir reform , bowe down sir , yes mister priminister , we are all going forward , lets clean up the riff raff of which i am not one because i'm a good worker and i'm valuable to my company , you can be too, type peole , who disregard themselves as being mainstream society .
i think you have just shown your truew colours mate.

also how many of these , white shirt workers on less than $800 pw go and support workers rights . i often see them standing on balconies having a smoke , shaking their heads , when marching in a rally in town ( which let me say is rather embarrassing for myself , but how else do i make a piont and show that i oppose , and will take on the government ( any government that is ) to make make industrial relations , fairer for all , for my children as well when they enter the work force , and for those people on the balconies in their white shirts , shaking their heads , ( who may be on a lot less than myself ) and who would get the sac instantly for joining a rally to protect their own beliefs for australian rights. ( it's easier to disregard youself as one of them and shake your head isn't it.

Hey mate - all fair points. Obviously i was putting forward an extremist view... lol, easier to get my point across that way...

Regarding excessive pay of executives... well, it's a hard one to make a call on IMO. If a CEO leads his/her management group and the business generates billions of dollars profit... why shouldnt their pay be in the millions if the massive profits are attributable to their performance?

At the end of the day its no body's business apart from the shareholders. I dont really like the idea of paying someone more than $1m pa... but i dont make any representation that it should stop. Dunno - maybe one day i'll buy some Macquarie Bank shares, rock up to the AGM and demand paycuts for the executive team...

And why such public hatred for their remuneration... but it's OK for someone to earn millions of dollars hitting a green ball around a tennis court? Suggests to me that the resent comes from the preconcieved notion of the big wig/fat cat wiping his/her chin with $100 notes and scheming ways of keeping the working man down.... as opposed to a genuine moral objection to their level of remuneration.

For the record... i guess im one of the white collarers who earns less than 800 pw (well, net anyways....) . No... i dont protest on industrial relations fronts... a) i think im well paid for my age/experience and have great working conditions, b) im not a member of a union and c) im not against the current reforms - I support them. I wont protest for something which i dont personally see... i wont protest based on an assumption that maybe, somewhere, someone might be getting screwed over. I support those who stand up for their beliefs but i wont support something i dont personally believe in...

I wouldnt shake my head at those who do protest. You obviously feel strongly about what you believe in - i'd prefer a nation of industrial actionists like yourself than an apathetic population who dont care/arent interested.... and before im placed into such a category - it's not so. I do take an interest and i have a sound understanding of the new system.

However, one who does participate in such action should be careful not to allow their moral standpoint to become a high horse. Just because i dont protest doesnt mean i dont care.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

This circumstance would be a very isolated and rare thing if a business was loosing market share,

You mean like OneTel, HIH, Pyramid.....

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by GMH8TR

You mean like OneTel, HIH, Pyramid.....

I'm not 100% on onetel/pyramid but have extensive knowledge of the HIH failure (heck, i work for one of the organisations blamed for its failure, lol). The behaviour of the individuals in question was nothing short of criminal and caution should be used in citing HIH as an example of "typical" behaviour.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by GMH8TR

You mean like OneTel, HIH, Pyramid.....

From memory didnt all those exapmles go broke?
Were'nt all cases investigated and if breaches were made for illegal or corupt conduct they were prosecuted?
Hardly good examples of business's rewarding CEO's for increasing profit!!

[Scott]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

From memory didnt all those exapmles go broke?
Were'nt all cases investigated and if breaches were made they were prosecuted?
Hardly good examples of business's rewarding CEO's for increasing profit!!

My reply was in reference to your comment that examples of CEO's & Directors getting significant pay increases & benefits whilst losing market share/profit was rare. On the same page now?

[Scott]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

The behaviour of the individuals in question was nothing short of criminal and caution should be used in citing HIH as an example of "typical" behaviour.

Not typical at all but a perfect fit for my point of an example of a board awarding itself handsomely for some pretty horrific scorecards.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by GMH8TR

My reply was in reference to your comment that examples of CEO's & Directors getting significant pay increases & benefits whilst losing market share/profit was rare. On the same page now?

Im not sure what your definition of rare is but these examples fit mine.

I really don't know the exact circumstances behind each company because they occured some time ago however again these companies all went broke!!! so the CEO's lost their Jobs, and where applicable were prosecuted.

[Scott]

Forget it.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by GMH8TR

Forget it.

i agree i know how you feel . people are only relating to themselves here.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

people are only relating to themselves here.

I don't understand what is wrong with that, Shouldn't people make assesments and form opinion based on personal REAL LIFE experience and their OWN assesment of these laws themselves rather than "bandwagon jumping" and making sweeping claims based on scare mongering created by people who don't really know what they are anyway?

[Work Horse]

Why has this thread not been locked!!!
Don't tell me we are starting to have respect for people who have a different opinion to our own! Or learning to take no notice of people who are just trying to get a rise out of others!
We'll see about that lol! :

Originally Posted by 4Vman

I don't understand what is wrong with that, Shouldn't people make assesments and form opinion based on personal REAL LIFE experience and their OWN assesment of these laws themselves rather than "bandwagon jumping" and making sweeping claims based on scare mongering created by people who don't really know what they are anyway?

Exactly 4vman, people will have differing "REAL LIFE experience" and "their OWN assesment" will be different to everyone elses.
So while it is interesting to read through this thread and the views expressed, no one is actually correct as there is no right answer.

Except mine of course :

[AshMan]

Lost my apprenticeship after putting on a bit of weight (10 odd kgs).

COMPANY IS ENERGEX

[jeffb]

well..... at the end of the day, you cannot please everyone, some people find change hard to accept, others wecome it with open arms.

for the people that are aginst the new laws, good for you, as for the people that agree with them, well good for you too.

All i know is that it will never be like it was before, the only thing that could possibly happen is that there may be some modification to it all, it would be pointless and ignorant just to revert back, after the change has already been implemented.

[XAGSV8]

Originally Posted by AshMan

Lost my apprenticeship after putting on a bit of weight (10 odd kgs).

COMPANY IS ENERGEX

ENERGEX has more then 100 employees working for them. You there for have a right to take up unfair dismissal if they sacked you for putting on 10 kgs. You are covered under the new laws.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by GSWXA

ENERGEX has more then 100 employees working for them. You there for have a right to take up unfair dismissal if they sacked you for putting on 10 kgs. You are covered under the new laws.

Thankyou! someone else has taken the time to understand the laws!

[nugget378]

I personally knpw some one who has been affected by these laws,they work for a large health care group in a nursing home,as soon as these laws came in they started getting paid by a different company,they were all assured nothing will change,business as usual blah blah blah,now the only reason this was done was so all the employees at each of the company's "assets" is technically employed by a different company each with under 100 employees and doing so bypassing protection from unfair dismissal,two older ladies employed for many years were then sacked for no other reason but they're age with one weeks notice.These laws wont disadvantage anyone hey.Yeah right.

[XAGSV8]

Originally Posted by nugget378

,two older ladies employed for many years were then sacked for no other reason but they're age with one weeks notice.These laws wont disadvantage anyone hey.Yeah right.

Once again the law has been broken. That is discrimination and you can not dismiss based on age. Also pay can not be changed unless their contract has run out.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by nugget378

I personally knpw some one who has been affected by these laws,they work for a large health care group in a nursing home,as soon as these laws came in they started getting paid by a different company,they were all assured nothing will change,business as usual blah blah blah,now the only reason this was done was so all the employees at each of the company's "assets" is technically employed by a different company each with under 100 employees and doing so bypassing protection from unfair dismissal,two older ladies employed for many years were then sacked for no other reason but they're age with one weeks notice.These laws wont disadvantage anyone hey.Yeah right.

This is actually a really good point for discussion. There have been claims that employers may do just this - under the assumption they gain themselves exemption from unfair dismissal laws.

However, there is an argument that such behaviour is not legal and needs to be looked at (this usually means it needs to go to court... a precedent needs to be set somewhere). i.e. in the above instance - just because your friend's employer has done this... doesnt mean its legal - but no one will know unless it's challenged in a court of law... However, it would require someone to challenge the employer... meaning they may be out of the job for a while.

This sort of thing NEEDS to be tested in the courts. As the employer may believe that what they are doing is legal - when, that isnt necisarily the case ("independent" legal advice doesnt always stack up - anyone who has dealt with solicitors like that will know that you basically get the opinion you ask for... a few grand later).

Unfortunately I think it may take some time before a martyr steps forward to challenge an employer who may inentionally or mistakenly be breaking the law.

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

This is actually a really good point for discussion. There have been claims that employers may do just this - under the assumption they gain themselves exemption from unfair dismissal laws.

However, there is an argument that such behaviour is not legal and needs to be looked at (this usually means it needs to go to court... a precedent needs to be set somewhere). i.e. in the above instance - just because your friend's employer has done this... doesnt mean its legal - but no one will know unless it's challenged in a court of law... However, it would require someone to challenge the employer... meaning they may be out of the job for a while.

This sort of thing NEEDS to be tested in the courts. As the employer may believe that what they are doing is legal - when, that isnt necisarily the case ("independent" legal advice doesnt always stack up - anyone who has dealt with solicitors like that will know that you basically get the opinion you ask for... a few grand later).

Unfortunately I think it may take some time before a martyr steps forward to challenge an employer who may inentionally or mistakenly be breaking the law.

This is very true. But now you will need huge amounts of $$$ to challenge. Only the wealthy will be able to afford a fair go. And some unscrupulous(SP?) companies WILL take advantage of this.

Hey all, have been off the air the last couple of days, will be for a week or so, gotta go OS for work... Just wanted to let yuz know in case somel thought I had been beaten.....

Cheers all. :eclipsee_

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by GSWXA

Once again the law has been broken. That is discrimination and you can not dismiss based on age. Also pay can not be changed unless their contract has run out.

Its illegal, the employee is protected by the law and should persue their rights.
The other point we need to remember is that employees of companies with less than 100 staff are still covered by unfair dismissal laws, there's just a different system for handling their claims.

[MO]

I reiterate..I will not say I told you so when the new laws are thrown out, but unfortunately not before many ppl are hurt.

There was nothing wrong with the old system.

[Work Horse]

Early days yet I guess looking for victims of the IR laws.

The IR laws are expressly designed to stop workers negotiating their conditions collectively. Personally I cannot see how this will not lower pay and conditions for most workers. Others will disagree.

I worked in the UK between 1986-1994. So I have some understanding of the situation Australia is in at the moment.
The fourth term of a conservative government, with a leader following an ideological program of work place reforms, talk about deja vu!!

As a commercial paving contractor I worked on the privatised West London motorway maintenance contract for 18 months. After the new tender for the contract all pavers where offered their old jobs but for less money and lower penalty rates, take it or leave it. Most took it as they had families to support. I liked the fact I could work double 10 hour shifts back to back by clocking off for half an hour in between. No penalty rate for second shift, yes that's a 20 hour day!

I was backpacking so I could have cared less about life outside working for money to travel. Many of the guys I worked with had families in other parts of the country they didn't see very much. I remember thinking at the time how different the work practices were to Australias. Not any more!

Margaret Thatcher is remembered for the quote "There is no such thing as society", I'm sure Mr Howard would agree. Personally I don't, I want to live in a community, I want people to have a life outside work, I want Australia to continue our egalitarian traditions, I want a fair go for everyone.

[Outbackjack]

I used to say that "You must work to live" it soon wil be "you must live to work" and for less and less. Time will tell, but I can't see and company using the new IR laws to increase their payroll.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

I used to say that "You must work to live" it soon wil be "you must live to work" and for less and less. Time will tell, but I can't see and company using the new IR laws to increase their payroll.

Wages are usually the single biggest expense any company faces, if wages rise so does the cost of goods and services, the natural instincts of any GOOD CEO or Director is to minimise expences and maximise profit, in fact under corporate law its his responsibility to ensure a business remains viable..., this protects peoples jobs, and keeps share holders happy. Heavy penalties apply to anyone running a business while insolvent.
That said unemployment is at an all time low, and people have plenty of choice for good employment, in fact id say there is a shortage in many skilled areas causing extremely high wages as a result.
The average wage in Australia is relatively high compared to nearly every other country, we enjoy one the best standards of living as well.
Our single biggest threat was a complacent workforce protected by rediculously slanted IR laws which basically forced companies to keep "dead wood", allowed unions to virtually run peoples businesses their way, which further compounds productivity problems combined with an Ausrtalian Dollar so high that imports are so cheap it threatens local business all together.
On top of that any attempt to remove "poor performers" was an expensive minefield that cost small business hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary legal fees.
Look what the 38hr week cost business, now the unions want a 35hr week? get real...