The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

[absolution*]

not simply unemployment. health care, etc... stress levels related to employment have been rising steadily for years. the workplace is a stressful environment now.

Unemployment will not rise. That makes no sense. And i severely doubt "stressed" employees will represent a constraint to any form of health service.

 

[absolution*]

so go be an accountant then. but if you want to do anything else, you will end up being effected.

Qualifications = AWAs. Mmmmmmm AWAs.

 

[spin spin sugar]

So far every single one of your posts but the following quote has been to the contrary.

so because i don't agree with you, i'm uninformed? ask me about any key industrial relations reform or legislation. seriously.

Are you seriously trying to suggest to me that we should have 10% unemployment, or 5% inflation and a general slowing of economic growth and living standards because the 'workers are better off under that system'?

i don't know. i think, essentially, we are headed for a slowing of economic growth regardless. i know, that personally, i like to see my rights as a worker protected and the thought of that being taken from me, scares me. that's an individual perspective, but we are a country made up of individuals. i'd rather not ride the rollercoaster of capitalism until we all have no rights to speak of.... but hey, thats just me!

 

[Rorix]

maybe it's because i don't really care to argue with any great skill on the internet, with a bunch of cockheads like yourself? i like to read the forum to see the opinions of a few posters on here, but i'm really not that concerned. rip my debating skill apart, i really couldnt give a shit. if something bothers me, i'll say it, if i can't back it up..... whatever. thats my problem. so care less.

The point is you assert things which you reasonably should know to be false.

And have some deep insecurity about your intelligence and lash out at anyone who questions one of your beliefs.

not simply unemployment.

ok I will now cease to read or respond to your posts.

 

[spin spin sugar]

Unemployment will not rise. That makes no sense. And i severely doubt "stressed" employees will represent a constraint to any form of health service.

in the form of depression, general health overall.. it's ignorant to say that your workplace environment doesn't effect your health. but then you've never worked full time, so if you can't relate i understand

i'm not trying to prove anyone wrong in that regard anyway.. its my feeling that it would be a small consequence of IR reform, but i'm not costello, so you can stop interrogating me as if my answers are going to, or SHOULD HAVE, the legitimacy of his

 

[spin spin sugar]

ok I will now cease to read or respond to your posts.

thank you!!

 

[absolution*]

i'd rather not ride the rollercoaster of capitalism until we all have no rights to speak of.... but hey, thats just me!

so youd rather ride the frank stilwell marxist manifesto?

 

[spin spin sugar]

hahaha, ewww, riding frank stillwell, i think not, but i'd ride my tutor any day

 

[absolution*]

id like a serious answer..

 

[spin spin sugar]

ohhh well it was serious!! ask me next time you're stalking me on eastern ave and maybe i'll have a serious convo with you about it

 

[absolution*]

id hate to embarrass you in front of so many people, we might have to get together, alone, so i can show you my,...erhm, awards.

 

[spin spin sugar]

i love awards.

 

[absolution*]

ill bet you do wench

 

[Not-That-Bright]

haha his name is jonathon!

BOS Paparatzo strikes again.

 

[Sarah]

Well a good thing about the reforms are that the IRC will be the last resort to resolve disputes. From what i know, there's a tendency for the current system to get clogged up with minor disputes that could be settled through arbitration and concilliation (i think they're the right terms).

However i do agree with spin's comment on workplace stress

not simply unemployment. health care, etc... stress levels related to employment have been rising steadily for years. the workplace is a stressful environment now. the government will end up paying in all kinds of ways they wouldnt have anticipated. but thats my opinion.. i tend to think the health of a nation should be measured through means other than GDP%.

With the changes in unfair dismissal laws, it will definately be easier for businesses with <100 ppl to dismiss an employee. It's probably more detrimental to the organisation if it were to happen too often. Afterall if it happens too often, an employer would have a workplace with high levels of stress, low workplace morale, job insecurity and it's staff would not have a work/life balance and be working overtime most likely without being paid to ensure job security. Ok that may be an extreme situation but it's plausible. You only have to look at the average hours of work Australian do to realise it's very high.

Although, it probably could enhance productivity levels. Not really sure.

As to the proposed Fair Pay Commission, it will be interesting to see who exactly is on it.

 

[Generator]

The Fair Pay Commission, at the current time, looks as though it will be far too technocratic (and narrow in vision) for Australia. Academics (regular economists), a business representative, someone representing the unions/employees (who exactly, though?) and others, with it being chaired by a business figure. Exciting times.

 

[absolution*]

its spelt jonathan* jerkoids

 

[Generator]

The ACTU has said it will challenge the legislation, which could be very exciting! It would involve a battle in the High Court over whether the legislation is within the powers of the Commonwealth.

Although I highly doubt the legislation would be unconstitutional... as I understand it the corporations power in s 52 is wide enough to encompass the reforms.

KIM LANDERS: Well there's been a bit of talk amongst some of the States that maybe they'd launch a High Court challenge to prevent the Federal Government taking over their industrial relations powers. Are you saying that you wouldn't be a party to that?

PETER BEATTIE: Oh no, we'd be prepared to think about that and we'd be prepared to be part of that, but you've got to understand that federally, the law is on the side of the Commonwealth. It's hard for us.

I mean frankly, there are many ways that we can do this, challenge it. There are aspects we can challenge, but while we are thinking about that, and we will be part of that if it goes ahead, I have to say that our chances of success are not as high as I would like them to be.

KIM LANDERS: Federal Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews agrees.

KEVIN ANDREWS: Look, I can't tell what the States will do. All I can say is that if their legal advice is like my legal advice then a challenge would be futile.

KIM LANDERS: John Della Bosca says the legal advice given to New South Wales is ambiguous.

JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Every barrister I've spoken to about this who has expertise in constitutional law, has offered the view that the corporations power was not designed to give the Commonwealth power over industrial relations.

The whole point of why the original constitution was drafted with a separate industrial relations power for the Commonwealth was simply because the corporations power, which is simply to regulate the affairs of corporations and makes corporate systems predominant in economic affairs, is inappropriate to regulate industrial relations. So…

KIM LANDERS: Will New South Wales share that legal advice when the Premiers get together this afternoon in Sydney?

JOHN DELLA BOSCA: We've already canvassed at the industrial relations ministers' level, the advice that we've been given. What I'm saying is that many barristers have expressed a concern to me that this High Court will give the Howard Government any decision they want and that is a problem. That is a concern. But you've got to back the fact that the High Court has professional judges with skill and who understand and will obey the law.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1378535.htm

It should be interesting, if something that I will barely understand as a mere student of the social sciences.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

There was certainly a great need for reform but this legislation isn't the answer - it is replacing one problem with one that has the potential to be even greater.

These reforms seem to insinuate that management will always act ethically - which is not going to be the case.

I expect many small business workers will be told "accept a pay cut/ have sex with me / work twice as long a week OR I WILL FIRE YOU".

They would then have no legal rights to challenge the boss.

As to random firing, employees and employers still have contractual agreements. You can't just breach them on a whim. If there are discretionary termination clauses in the contracts then you will be aware of them before entering into them.

However, there is some doublespeak going on with Howard claiming the IR reforms will give employees more choice and power. The IR reforms will give employers more power, as they are obviously in a far more powerful position when negotiating contracts.

Personally I don't think there was a need for great reform. The only reform I think was needed was a national system. Merging the different state legislation into a national model is a good idea. However, the substance of the current system has proven to be working well; I'm not convinced changes are really necessary since real wages are climbing at a lesser rate than productivity growth - hence it isn't going to do much to lower inflation

 

[townie]

-so, correct me if i'm wrong, but as i understand it the "allowable" matters, are matters that HAVE to be included in an award? and they've been reduced from 20 to 16, but some matters will be enshrined in legislation
-there will be no 'no disadvantage' test
-u can still claim "unlawful" dismissal, but not unfair, or it's harder to claim unfair, in businesses with less than 100 people
- the fair pay commission will NOT consist of government representatives, and will have an employee representative



on another note, i'm not lawyer, but under the corporations power, couldnt the cw'lth only take over IR for companies that ARE corporations (one assumes not all are)....and believe me, i'm no constitutional laywer, but arent IR powers specifically mentioned somewhere else in s.52, thus couldnt u argue the const. never intended to give the c'wlth IR powers because it does mention them, but explicitly gives them only some??

/muse

edit: my name is Alex