Thread: New IR laws...

As the laws are to be tested in the High Court an interesting problem might occur to anyone who is quick off the mark.

If they're overturned there might be some expensive unfair dismissal actions.

Though I do think if theres a personaility clash between the boss and a worker he should be able to fire the worker without retribution.

2c per hour to give up all over time, penalty and other rights.:eek:
Good for the bosses.

Twenty years in the work force and ive had two realy bad bosses, but i would have to get my brain thinking on overdrive to remember all the co workers ive had who have taken avantage or ripped off the boss and quiet a few of them in a terrible way.

Won't even be good for the bosses
There'll be less income in the average household.
So less money will be spent,
So business incomes will drop

Originally Posted by echnidna

Won't even be good for the bosses
There'll be less income in the average household.
So less money will be spent,
So business incomes will drop

Exactly right. A consumerist economy requires that people have sufficient disposable income to consume. If all the money generated by a business is returned only to the business owner, all that is achieved is a short-term transfer of wealth - the long-term effect must be overwhelmingly negative. We only have to look at the US for a good example of an economy in trouble for that very reason. they have underinvested in education and training for years, they spend virtually nothing on public health services or housing, they have the lowest minimum wage levels in the Western world and the richest rich people in the Western world, yet their economy is in deep trouble due to a lack of consumer demand and a massive current account deficit, not to mention the growing trade deficit that is funded by China and Japan. Why on Earth would we want to emulate a failing system? It beggars belief.

I think most are seeing the same as me. But I'm giving johnny the benefit of doubt. I want to know what the intended benefits are. I for one haven't heard anything that lays out how these reforms are to achieve a better future. I've heard, directly from the pollies, that they are waging a multi-pronged attack to kill wage increases and in-fact to reduce them to New Zealand levels. I don't understand the reasoning behind it. So I'm looking for opinions that would shed some light on the governments reasoning - what I'm I missing.

Originally Posted by Toolin Around

what I'm I missing.

Liberal ideology :mad:

Richard

I've set out all the stuff on "less income" (including references as I recall) in the original thread, so won't do it again, BUT the "no disadvantage" test STILL stands.

That is, ANY agreement that replaces an award HAS to provide AT LEAST the same level of income. That's not really what the legislation is about.

If you want to really know what it's about, as an example have a look at Qantas, Jetstar and Virgin. By "look" I mean go and actually read the award conditions of employment for each. Each has a different agreement in place, and while you can guess from the fare structure which is the most flexible... well go and read.

Why for instance should one company be required to use machinery, or for tht matter a minimum number of people, for certain tasks when another in the same industry can do it differently?

To my mind, that is what the legislation is aiming at.

Oh, and Exador, I agree with your comments on the US economy, but as I have said on many occasions, if one wants to preserve wage levels, one has to start spending MORE. Stop buying the best value, most economical product, and start spending more on the same thing so that our "workers" and businesses can enjoy a false level of income.

It's the only way we're going to put China out of business I'm afraid!

Cheers,

P

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

I've set out all the stuff on "less income" (including references as I recall) in the original thread, so won't do it again, BUT the "no disadvantage" test STILL stands.

That is, ANY agreement that replaces an award HAS to provide AT LEAST the same level of income. That's not really what the legislation is about.

If you want to really know what it's about, as an example have a look at Qantas, Jetstar and Virgin. By "look" I mean go and actually read the award conditions of employment for each. Each has a different agreement in place, and while you can guess from the fare structure which is the most flexible... well go and read.

Why for instance should one company be required to use machinery, or for tht matter a minimum number of people, for certain tasks when another in the same industry can do it differently?

Why not? If the award is out of date, the company has always had the option of renegotiating with the union and having the resultant conditions enshrined by the commission. That was always the process and it had the admirable advantage of slowing the process down and allowing for arguments to be put forward by both sides. the current legislation, as far as I can see, allows for ambit conditions to be set and enforced by an employer who may be told by the new commissioner down the track that his award is not right, yet in the meantime people have suffered significant financial hardship. The old system rcognised that employers generally have greater resources than employees and are hence disdvantaged less by any delay incurring costs or by paying wages that are excessive. It always seemed a reasonable approach to me.

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

Oh, and Exador, I agree with your comments on the US economy, but as I have said on many occasions, if one wants to preserve wage levels, one has to start spending MORE. Stop buying the best value, most economical product, and start spending more on the same thing so that our "workers" and businesses can enjoy a false level of income.

It's the only way we're going to put China out of business I'm afraid!

Cheers,

P

Absolutely!! As a small business that is determinedly Australian, I'm struck by the number of people who are happy to spend MORE for an inferior product at Bunnings than they would with me. It's not just timber, either. I was at Bunnings the other day and saw a fella about to buy a 10l can of Intergrain Dimension 4, which I use extensively. I happen to know the Bunnings price is $204 for that can and that the same product can be bought at the local independent paint shop (only about 100m away) for $126.95. I told the bloke and his response was to simply shrug, say "yeah, they're a pack of thieving b@st@rds" and proffer his plastic to pay for it. I was flabbergasted. Now, admittedly, Dim 4 is an Aussie product (made by Orica, hardly an Aussie company though), but the willingness to accept being ripped off is incredible.

Originally Posted by Toolin Around

I think most are seeing the same as me. But I'm giving johnny the benefit of doubt. I want to know what the intended benefits are. I for one haven't heard anything that lays out how these reforms are to achieve a better future. I've heard, directly from the pollies, that they are waging a multi-pronged attack to kill wage increases and in-fact to reduce them to New Zealand levels. I don't understand the reasoning behind it. So I'm looking for opinions that would shed some light on the governments reasoning - what I'm I missing.

I would have thought its all pretty self evident. New World Order/One World Economy, call it what you like the idea is to get to a common wage level so the kanacka's in Aus are paid the same as those in Timbuctu. Our wage levels are a result of years of industrial development which Mr Howard seems to want to sweep aside in one fell swoop. One of the components of the price of stuff generally, includes wage levels as they now stand. It's part of the cost of being in business and is factored into the price the market pays. I agree that the idea of reducing wages to put more $$$ in the boss's pocket is very shortsighted as in the Spotlight example. I tend to think that the practical application of the old saying 'what goes around, comes around' has a way of evening things out over time.

Originally Posted by keith53

I agree that the idea of reducing wages to put more $$$ in the boss's pocket is very shortsighted as in the Spotlight example. I tend to think that the practical application of the old saying 'what goes around, comes around' has a way of evening things out over time.

Well, I know where I won't be going to get my next set of sheets, anyway. I'll hand my discount card back as well - I won't need it any more. Hopefully lots of other people will do the same.:mad:

Originally Posted by Exador

Why not? If the award is out of date, the company has always had the option of renegotiating with the union and having the resultant conditions enshrined by the commission.

Well, that's not quite the case. The unions actually make a lot of milage out of the "easybeat" small companies (and other unions), and while I don't want to spend the time here, I'll happily give you a few very real examples of how the unions assist big business to screw small business using the methods you rely on!

Yet in the meantime people have suffered significant financial hardship. The old system recognised that employers generally have greater resources than employees and are hence disdvantaged less by any delay incurring costs or by paying wages that are excessive.

The new system recognises that the bulk of employers don't actually have those significant resources, and that's the difference.

I had a claim for unfair dismissal (she was only caught stealing after all) which actually cost me one and a half year's profit to defend, (successfully) but as a well-resourced employer I'm not entitled to aid, nor costs, while the employee was fully funded by the union.

I'm not sure what "significant" financial hardship is in this case, (I imagine something more than a dollar or two per hour), but if an employer is found to be in the wrong, he'll have to make good any shortfall retrospectively.

On the other hand, it is unlikely that the reverse would occur.

As I said, if you really want to be entertained, I'll happily spend a day telling you of my adventures in IR!

No, I don't believe all employers are nice honest people, but then neither are employees. If the system has to favour anyone (and it shouldn't), then isn't it best to favour the place where the cash flow actually
originates rather than strangling it?

cheers,

P

Originally Posted by keith53

I agree that the idea of reducing wages to put more $$$ in the boss's pocket is very shortsighted

How about the idea of reducing wages to enable more people to be employed? Where wage costs are a significant part of the overhead, this can in fact be the case, and interestingly more staff can improve productivity.

as in the Spotlight example.

More information please, facts if possible, not what's been reported!

I tend to think that the practical application of the old saying 'what goes around, comes around' has a way of evening things out over time.

Yep, and I think we're starting to see some of that!

cheers,

P

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

Well, that's not quite the case. The unions actually make a lot of milage out of the "easybeat" small companies (and other unions), and while I don't want to spend the time here, I'll happily give you a few very real examples of how the unions assist big business to screw small business using the methods you rely on!

having been on both sides of that at different times, I have to agree with that, but on the other hand, an employee without a union is indisputedly going to end up a victim sooner or later unless they are fortunate to have one of the exceptional employers.

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

I had a claim for unfair dismissal (she was only caught stealing after all) which actually cost me one and a half year's profit to defend, (successfully) but as a well-resourced employer I'm not entitled to aid, nor costs, while the employee was fully funded by the union.

But you ARE able to claim the legal costs against tax. Yes, the ability to claim is significantly deferred, but it is still partially defrayed. I don't say that the case was correct, but one of the benefits of union membership is legal representation in industrial matters. If your professional body offered such a service, I'm sure you'd avail yourself if the need arose.

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

I'm not sure what "significant" financial hardship is in this case, (I imagine something more than a dollar or two per hour), but if an employer is found to be in the wrong, he'll have to make good any shortfall retrospectively.

Yes, but losing $90 out of your anticipated weekly earnings, as in the Spotlight example, could leave people right in the poo, especially in these days of consumption funded on the never-never. A business is presumed to have the capacity to fund its liabilities from continuing cashflow, whereas a person who has had a pay cut may immediately lose the ability to raise money to cover the shortfall. It's going to be very bloody in the worklplace for a couple of years, I suspect. As a self-employed person who doesn't have the need for employees, I'm happy that I can sit and watch fairly dispassionately, because I reckon I'd be really stressed right now if I was in the firing line.

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

No, I don't believe all employers are nice honest people, but then neither are employees. If the system has to favour anyone (and it shouldn't), then isn't it best to favour the place where the cash flow actually
originates rather than strangling it?

cheers,

P

I think the most important test is whether either party will be caused significant financial distress if changes are implemented whilst waiting for the matter to proceed. If so, the status quo should be preserved. the previous arbitration system did just that, whereas the new one takes the brakes off to the unfair detriment of the employee in my opinion. I don't see too many businesses except those that are borderline basket cases being significantly disadvantaged by having to keep paying the same wages whilst a determination is made.

Unfair dismissal, as in your case, is a different kettle of fish altogether and I don't have too much disagreement with the right of employers to fire people on reasonable grounds.