New IR changes to take effect

svo347 · 26-03-2006, 10:58 PM

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=75347
Very good read..
hope some of you are sitting on safe jobs...

Hunter · 26-03-2006, 11:36 PM

My job is 'safe' but I'm about to change to another soon, which is a government job, thank god for that!

I can see these laws making life really really tough for some people.

EvilChief · 26-03-2006, 11:40 PM

yer i am hunting for a gov job too

nathen · 27-03-2006, 12:01 AM

guys im in a gov job and they are not as safe as people may think

JC · 27-03-2006, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathen

guys im in a gov job and they are not as safe as people may think

So am I and they are safer than the private sector, though the gap is closing. Oh, and AWAs are going to be the standard soon - if you want to join our department, and you are not already a public servant, then they will only offer you an AWA. I have been on an AWA for 3 years, and so far, so good.

ClevlndStemer · 27-03-2006, 05:34 AM

i am in a reasonably safe job. However my company never followed the award of the government and a lot the government is introducing doesn't affect me. my pay isn't all that crash hot but it is pay. we had our o/t cancelled last year (earn only time) and other such things.

To be honest i wasn't keen on these new laws but now I have warmed to them, I think there are some places and some people that shouldn't be earning what they are compared with other industries. hopefully it does shake up everything.

4.9 EF Futura · 27-03-2006, 12:34 PM

Wowsers..... new laws kicked in this morning and the sky does not appear to have fallen yet!

mik · 27-03-2006, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Wowsers..... new laws kicked in this morning and the sky does not appear to have fallen yet!

give it a chance mate, next thing they`ll be after public holidays and annual leave COUNT ON IT.

klawsterfobik · 27-03-2006, 12:39 PM

personally im not worried, i can bargain... and im in a government job

but i can see how it will effect people that dont have a lot of skills, or training, and hence bargaining power. When it comes down to it, a little bit of money is better than none. And i think that is what it will all boil down to...

Its going to make things very hard for some people, and thats what upsets me most about them. And i think there is a massive scope for it to be abused by empolyers and really hurt people.

jmc-007 · 27-03-2006, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mik

give it a chance mate, next thing they`ll be after public holidays and annual leave COUNT ON IT.

yeah it will all come to ahead shortly.

why do you think they passed laws to put people in jail if there is a public uprising or civil war.

why put laws in place if nothing is going to happen.

Watch this space.

GOLDIE · 27-03-2006, 02:03 PM

I am self employed so i am ok.
I think some people are reading to much into the laws and no the sky will not fall in.

But i can see where the new laws could be good for some companies like were my wife works they have to staff members there that turn up when they like and when they do come to work they do very little.

Under the old laws they could not sack either of them because they use the excuse of having children for not turning up and could sue them for descimantion.
Have a guess who has to pick up the slack when these people do not turn up the other staff.

Ian

MikGan · 27-03-2006, 02:13 PM

Yeah I see both sides, I've just changed from one gov job to another from an AWA to a CA, no biggie. The new changes work well when everything is good, but the moment a company feels the pinch watch them race to the lowest wage bracket!

I really feel for the people that are going to feel this one, it will happen, its a matter of time. The moment one company goes down the others will have to, to maintain competivieness, and then it starts all over again.

My folks own a number of motels and I can understand the you cant fire someone cause of x, y, z, but at the same time my folks never had a problem if someone was not performing,they'd do it properly; takes notes, hold meetings with the person(s), write notices, then let them go if still needed. The employer always had the power, just most didnt follow the rules and got caught out.

347Stroker · 27-03-2006, 02:17 PM

Has anybody thought what will happen when all of the current EBA's across the country end over the next 2 years, and then the "safety net" wage of $12.75 can be implemented. I can see the dole being nearly impossible to get, and alot of people having to take jobs @ $12.75.

Watch this space.....

KOUPE76 · 27-03-2006, 02:25 PM

That's why I started my own company and I get to say when and how I work,I was in the electrical indusrty for over 13 yrs now and have seen a heap of changes.
I sub contract to 4 different companies at the moment with work for myself on the side. My brother in law is a classic case for these 1R Laws, the p@#k has gone through 18 employees in the last 8 months coz he has changed the way he looks at his employees.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Governmants say EBA will go through until the aggreemant is up, I think thats 2-3 yrs away, so you're pretty safe with that, but look out when it expires.

By the way, if you are a technician of some sort get out of the wage seen and get some well paid work you deserve.

Mick.

4.9 EF Futura · 27-03-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 347Stroker

Watch this space.....

Definately the approach to take.

With IR its almost impossible to get the balance right... some say the new laws swing too far towards employers.... some suggest that the previous framework was too far towards employees... is it better to have more people employed, earning less... or less people employed, earning more?

Opinions on these matters are philosophical ones i guess...

347Stroker · 27-03-2006, 02:46 PM

I can see that no body will really understand whats really happening, until they themselves, or friends/relatives get hit with the "take this pay or see you later" offer from an employer.
You cant blame bosses for this, if you didnt have to pay someone $25 p/hr and you only had to pay $12.75, what would you do?

I like the governments sly move of introducing them mid Commonwealth Games for less media exposure....

4.9 EF Futura · 27-03-2006, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 347Stroker

I can see that no body will really understand whats really happening, until they themselves, or friends/relatives get hit with the "take this pay or see you later" offer from an employer.
You cant blame bosses for this, if you didnt have to pay someone $25 p/hr and you only had to pay $12.75, what would you do?

I like the governments sly move of introducing them mid Commonwealth Games for less media exposure....

A very close friend of mine doesnt seem too disappointed... as the draft AWA he and his employer have been working on sees a near-15% increase in his weekly earnings after hashing out the conditions... he's real upset about that.

IIRC $12.75 was the rate under the exisitng award...

I like the ACTU's tactics of suggesting the government used the comm games as some sort of veil for the introduction of the reforms?? Lol, give the people of this country a little bit of credit, Mr Combet.

And the... ahhh, forget it. U know where i stand 347 stroker... i'll leave the politics to the politicians.

SpoolMan · 27-03-2006, 02:58 PM

Most EB agreements are up June this year, this was there hurry.
We think most employers will go easy this time, so little Johnny can stand there and say whats all the fuss about....But wait until the next one bend over buddy.
If you earn over $85k a year, the unfair dismissal laws don't apply to you, and yes there not picking on the little guy are they...yeah right.
How dare a blue collar worker make a decent living, they want this to be reserved for the fat-cat bureaucrats and executives who run big companies.

4.9 EF Futura · 27-03-2006, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpoolMan

If you earn over $85k a year, the unfair dismissal laws don't apply to you, and yes there not picking on the little guy are they...yeah right.
How dare a blue collar worker make a decent living, they want this to be reserved for the fat-cat bureaucrats and executives who run big companies.

At the risk of upsetting a moderator...

This sort of rhetoric is dangerous and completely unnecessary. If i earned > $85k i would be personally offended - luckily i earn much much much less than that (altho i know many people who fit the image of your "blue collar hero" who earn significantly more than this). Or is it OK in your opinion for someone to earn this kind of money... so long as they're blue collar?

How dare you suggest someone is a bereaucrat/fat cat purely because they earn an amount of money above and beyond the unfair dismissal threshold. These attitudes are primarily responsible for the perceived 'divide' between blue and white collar workers.

For shame.

GreenMachine · 27-03-2006, 03:47 PM

102 years of worker's history down the drain. Will be interesting to see where the new laws take us. Howard introduced them for two reasons only - to create a low-wage, low-condition economy in order to compete with other manufacturing nations, and to cripple unions, who are his rival party's powerbase.

Like it or hate it, the majority of Australians voted for it, so it's too late to complain now.

**Professor Farnsworth** · 27-03-2006, 03:55 PM

The company i work for has over 300 employees at head office alone, and over a thousand australia wide so it doesn't affect me, but as said above, this isn't going to change the current circumstances very much anyway.

parawolf · 27-03-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpoolMan

If you earn over $85k a year, the unfair dismissal laws don't apply to you, and yes there not picking on the little guy are they...yeah right.
How dare a blue collar worker make a decent living, they want this to be reserved for the fat-cat bureaucrats and executives who run big companies.

Sorry over 85K a year is for fat-cat bureaucrats and executives? My previous job had me earning just near 85K with overtime and i'd hardly call myself an 'executive'.

My current job has me at over 85K (depending on how you look at Super I guess), and I would still hardly call myself an executive. In fact my position in the food chain is hands and feet in the mess. I have no budget assigned, I have no reports (direct or indirect), I have no discresionary allowance.

I am simply well trained, shows initiative - and fill a niche product market. Fortunately my company is larger than 3000 Australia wide. But seriously, if you think anyone that earns 85K is executive style salary you need to take a big look at the industry above you.

I'd suggest that an executive style salary would be $150k plus. I'll be there in 5 years hopefully with a bit of effort on my part and successful footholds in the company. Well at least that was my career plan discussion I had with my manager 3 weeks ago when I was promoted - he was well and truly happy to facilitate that and we discussed it at length.

347Stroker · 27-03-2006, 06:34 PM

I would think twice about unfair dismissal and 100 employees rules too.
Companys will break themselves up into many holding companys and have lower than 100 employees in each, so theres unfair dismissal sorted...

Citric GT · 27-03-2006, 06:35 PM

Our EA runs out 31 Dec. After that it'll be bend over time.

SpoolMan · 27-03-2006, 06:44 PM

Where did i say ''fat-cat bureaucrats and executives'' make $85,000 a year?
read it again 2 statements in my post, 1st one is ''If you earn over $85k a year, the unfair dismissal laws don't apply to you, and yes there not picking on the little guy are they...yeah right''.
2nd part of the ''How dare a blue collar worker make a decent living, they want this to be reserved for the fat-cat bureaucrats and executives who run big companies.'' these 2 posts have nothing to do with each other, not sure why you take one comment and mixed it with another. stop at the full stop. then start reading again.
I do not consider $85,000 a fat-cat wage, what I am talking about is the sky high executive salary's the fat-cat bureaucrats earn, while there money goes up everyone else is told to show some restraint.
My comment about a $85,000 wage, was in to regards of why should a certain amount of money make anyone exempts from a unfair dismissal law.
Apparently its always been like that.

4.9 EF Futura · 27-03-2006, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 347Stroker

I would think twice about unfair dismissal and 100 employees rules too.
Companys will break themselves up into many holding companys and have lower than 100 employees in each, so theres unfair dismissal sorted...

Although this has been a great catch cry of the ACTU, ALP and the leftist media in general - the concern has already been somewhat addressed within the public debate around the unfair dismissal laws. Never let the facts get in the way of a good fear campaign tho....

You realise to break a company up like that would see technical retrenchments upon shifting an employee out of the original company and in to the new trading company? Which would involve paying people out for all of their entitlements + redundancy payments...

Shifting someone's employment from one company to another is not as simple as it may sound...

One must also set up these "shelf" companies - legal fees @ hundreds of dollars per hour, accounting fees @ hundreds of dollars per hour, audit fees @ hundreds of dollars per hour...

Doesnt make for a great business case.

Not to mention an employee of a company with < 100 employees still has access to the federal unlawful dismissal remedies for discrimination and a whole host of other things - including the fact you cannot be fired for refusing to sign an AWA. But hey, let's not allow the facts to get in the way of a good fear campaign.

27-03-2006, 07:08 PM

Doesn't affect me a great deal. I'm on a common law contract (not an AWA) so my conditions are fixed.
and considering how hard it is getting skilled workers in my industry, my job security is solid.

svo347 · 27-03-2006, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Wowsers..... new laws kicked in this morning and the sky does not appear to have fallen yet!

Give it sometime....
who knows you could be sideshafted and position given to someone who will work holidays at the normal rate

4.9 EF Futura · 27-03-2006, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by svo347

Give it sometime....
who knows you could be sideshafted and position given to someone who will work holidays at the normal rate

If im in the mood for it, i'll work holidays and weekends for FREE every now and then. So long as i get my work done, my employer doesnt care when/how/where it gets done. This is the flexibility afforded to me by my AWA.

chief · 27-03-2006, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 347Stroker

I would think twice about unfair dismissal and 100 employees rules too.
Companys will break themselves up into many holding companys and have lower than 100 employees in each, so theres unfair dismissal sorted...

There are laws in place to stop this from happening. A company or business can not divide its workforce up or split the complany for this prupose. It is illegal.

I think the IR reforms are good. That is all I am going say on this topic.