The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

[gerhard]

only labor could fuck up an oppertunity this bad

 

[Generator]

only labor could fuck up an oppertunity this bad

How so?

---

The Bulletin: Obfuscating on thin ice

 

[Generator]

Editorial - Spotlight on wages

WHEN Kim Beazley needs new socks, he has a range of options. With his parliamentary salary of just over $205,000 a year – plus allowances – the Opposition Leader can hit a high-priced boutique department store or slum it in a discount chain. But Australians who don't have that option or Mr Beazley's income need to rely heavily on shops that sell at a discount to do their shopping. One of the ways such businesses manage to keep prices low is through labor costs. But under Australia's antiquated centralised wage-fixing system, employers have until very recently had little choice in striking a balance between their staffing and service levels. Under the old regime when a company such as Spotlight, which recently found itself the victim of an ALP beat-up over its plans to move workers onto AWAs, wanted to cut labor costs, it could fire workers or slash plans to hire in the future. Either way, the end result would be higher prices and lower service for the customer.

It's a basic rule of economics which Kim Beazley fails to grasp. Discount stores such as Spotlight rely on lower- and middle-income Australians for their patronage. When employers are forced by the government to pay workers $35 an hour (effectively almost $70,000 a year) just for showing up on Saturday, consumers ultimately pay the price. And it is less well-off consumers who bear the brunt of this labor premium. Furthermore the inequities of the old awards system meant that someone who staffed a till on a Saturday afternoon could be paid far more per hour than a bartender pulling beers and mixing drinks on a busy Saturday night. By demanding a return to the bad old days of collective bargaining, Mr Beazley is essentially telling less well-off Australians that they should pay more for the goods and services they buy. Contrast this with the Howard Government's approach to economics and employment which has been to liberalise industrial relations while developing a strong safety net to subsidise low-income families. With unemployment now down to 4.9 per cent, it's pretty clear whose approach leads to jobs and whose leads to penury.

So in order to maintain affordable prices within a store, wages must be cut (or, at the very least, staff entitlements removed and any future wage increases severly restricted). What happens when a store's customers' base level of pay drops in order to increase affordability within the store? Will another round of pay cuts occur in order to allow more suitable prices given the customers' dimished capacity to consume? What happens then? Will it end there, or will the spiral continue?

I don't think that Kim Beazley is the one who cannot come to grips with the obvious.

On a related note, here's an opinion piece from Crikey - McCrann & Oakes: worlds apart on AWAs

 

[Generator]

Beazley calls protesters true patriots

Beazley calls protesters true patriots
PM - Wednesday, 28 June , 2006 18:18:00
Reporter: Daniel Hoare


MARK COLVIN: There were rallies across Australia today, as the union movement stepped up its campaign against the Federal Government's new industrial relations laws.

Melbourne hosted the biggest, with police estimating a crowd of about 80,000 people. Speakers included the Labor leader Kim Beazley.

In Sydney, more than 30,000 protesters took to the streets, and thousands more marched through the streets of the other state capitals and some regional centres.

Kim Beazley told the crowd in Melbourne that if he won the next Federal election, he would rip up the Federal Government's new workplace legislation.

The Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews dismissed the protesters as victims of a union scare campaign.

Daniel Hoare has this report.

[continued - see link]

 

[Generator]

James Hardie will pay: Combet

China gas deal brings billions to Australia

JOHN HOWARD: Forty-three per cent of everybody employed in the resources sector in Western Australia, which is the principle source of our exports to China and the principle source of our resource exports, are on AWAs.

And let's not deal in hypothetical examples, let's deal in reality. And the reality is that the resource sector needs the flexibility of AWAs.

If you get rid of AWAs you will seriously damage the resource sector, you will cut the wages of thousands of people employed in the resource sector and you will interrupt this wonderful expansion that's gone on.

I mean, why we would want to cut into something that has been so incredibly successful is quite beyond me and I think it will be beyond the reasoning of most Australians.

Beazley says PM talking 'rubbish' on AWAs

LOUISE YAXLEY: The Prime Minister says 43 per cent of those working in the Western Australian resources sector are on these agreements.

KIM BEAZLEY: Yeah, but the trouble is, he's changed them, hasn't he?

The AWAs that he has put in place with his new legislation aren't like his old AWAs. They don't have the no-disadvantage test applying. So the best bet for those in the mining industry in Western Australia who want to remain on individual contracts, if they want to do that, their best bet is to go across to the common law contracts, which ensure that they maintain their benefits.

 

[lil_huyenie]

soo....jsut wanted to know, any thoughts on how the new IR reforms impact on these parties

*federal & state govt
*employees
*employers
*society


... and how they respond to it??

 

[Optophobia]

soo....jsut wanted to know, any thoughts on how the new IR reforms impact on these parties

*federal & state govt
*employees
*employers
*society


... and how they respond to it??

*chuckle*

HSC question?

 

[lil_huyenie]

ehahea.. its for my research assignment...

well i have to talk about wat the workchoice covers..parties involved...

and yeas...stuff along that line

 

[Generator]

soo....jsut wanted to know, any thoughts on how the new IR reforms impact on these parties

*federal & state govt
*employees
*employers
*society


... and how they respond to it??

---

ehahea.. its for my research assignment...

well i have to talk about wat the workchoice covers..parties involved...

and yeas...stuff along that line

This post may be of some use, but apart from that, I think that you will just have to tackle this assessment on your own.

 

[lil_huyenie]

thanks heaps for that

 

[Generator]

Union seizes on coal worker contract
Sick deal: female miner sacked

New Spotlight deal worse than two cents offer

 

[banco55]

The key info left out of the spotlight article is wheter "but for" the new IR laws the spotlight store wouldn't have hired as many people as it has hired (or offered employment).

 

[Generator]

The key info left out of the spotlight article is wheter "but for" the new IR laws the spotlight store wouldn't have hired as many people as it has hired (or offered employment).

That argument doesn't make any sense, banco, and it seems that even the Government has dropped it from its arsenal - how do you know that the store wouldn't have hired 'as many people as it has hired'? Why would the store hire any more staff than is necessary (i.e., why would the staffing levels in the new store go beyond those required in other Spotlight stores?). Do you have an actual answer to this, banco, or are you merely spouting partisan rubbish in the hope that noone will question what you have to say?

 

[banco55]

That argument doesn't make any sense, banco, and it seems that even the Government has dropped it from its arsenal - how do you know that the store wouldn't have hired 'as many people as it has hired'? Why would the store hire any more staff than is necessary (i.e., why would the staffing levels in the new store go beyond those required in other Spotlight stores?). Do you have an actual answer to this, banco, or are you merely spouting partisan rubbish in the hope that noone will question what you have to say?

I don't know that. That is precisely my point. Staffing comes down to a lot of factors. Some stores might be willing to tolerate a higher customer/staff ratio. I've worked various shitty retail jobs and when they have trouble meeting profit/budget targets they will cut staff hours and put up with longer lines. Make do with less is a mantra you'll hear quite often in business. Channel 9 fired 100 staff last week so obviously they don't have some "magical number" of staff that they must keep at all costs. I'd be surprised for example if every spotlight store had identical number of FTE staff. Are you suggesting that companies will make their hiring decisions without taking into account labour laws etc?

 

[Generator]

I was merely rubbishing your argument, banco, and at no point did I even imply that staffing decisions may be taken without consideration of the IR environment.

As for your point, I really don't see how your initial grand statement of fact supports your point that you don't actually know anything.

 

[banco55]

I was merely rubbishing your argument, banco, and at no point did I even imply that staffing decisions may be taken without consideration of the IR environment.

As for your point, I really don't see how your initial grand statement of fact supports your point that you don't actually know anything.

That could be because I didn't make a grand statement of fact. My grand statement of fact was that we don't have enough info on the spotlight case.

 

[Generator]

That could be because I didn't make a grand statement of fact. My grand statement of fact was that we don't have enough info on the spotlight case.

The key info left out of the spotlight article is wheter "but for" the new IR laws the spotlight store wouldn't have hired as many people as it has hired (or offered employment).

Key info? "but for"? To me that seems like a grand statement of fact, not a suggestion that the issue is actually quite complex and that we, as outsiders, are largely in the dark.

Edit: Though the "key info" statement may suggest otherwise, the "whether" supports banco's argument.

 

[Generator]

Employees rush to sign AWAs
Workplace Minister tries to offset horror stories

One minute the Government supports its reforms by referring to the AWAs of old, and the next it actually admits (well, openly implies) that people under AWAs need not be better off than those currently covered by awards or collective agreements. What will it be next?

 

[Generator]

Battle resumes as sackings confirmed legal

Battle resumes as sackings confirmed legal
David Humphries
July 8, 2006


THE Government, the Opposition and unions all claimed vindication after the official finding yesterday that Cowra Abattoir acted lawfully in sacking 29 meatworkers then trying to rehire 20 on lower pay.

[continued - see link]

 

[The Brucemaster]

Sailor's Fight Job Losses

Another case of dispute over whether or not the IR laws came in to play.
Howard denies it, Andrews and the company were conveniently unavailable for comment.