The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

[erawamai]

Interestingly in a strange way you may have proved my point. That is that for whatever reason you may decide that you value your dream bmw (nice btw) higher than for instance having Saturday off. In other words people are not forced to work a six-day week but choose to do so (or are compelled to do so because on aggregate people choose to). The reason for this choice almost invariably being money.

On a related note: I do not believe this is the best choice to make and that people are making a mistake if they decide to work a six (or seven) day week, but I firmly believe it is largely their choice.

Well that was my point...Lust for shiny things with red leather make people give up sundays

Still I wish the god of neoliberal economics will get me my BMW.

 

[Generator]

http://crikey.com.au/articles/2005/11/10-1550-6113.html

---

Labor vows to 'bin' IR legislation

ALEXANDRA KIRK: Labor tried, unsuccessfully, to re-name the bill.

STEPHEN SMITH: An amendment which seeks to change the name of the bill to "The Workplace Relations Amendment (Cut Wages, Cut Conditions And Entitlements, No Fairness, No Work Choices) Act 2005".

Haha

---

Sick leave rules unworkable: unions

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Hahahahaha

EDIT: What's wrong with asking employees to be accountable for any sick leave they take?

 

[Riewe]

This thing about sick leave we are hearing now is one of the reasons why i don't support the unions in this. they are making such a big thing about employers now having the right to ask for a doctor's certificate when they have a sickie, but awards now, union bargained awards mind you, state that this is already the case.

They make a fuss about items in the bill which are already implemented, which further reduces their credibility in my books.

 

[Arbeit~!]

The unions, ALP and the Liberals all suck. None of them represent anyone.

 

[Generator]

This thing about sick leave we are hearing now is one of the reasons why i don't support the unions in this. they are making such a big thing about employers now having the right to ask for a doctor's certificate when they have a sickie, but awards now, union bargained awards mind you, state that this is already the case.

They make a fuss about items in the bill which are already implemented, which further reduces their credibility in my books.

As far as I know, not many awards currently allow the employer to 'demand' a doctor's certificate after a single day (or two) of sick leave.

 

[walrusbear]

The unions, ALP and the Liberals all suck. None of them represent anyone.

i could have sworn unions represent workers...

 

[Arbeit~!]

I agree..........

 

[Sarah]

Still I wish the god of neoliberal economics will get me my BMW.

Well it's rather simple isn't it? All u have to do is sign an AWA, agree to work a minimum 6 day working week (overtime hours and penalty rates negotiable), agree to cash out 2 of your 4 weeks in annual leave and if you're really good, your employer will agree to overlook that 1 sick day you take (and only 1) without demanding to see a doctors certificate.

Ok, back to cramming for my IR exam....

 

[Generator]

Good luck, Sarah!

Anger as IR bill clears first hurdle

Nothing new in both the Herald and the Age when considered alongside the PM piece that I made note of earlier, it seems, but this article makes slight mention of the upcoming day of action, a day that should prove to be quite interesting. However, I doubt that any pro-IR agenda employers with a smidgin of sense would press their luck with any employees who choose to attend a rally given that the last thing that they would want is to feed the 'scare campaign' being waged by the Unions and the ALP.

 

[walrusbear]

bogus link

 

[Generator]

I posted that link yesterday .

Labor would scrap IR laws

State and territory Labor governments filed a joint submission to the Senate inquiry, with their industrial relations ministers planning to give evidence at next week's hearings.

According to the submission, the changes will force employers to cut wages to remain competitive, cut conditions and make it harder for unions to protect workers. Unions across the country launched claims in state industrial relations commissions yesterday for a 4per cent rise in minimum pay rates under state awards.

I doubt that the views of the states and territories will be taken seriously given the nature of this particular inquiry and the way in which the government appears to ignore many of its committee reports that aren't in step with its programme.

 

[walrusbear]

yeah the coalition sure are arrogant

 

[loquasagacious]

Actually it is in awards and is in most enterprise agreements workplaces are usually fairly relaxed about it though - I wouldn't expect this to change.

 

[Jiga]

Im unsure of what the effect of the IR reforms will have upon the Australia economy.

a. There is the idea that as a result of lower paid jobs, it means more productivity and cheaper for businesses, which will then lead to increased investment, and more jobs, the net effect of which will be increased consumption which will further improve investment etc.

b. The other idea is that it will increase income inequality, as the lower paid workers get paid even less whilst the higher paid remain relatively uneffected due to their bargaining powers (highly skilled labour) and those with businesses increase their profts, and dont necessarily inject these profts back into their businesses, absoring the potential benefits to society.

Both concepts have their related economic theory. What I dont understand is why is the government trying to further stimulate the economy in that manner? Apart from the fact that our unemployment rate is very low, there are other means. What about the tax changes recently introduced? The whole idea behind them is that similar to point a above. They involve slightly reduced taxes for low paid workers and significantly decreasef taxes for businesses and higher paid workers, this was meant to increase invesment as businesses Net Profits increase providing them with the necceary capital to invest. Well the effect of these wouldnt have shown yet, as their is a significant lag, so why is the government so swiftly trying to implement the IR reforms before the effects of their other little strategy have been seen? I can only guess that they are trying to have a double pronged effect, maybe trying to hold off an iminent recession? But like I said before, unemployment is low, and I dont know why they dont wait to see how the tax changes will effect the economy, whether the increased consumption levels will lead to business investing more or whether they will absord them...as is the same with their other ingeuius idea of IR reform. Maybe waiting could give them a good indication of what businesses will do with increased profits, because if they absord them in both cases, then both changes would have proven relatively useless and have had negative effect in the form of decreased equality and decreased incomes.

 

[leetom]

What I dont understand is why is the government trying to further stimulate the economy in that manner?

Perhaps it's less about stimulating the economy than it is about a liberalistic ideological frolic. There are probably other means of further enhancing the economy, just now that with almost ten years in power the Libs want something they can slap each other on the back and congratulate themselves about in the party room.

 

[Generator]

Not much on offer today (in the fairfax papers and murdoch's national rag, that is).

Loophole allows unions to continue wage cases

---

Edit: Lateline's Friday Night Forum - Parliament and the IR 'debate'

 

[nedzelic]

Win Stadium

anyone going to the march/protest/meeting at WIN Stadium - tomoro i think it is

 

[walrusbear]

i'm not but i hope it is fruitful in some kind of way

 

[05er]

Did anyone see how badly Beazley fucked up his "I'm with you" speech in parliament? Truly tragic.

Not like Whitlam......he could rouse my Blacktown RSL any day of the week.