spin spin sugar
it's gotta be big
a little bit, it was referred to in a couple of lectures, but mostly discussed in tutorials. we were expected to mention it in the exam for a few topics too.
Hmmm.... it's a bit dangerous to speculate though? No one knows exactly what the effects will be yet.Generator said:Another bump.
ACTU mounts campaign against Fed Govt's IR changes (The World Today)
Chamber of Commerce to launch offensive against unions IR ads (PM)
I'm kind of hoping that the BOS IR debate will reignite, some day. If not, oh well.
True, but a bit of scare-mongering (be you in favour of the current stance of business lobby groups or the unions (a simplistic binary representation, I know)) never goes astray .Sarah said:Hmmm.... it's a bit dangerous to speculate though? No one knows exactly what the effects will be yet.
Fair enough. But after talking to ppl i know who work in industrial relations, even they've told me they're uncertain as to the outcomes once changes take place. Even they're only speculating as to what will happenGenerator said:True, but a bit of scare-mongering (be you in favour of the current stance of business lobby groups or the unions (a simplistic binary representation, I know)) never goes astray .
Still, the apparent disregard for the rights of the employees in favour of business interests, the claims to a supposed mandate (one exists, but not for the radical policy that was announced) and what we know of this government means that there is more than enough reason to speculate as to what may emerge.
As it always happens.Sarah said:Fair enough. But after talking to ppl i know who work in industrial relations, even they've told me they're uncertain as to the outcomes once changes take place. Even they're only speculating as to what will happen
Hold out for a bargain, urges minister
By Nick O'Malley Workplace Reporter
June 29, 2005
The Workplace Minister, Kevin Andrews, has urged employers not to bow to unions' demands for pay deals before the Government's industrial relations changes become law.
In what is just one part of the hidden battle between the Government and the unions, Mr Andrews wrote to the Master Builders Association twice to ask its members to delay negotiations with unions.
And in what appears to be a new worry for the Government, church leaders yesterday asked to meet the Prime Minister, John Howard, to discuss their concerns about his industrial agenda. The Reverend John Henderson, the general secretary of the National Council of Churches, said: "The value of each worker is not as a commodity, but as a person, a human being, loved by God. Our community has values that are more important than economics."
In April Mr Andrews wrote to Brian Seidler, the executive director of the MBA, to say "the Government would be concerned about employers acceding to union pressure to renegotiate existing agreements" before their expiry. Five days later an MBA executive wrote to the association's members to tell them the MBA "shares the minister's concern that 'members should carefully consider their response' to any union approaches".
Mr Andrews wrote to the MBA again to spell out the increased penalties unions risked if they engaged in illegal industrial action. Again his concerns, and an outline of the tougher penalties, were passed on to members.
Construction unions have been racing to renegotiate three-year agreements before the industrial relations changes pass to the Senate in August.
"We've got about 1200 agreements that expire on October 31; we've now renegotiated close to 400," said the state secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Andrew Ferguson. "Normally you would start negotiating [in] August, September to wrap it up in October."
He said more agreements were pending and 15,000 workers in NSW were already covered. Since March, the union has worked hard but quietly to renegotiate agreements, careful not to attract the attention of Mr Andrews' office.
Mr Ferguson claimed other employers had been told they risked losing government contracts if they did not toe the line. "This pressure on employers has been systematic and unrelenting," he said.
The NSW president of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, Tim Ayers, said he expected his union would sign two major agreements before the end of August, two months before their expiry. "Employers want sensible negotiations with us. We are not going to tolerate unfair Government interference in our negotiations," he said.
The secretary of Unions NSW, John Robertson, said unions were planning to target Liberal MPs in marginal seats to "make them understand how concerned their constituents are".
A spokesman for Mr Andrews denied employers had been threatened, but confirmed Mr Andrews had encouraged them to delay negotiations until the new laws were in force.
However, the minister has yet to convince his own staff, with employees in his Melbourne office downing tools for two hours yesterday over stalled enterprise bargaining negotiations.
To think that Howard has claimed that his Government is concerned with practicalities rather than ideology.spin spin sugar said:the ideology and motivation behind the reforms is still fucked, regardless of it's specific outcomes regarding specific aspects of it.
katie_tully said:I see one good thing come from it.
Previously where you couldn't fire somebody purely based on poor performance at work, always turning up late, etc.. you now can. I suppose this would benefit the larger companies and their efficiency rate...
I've been told accounts of people in the state health system, nurses even, who don't turn up to work on time or are generally lazy. Before these reforms it was never enough to fire them.
I know it's going to affect the smaller businesses more dramatically, or people who work for them...White Rabbit said:But it's only workplaces with <100 employees, where the problems regarding unfair dismissal occur. It wouldn't make a big difference with nurses as a large proportion of us are employeed under NSW Health Dept and therefore have more than 100 employees under them.
I hought you could fire someone based on poor performancein regards to being late and such - at least give them warnings which would result in termination.