New Industrial Relations Laws

I have been a strong supporter of the Howard government. I agree with getting rid of unfair dismissal for small business. This legislation goes far further. They have made a mistake that will probably cost them the next election. The main problem is that on paper it is hard to see how anyone apart from the employers will be better off. People vote on issues that effecty them personally. The government should not forget that when they introduced the GST they nearly lost government and a large number of seats. The has the potential of being a far bigger problem for the government.

Nigel Kibel

http://www.propertyknowhow.com.au

Australian and New Zealand The United States Property Researcher and education
One Day property investment research workshop just $290 Melb 26 November Buying in the United States and New Zealand

As an employer, I too do not think I personally will be better off.

I run a very small business with 1 full time, 2 part time and 1 casual employees. If other employers decrease their employees pay, and in turn can offer discounts on prices (whether or not they increase profits is another thing), I would be unwilling to do so. This will hurt my business. Eventually, if things go as badly as the media is making out, I too will have to reduce employees conditions/pay/etc in order to stay competitive.

I would like to think that all employers are human and will resist the temptation to make an extra buck off another human being by paying them minimal wages, but time will tell…

Munjy

I’ve tried to read all I can of the IR changes, short of going straight to the source (the 1200 pages of legislation & explanatory notes!!!_[blink]), and can’t see that it will have a broad scale, dramatic, negative impact on existing employee conditions and pay. I think that future employees will be unable to expect many of the conditions we take for granted today, but considering the high proportion of young people entering the workforce on fixed or casual terms, I don’t think there will be any sudden change there either.
I do believe that over time, this legislation will contribute to a slow erosion in the standard of living for the ‘average employee’ as well as the ‘crap employee’, but high-value employees will always be in high demand, and well compensated.
From an economic perspective, I think the mantra of “more flexibility means more productivity equals higher real pay” is silly and illogical, but flexibility will lessen the impact of downturns. Recession (which is an inevitable part of the business cycle) will be shorter, recovery will be quicker (due to a general easing in hiring/firing issues).
On the whole, I mildly support the changes, but would like to see them (and expect I will) as just one piece of economic reform. The next area that needs attention is welfare, beginning with limits on the time someone receives support. The longer a worker works and the more tax they pay, the longer they receive unemployment benefits… bit I digress… Oh, and tax reform is important also…
I am concerned about security of employment (the worker’s SAF if you like). I am 29 years of age, and surrounded by people my age who do not feel secure in their jobs. This is, in my opinion, contributing massively to the destruction of traditional family life. We have a very low and declining rate of childbirth in this country, and a pop-quiz of my friends revealed that very few of them expect to be doing the same job in 5 years as they are today (well, tomorrow for most of them). How can they be expected to ever settle down, and get to the real business of life – making babies – when they cannot even plan 5 years ahead? (The $6k baby bonus might seem like a lot of money to someone on welfare or low pay, but it’s peanuts to those earning 50 or 60 grand).
Keep in mind, this is today. This is before this new legislation is in place. The changes will have no immediate effect on ANY of them, yet we have a major problem.
I would like to see every single employee in this land, whether part time, fixed term, casual or permanent, have access to compulsory redundancy provisions (x weeks payment for x years service as a minimum). But that is not going to happen, not under the existing system, and not under the new system.
Anyhoo, sorry for the lecture. Thanks for listening.
F. [cowboy2]
(Who has access to redundancy provisions and is 30% likely to need them this financial year!)

Without wanting to get into another heated political debate, I’d just like to point out that the notion that IR changes will “cost the Liberal Government the next election” is dependant on voters having a viable alternative at the time – ie a leader. Kim B will never ever lead this country, and don’t get me started on Ms Gillard. Kevin Rudd is their only hope. Anyway…
The impact of the changes will not be dramatic. It will be a slow erosion of (a few) worker’s entitlements over many successive agreements. Most workers will not have been affected at all by the time the election arrives. Remember how GST was supposed to bring the sky falling in and cost the Liberal leadership? It didn’t. People are spending indiscriminately like there’s no tomorrow, paying GST without a second thought.
But yes, I agree that the unions will be damaged by the changes. Although the steady decline in membership (especially in younger workers) had probably already signalled their future, and had been ignored by the union sloth. This will simply hasten the process.
Cheers, F.[cowboy2]

JKM

What has the union done for you or me latly, gee I wonder ever heard of a 40 hour week or annual leave or sick leave or long service or public holidays or penalty rates.People standards of living reley on what the unions do if a carpenter was woking on a site for lets say $25 an hour (due to the union bargining) and then you needed a labourer to work on the same job for $20 an hour , if another company (non union) wanted to hire these people they would have to pay roughly the same rates to attract these people.
So therefore there is a ripple effect through ever job weather you think it or not and it all stems back from what unions are doing. Get rid of unions and watch over the next 2 decades the gap between wealthy and poor and no middle class , what a world to bring children up in.
Do you think this was just given to us .
If you work as a contractor you rates are based on that too because if it costs so much an hour to hire a ful time employee then as a contractor those rates are factored into how much you can charge.
Sure the union have made sum mistakes and thing have not always gone the right way.
But just look on the news, new ceo sacks 2000 workers and get 200% pay rise this year along with his million dollars bonus, while the unions asked for a 3% pay rise just to keep up with inflation.Those bad unions always asking for everthing, give me a break , most of us just want a decent living. A good job and good conditions.

Monopoly, my favourite game

Hi all

There is an old saying “Governments aren’t won they are lost”

John Howard and the Liberal Government will have created so much pain for enough working people that the deceitful advertising will be remembered as a big con. This will be enough for Labor to attain government.

If you are in Business, no they will not be dramatic. Why is it that employer and business groups are the only ones smiling at these new IR Laws.

GST did not take away your income. For penalty and weekend rates workers there wages could be cut by 2-300 a week.

Unions are made up of workers they represent workers. You weaken the workers by taking away there rights and protection and the unions don’t become relevant. Just for a worker suggesting to have union representation whilst negotiating an AWA could be liable for a $33000 fine as well as other reasons:

It will be illegal to ask for workers to be protected against unfair dismissal when negotiating an agreement – and there’s a $33,000 fine just for asking.
And there will be a $33,000 fine for asking for union involvement in a disputes settlement procedure.
A $33,000 fine for asking for the right for people to attend union education courses.
A $33,000 fine for asking to protect jobs against contracting out.
A $33,000 fine for asking for a commitment to collectively bargain.
And a $33,000 fine for asking for anything else the Government might like to ban.

These laws have gone too far. Some adjustments would’ve been accepted.

Martin yes i think you will feel it mate. Start budgetting for flat rates. Just to be safe.

I really hope im wrong with what i think will be the fall out for shift workers etc but i reckon i won’t be far off.

Cheers
SG

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways Beer in one hand – Pizza in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming WOO HOO!”

I haven’t read through all the proposed industrial relations legislation but have never worked in a unionised environment and for the past 5 years have worked public holidays, very rarely taken annual leave, never availed myself of sick leave or enjoyed any of the benefits of an employed individual. Why. Because i am a business owner and was only employed as a salary and wage earner in my early years of employment. Even in those employment years I worked 2 jobs (one full time, one part time and did university part time). Seven days a week studying and working.

I was bought up in a family (parents are both Scottish) that instilled in me the desire to work extremely hard, gain a decent education and build up an asset base. The end result. Financial independence. Was it hard. Yes. Was it worth the effort. You bet. Did unionism and all the employee benefits of today result in making my wealth. Not in any way shape or form. In fact my first job was negotiated with the business owner by myself to wash their windows at age 13 for $1. No unions, no minimum award. Just a decision to accept some money for washing windows. Did it every Saturday for 2 years and put my money into shares.

My neighbours tell me a similar story. Came from Sri Lanka with nothing but their clothes. First job for him was as an accounts payable clerk and his wife worked as a secretary. Once they finished at 5PM they went to their second job cleaning commercial buildings in Sydney. First home purchased in Mt Druitt and with 2 children they slowly built up their asset base. Apparently they only stopped the cleaning job when they were 45. At this stage he was a Financial Director and still doing cleaning work at nights. Every holiday they had was spent working in some form. Doing extra jobs for people or increasing their cleaning hours. The end result. A multi million dollar portfolio and they are now retired at 57 and 58 respectively. To me it seems a simple formula. Work hard, sometimes more than one job, be spendthrift early on and invest in a wide range of asset classes.

One of the effect of benefits is that society has become soo reliant on handouts, wanting heaps of leave in all forms and still expecting to be paid handsomely. We need to face the fact that it is a global economy and labour can be sourced overseas for some occupations much more cheaply. It amazes me that people complain about the proposed industrial relations reforms and yet continue to purchase products made in China (check the back of most of your shirts and im sure about 80% read “Made in China”). If you really want to support Australia’s labour base then put your money where your mouth is.

Rikky,

That’s a good point. It’s easy to look at yourself and forget that their are others who have low self esteem, weak characters, etc and are unable to bargain for themselves. In that respect unions do have a role for the weaker person.

Which is the real reason the Libs got pounded – they shipped in an out-of-towner.