• Congratulations to the Class of 2025 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

chubbaraff

Proudly BOS Left
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
159
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
How does such an AWA refute the notion of there being more jobs?
 

chubbaraff

Proudly BOS Left
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
159
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
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

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
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.
 

leetom

there's too many of them!
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
845
Location
Picton
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
withoutaface said:
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*

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Messages
660
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
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

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
*Minka* said:
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

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,241
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I take it that you are still feeling quite dry over there, Waf?
 

Sarah

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
421
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
withoutaface said:
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?
 

wheredanton

Retired
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
599
Location
-
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
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.
 
Last edited:

Generator

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,241
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
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"
 
Last edited:

yy

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
287
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
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

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
211
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
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

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,241
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
banco55 said:
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?

---

davidw89 said:
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.
 
Last edited:

banco55

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,577
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Generator said:
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?

---
I'm not saying that the sentiment is not held by some free market advocates but at least these days in the major US newspapers there's a relatively high bar for requests for anonymity and the paper will usually state in the story why they were granted anonymity ie "this person was granted anonymity because they do not have permission to speak to the press". They don't usually give anonymity to random experts who like to say snarky "let them eat cake" kind of stuff anonymously. I'm sure the writer could have found a "free market" economist who would go on the record and journalists wonder why people are suspicious of them.
 

Generator

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,241
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Trigger-happy boss misses the target

Trigger-happy boss misses the target
It all began with a 'smirk'. Ewin Hannan looks at an exercise in industrial pig-headedness
June 10, 2006



JIM Sutton liked the sound of John Howard's new workplace laws. In April, he used the Work Choices legislation to put his work force on individual contracts to lift production rates at his struggling engineering business in suburban Melbourne. If his employees didn't like it, so be it. The new unfair dismissal laws allowed him to sack recalcitrants.

Two months later, Sutton's company, Finlay Engineering, is being wound up. Twenty-eight workers have lost their jobs and Sutton has gained national notoriety as the bloke who supposedly sacked an employee for smirking.

So, is Sutton, as unions claim, a bad employer who ran down his business and exploited the new laws to limit his liabilities? Or was he a victim of a political campaign by far-Left activists, including the Socialist Party Australia, to embarrass the federal Government?

"I'm being driven out and I believe I was set up by the union for a test case against the new IR laws," Sutton says.

Dave Oliver, Victorian secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, says the episode highlights the type of "rogue" conduct encouraged by Work Choices.

The company has supplied automotive components to car manufacturers for 50 years. But it has had a troubled history, having been in administration previously. Just three of the 28 workers are unionists.

On April 4, Sutton told staff the workplace laws gave him "much more control" and if they were not prepared to meet production targets, they should quit. As an employer with fewer than 100 employees, Sutton's company is no longer subject to unfair dismissal laws.

He told the workers they had to sign a one-page handwritten Australian Workplace Agreement. Although he said award conditions were guaranteed, the union says the base pay rate was cut and a flat rate was imposed for night shifts.

Knowing the company was in trouble financially, the workers, many of whom were long-time employees, were upset at changes to redundancy provisions.

They had been entitled to three weeks' pay for each year of service, but the contracts capped the redundancy entitlement at 14 weeks.

What followed won't be written up by government spin doctors as a Work Choices case study.

According to Harry Rai, a union member who had been there for nine years, Sutton told the workers: "From now on, if you don't meet your production targets ... you'll be sacked. If you don't work the hours we tell you to work, you'll be sacked. If you don't obey your management staff, you'll be sacked." Sutton denies this version.

"I was just dumbfounded," Rai says. "I was thinking, 'What's going on? Am I in the right country?' ... My employer then said, 'Take the smirk off your face.' I didn't reply. Vince, my other union colleague, said to him, 'Show respect.' He said, 'You're dismissed for being disrespectful, for answering back.' I said, 'What? You can't sack a person for just saying, Show respect.' He said, 'You answered back as well, you're sacked."'

Fellow employee Vince Pascuzzi says he and Rai were dumbfounded. "Harry looked at me ... it looked like a grin but it was a surprised look. Jim said, 'Wipe that smirk off your face.' I said, 'Jim, show some respect, don't speak to Harry like that.' He said, 'You answered back to me, I'm sacking you."'

Sutton says Rai was not sacked for smirking. "I said to Harry, 'There's no use keeping that smirk on your face, it doesn't mean anything.' He just walked away and didn't take it any further. The next thing, Vince came after me and said, 'We've got to talk.' I said, 'There's no use talking to you, Vince, because you never listen.' His words then were, 'I don't want to f---ing talk to you in any case.'

"I said, 'Well, if that's your attitude, I don't know whether I want you working here.' He said, 'Well, sack me, sack me then.' I said, 'All right then, you're sacked."'

Rai approached him and said, "If he's sacked, I'm sacked too."

"I said, 'If you want to be sacked then, you're sacked."' A third employee, who was ill on the day of the meeting, was also dismissed.

The union used the smirking claim to get attention for their political campaign against Howard, saying it showed the laws were extreme and absurd. At this point, various left-wing militant groups jumped in and up to 300 people blockaded the factory, shutting it down.

Union Solidarity, a group of "grassroots trade unionists" with links to the Builders Labourers Federation, joined the so-called "community assembly".

Anthony Main, who was a national organiser with Socialist Party Australia before setting up the rebel union Unite, says party members were involved.

Trucks could not leave the factory and car companies threatened to scrap contracts with Sutton as he could not guarantee supplies. Sutton unsuccessfully sought police help and wrote to Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews three times seeking federal assistance to take the union to court over the picket. The minister declined.

Sutton caved in and reinstated the workers on old conditions. A day later, Pascuzzi took a day off. Oliver says he was entitled but Sutton was furious, contacting A Current Affair, which sent out a crew to film the workers.

Pascuzzi went on stress leave. Workers started taking days off, leading to significant levels of absenteeism. Claiming he couldn't stay afloat, Sutton put the company into voluntary administration.

Union officials admit there had been a "lot of absenteeism" but said workers knew the factory was in trouble and they were out looking for new jobs.

"Have a look at this workplace," Oliver says. "That's why you have got the relationship you've seen."

Oliver says the switch to contracts had reduced workers' entitlements from $1.2million to $700,000. "They have lost tens of thousands of dollars with the stroke of a pen," he says.

Sutton has advice that $350,000 is owed to workers.

"It's just not worth running a business," he says. "By the time I pay out all the workers' entitlements, I've got no money. I'll probably have to start a lawn-mowing round."
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top