The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

Coal miners organise landmark strike

 

[Generator]

ABC Online: Beazley shines spotlight on missing penalty rates

Beazley shines spotlight on missing penalty rates


The discount haberdashery chain Spotlight has been accused in Federal Parliament of using the new industrial relations laws to avoid paying overtime and penalty rates.

The Federal Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley, says the Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) now being offered by the chain includes a rate of two cents above the award, but makes no provision for overtime or penalty rates.

He has asked the Government if it is appropriate that the new laws be used in such a way.

The Acting Prime Minister, Peter Costello, has defended the new laws saying they allow employers and workers to reach mutual agreements on pay and conditions.

"Employees are in a stronger position today than they have been for at least 30 years because unemployment is lower today than it has been for the last 30 years," he said.

"The proof is in the Govenrment's performance. This is a Government under which there has been massive job creation, this is a Government under which there have been real wage increases."

Another narrow attack countered by a partisan rant. Exciting stuff.

 

[chubbaraff]

Hi Guys
On PM today they reported of workers at spotlight being offered an AWA that had an hourly rate of 2cents per hour more for the removal of penalty rates and shift loadings on weekends and public holidays. All Peter Costello could say was, a more flexible labour market brings more jobs and higher wages "the proof is in the pudding". Can someone please examine this pudding? Its pretty non-existant for retail workers....

---

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1646645.htm

 

[withoutaface]

How does such an AWA refute the notion of there being more jobs?

 

[chubbaraff]

The performance of the Australian economy can definately support more jobs. We are certainly not creating jobs by removing penalty rates what we are doing is creating a permissibility that people should not have legislated rest and family time, a very dangerous precedent.

Maybe you would like to consider that when Bakers Delight, Hogs Breath and other franchise scum forces their entire stores onto these AWA's they dont create more jobs, they simply save money. Businesses can afford to pay as many workers as they need properly under the present regime, if they couldnt, we would be seing businesses failing (hardly the situation at the moment).

The Point is... THEY DONT WANT TO AND DONT NECESSARILY CREATE EMPLOYMENT THIS WAY, THEY WANT TO INCREASE PROFIT

Please provide evidence otherwise!

 

[withoutaface]

Suppose that employment does increase, because employers hire more people due to each new worker being slightly less expensive. This means that the former unemployed now have jobs. Now suppose this becomes so widespread that society runs out of unemployed and companies have to start offering better contracts to lure people away from a competitor, and thus we have a stabilisation where as many people as possible are employed, and there are indeed probably more wages being given out in total due to employers not having to substitute capital for labour as much as before. Does this not lead to a greater level of equality among the unskilled, with more money coming into it overall?

Of course employers want to increase profit, but you've made the implication that such a compulsion cannot lead to benefits for workers without backing it up at all, and instead just reverting to the old rhetoric that profits are inherently evil, despite the fact that corporate profit makes up less than 10-15% (iirc) of the total compensation for work in an economy, while at the same time increasing the speed of innovation several times over, such that supposing even that stopping that 10-15% now would lead to higher wages for workers, it would in the end lead to stagnation and lower real wages because there is far less incentive for businesses to take risks and lower the cost of production.

 

[Generator]

ABC taking its cleaners to the cleaners

 

[leetom]

Suppose that employment does increase, because employers hire more people due to each new worker being slightly less expensive. This means that the former unemployed now have jobs. Now suppose this becomes so widespread that society runs out of unemployed and companies have to start offering better contracts to lure people away from a competitor, and thus we have a stabilisation where as many people as possible are employed, and there are indeed probably more wages being given out in total due to employers not having to substitute capital for labour as much as before. Does this not lead to a greater level of equality among the unskilled, with more money coming into it overall?

I suppose there would be a greater level of equality among the unskilled, in that all would be paid the same shit rate.

 

[*Minka*]

I hope that these disgusting reforms are the beginning of the end for the Howard gvoernment. Now, we jsut have to hope we survivie until the next election.

 

[withoutaface]

I hope that these disgusting reforms are the beginning of the end for the Howard gvoernment. Now, we jsut have to hope we survivie until the next election.

I agree, the reforms are disgusting.

I suppose there would be a greater level of equality among the unskilled, in that all would be paid the same shit rate.

Shit rate > unemployment.

 

[Generator]

I take it that you are still feeling quite dry over there, Waf?

 

[Sarah]

Suppose that employment does increase, because employers hire more people due to each new worker being slightly less expensive. This means that the former unemployed now have jobs. Now suppose this becomes so widespread that society runs out of unemployed and companies have to start offering better contracts to lure people away from a competitor, and thus we have a stabilisation where as many people as possible are employed, and there are indeed probably more wages being given out in total due to employers not having to substitute capital for labour as much as before. Does this not lead to a greater level of equality among the unskilled, with more money coming into it overall?

Still, it's a bit simplistic to assume that wage cuts = job creation.

Why would you hire more workers if your current workforce is meeting current demand levels?

 

[Generator]

Goodbye to perks as work laws bite
Workers losing under new laws

Leaked report suggests threatened Cowra sackings were legal

 

[wheredanton]

I was just electronically thumbing through the New Workplace relations laws for a rule of law assignment.

The Workplace Relations (Workchoices) Amendment Act 2005 and the Workplace Relations Regulations 2006 make for interesting reading. In particular how sections 356 and section 357 of the WPA and division 7.1 subdivision B of Regulations interact.

358 Prohibited content in workplace agreement is void
A term of a workplace agreement is void to the extent that it contains prohibited content.

357 Employer must not lodge agreement containing prohibited content

(1) An employer contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the employer lodges a workplace agreement (or a variation to a workplace agreement); and
(b) the agreement (or the agreement as varied) contains prohibited content; and
(3) Subsection (1) is a civil remedy provision (!!!)

---------------
So whats prohibted content? Well its any term of the workplace agreement which allows a person to indulge in organised industrial action...or get paid leave to go to a union meeting...or encourage fellow workers to become or continue to be members of an industrial organsation.

 

[Generator]

It's quite strange, isn't it? Workers and employers are supposedly free to 'negotiate' an agreement that suits both parties, yet the legislation disallows a great deal when it comes to Union involvement that may well be supported by both the employees and the employer.

---

Opinion - Finally, the monster is unleashed

Those 38 people are better off, yes, but are their jobs a result of the reform package and a chain-wide AWA, or are they the result of a strategic decision to open a new store?

---

Edit: The following interview was broadcast last Sunday - Professor Ron McCallum: "I fear for Australia"

 

[Generator]

Coming to a workplace near you

 

[banco55]

Coming to a workplace near you

It was pretty cowardly of them not to name the "free market economist" who said "there are plenty of jobs in fruit picking". I wonder if this free market economist even exists.

 

[yy]

isn't the notion of union a bit like cartels? they engage in price-fixing and is anti-competitive? (not saying unions should be abolished of course)

 

[davidw89]

Hey guys..need help.

Iam doing an assignment that tells me to assess the important of the new Industrial Relation and its imapct on the Labour Market. Where could i find lots of information on that?

 

[Generator]

It was pretty cowardly of them not to name the "free market economist" who said "there are plenty of jobs in fruit picking". I wonder if this free market economist even exists.

It's exactly what many people on this forum (such as loquasagacious and withoutaface) have said in the past, so I really don't know why you are questioning the existence of the economist in question. Also, it's hardly cowardly if the economist spoke to the reporter yet asked to remain anonymous, is it?

---

Hey guys..need help.

Iam doing an assignment that tells me to assess the important of the new Industrial Relation and its imapct on the Labour Market. Where could i find lots of information on that?

Try trawling through this thread if you'd like a number of news articles. Apart from that, I suggest that you take a look at the report prepared by the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee. The wikipedia entry for WorkChoices also has a number of useful links (in particular the link to the official WorkChoices site and the link leading to the ACTU's site), but be sure to remember that the Wikipedia entry itself is probably not a suitable resource for a school assessment.

Whatever you do, don't go overboard - there's only so much that you can do for each assessment, and there isn't much point in gathering as much information as you can when only a portion of the total pool will be used. Personally, for a year 11 assessment I would think that the sites prepared by the Government and the ACTU and a number of news articles (produced by the Herald, the Aus and/or the ABC) should suffice, but that's just my opinion - be sure to talk to your teacher should you be in need of guidance.