How The IR Changes WILL AFFECT YOU !!

[csv8]

How the proposed industrial relations changes will affect you at work...
Before the Howard Government was elected in 1996
Current situation - since 1996
Government changes expected after 1 July 2005
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOU

Removal of employment conditions from awards
• The independent Industrial Relations Commission decided what should be in each award after hearing from employers and employees.
• No government interference about award matters. • Awards reduced to 20 allowable matters. eg. limits on part time and casual employment, consultation about job losses.
• Power of Industrial Relations Commission to set fair award conditions and settle disputes reduced. • Awards will no longer form the basis of the no disadvantage test for agreement making. The new test will be five legislated minimum conditions:
the minimum wage rate, annual leave, personal leave, parental leave, maximum number of ordinary hours.
• A new task group will strip awards within 12 months of its establishment to:
remove jury service, notice of termination, long service leave, superannuation. • For the millions of Australians who rely on enterprise agreements, cutting the no disadvantage test is like taking conditions out of awards.
Conditions like: overtime pay rates, annual leave loading, casual leave loading, long service leave, superannuation, any allowances such as higher duties allowance, higher rates of pay for shift work or weekend work, classification structures
• Loss of classification structures for nurses is alarming–they ensure career paths, maintain professional status and ensure nurses receive adjustments to their pay and conditions that reflect skills and experience
Changing the way minimum wages are set to make them lower
• The independent Industrial Relations Commission decided award wage rates following annual application by ACTU and submissions from employers.
• Award wages had to be fair and enforceable and maintained at a relevant level. • Howard Government opposed reasonable increases–asked for minimum wage rates to be $44 lower than they are now. • Govt abolishes the independent Industrial Relations Commission role in setting wages.
• New Govt appointed panel “Australian Fair Pay Commission” to decide wage rate with aim of keeping minimum wages lower.
• Set a single adult minimum wage on a periodic basis.
• Howard Government has opposed every increase to the minimum wage since it came to power. • Approximately 25% of nurses in the aged care industry and countless others around the country are reliant on awards which peg increases in pay to increases in the minimum wage each year. This ensures that many workers have an annual wage increase so they keep up with inflation and other economic changes and retain a reasonable standard of living.
• The Government may end annual wages rises, leaving low paid workers in a situation like those in the USA, where minimum wages are just $5.15 an hour and have been increased only once (by 40¢) since 1996, so millions of working families live in poverty.
Forcing employees onto individual contracts
• Individual contracts could only provide conditions better than those in awards and collective agreements. • New type of individual contract–AWA–introduced.
• AWA can totally ignore existing conditions in collective workplace agreements and can undercut award conditions.
• Employers can legally lock workers out and refuse to pay them for months if they don’t sign AWAs. • AWAs don’t need to be approved before they come into operation–will be approved ‘on lodgment’ with the Office of the Employment Advocate.
• AWAs can override collective workplace agreements at any time.
• Over time, collective agreement will be irrelevant as all new starters are forced on to AWAs. • A move toward increasing the number of nurses on individual contracts would be inequitable and counterproductive to nursing collegiality, as it would inevitably lead to individual nurses being paid different rates for the same work.
• Individual contracts put the ball firmly in the employers’ court–particularly as other changes proposed in the legislation limit access to union representation to assist in negotiating wages and conditions.
Reducing members' access to their unions/removing the right to take industrial action
• Awards gave unions access to workplaces.
• Unions had a legal right go to workplaces to check people were being properly paid. • Minimum 24 hours notice of unions coming to workplaces required, unless other arrangements agreed in collective agreements.
• Unions can only access workplaces covered by awards or collective agreements. • Unions have to give 24 hours written notice, including reason for visit.
• Visits only once every six months for recruitment purposes.
• No access to non-member records to check that employers are paying correctly.
• Unions’ access provisions not allowed in collective agreements. • This has significant implications in the health industry where the 24/7 nature of care and rotating shift work means access to industrial representation is already difficult for many people.
• Consequently it will have a serious impact on nurses needing the assistance of their union to resolve any workplace dispute.
• Industrial Relations Commission focused on fixing disputes instead of fining unions for strikes and other industrial action. • Commission has almost no ability to make parties settle disputes.
• Emphasis on banning most strikes. • Complicated secret ballots before all strikes, limits on how long you can be on strike and what you can take strikes for, and
• Making it much easier for others (third parties) to apply to end industrial action. • This would effectively end the right for nurses to take industrial action.
Removing unfair dismissal laws for workers in businesses with less than 100 employees
• Dismissals had to be procedurally fair.
• Unions and workers had to be consulted once an employer decided to retrench 15 or more employees. • Can be unfairly dismissed within first three months of new job, or at least 12 months for casuals.
• Application fee introduced to make it harder for sacked people to apply for unfair dismissal.
• No requirement for employers to consult unions or workers about retrenchments. • Abolish unfair dismissal rights for employees working in businesses with less than 100 permanent employees.
• Abolish award entitlement to redundancy pay for employees working in businesses with less than 100 permanent employees. • Nearly four million employees working in small and medium sized businesses will lose protection from unfair dismissal under the proposals.
• Nurses working in, for example, doctors’ surgeries, smaller aged care facilities and similar businesses could be particularly hard hit. Ninety-nine per cent of all private sector firms–over half a million businesses–employ fewer than 100 people. Only one per cent–or 6,200 firms–employ more than 100 people.
Reducing the role of the Industrial Relations Commissions
• Industrial Relations Commission had power to settle workplace disputes.
• Commission decided what minimum wages and conditions should be in awards without government limits. • Australian Industrial Relations Commission’s powers reduced:
- Minimum conditions in awards limited to matters set by government.
- Government tries to pass new laws to overturn any Commission decisions it does not agree.
- Commission has less power to settle disputes. • Take away Australian Industrial Relations Commission’s power to set minimum wages.
• Even more limits on what minimum conditions can be in awards.
• Any future decision of the Commission that the Howard Government doesn’t like will be overruled by new laws.
• Abolish State Industrial Relations Commissions as far as possible. • The loss of the independent umpire to make decisions when negotiations between nurses and their employers fail to reach agreement, will inevitably mean that nurses lose the capacity to challenge bad management decisions and protect their conditions.




Site Map | Contact Us | Links | QNU Privacy Policy | QNU Website Privacy Policy

[Casper]

Mmmm.. ok
Lucky for me...I'm in a job with no award anyhow. Wont effect me or any person in the company I work for one bit.


Oh...and I'd LOVE to know what the source of the above is. QNU union maybe? Do you think theres some bias there? Gee...just maybe.

[MNM96]

Originally Posted by Casper

Mmmm.. ok
Lucky for me...I'm in a job with no award anyhow. Wont effect me or any person in the company I work for one bit.


Oh...and I'd LOVE to know what the source of the above is. QNU union maybe? Do you think theres some bias there? Gee...just maybe.

Its not the QNU Union. Thats like saying ATM Machine. Still the same sh1t but!

[Perana]

Oh no the worlds going to end !

[/sarcasm]

[MO]

Well its all food for thought...some of it MAY be an over reaction. The point is none of it can be guaranteed to be a win/win outcome which is what we have at this time.

If the changes are going to be so good for the worker..why have'nt the benefits for the worker been fully explained,this is something that has always been lacking,in any reforms that are proposed.They have never given full detail on any reforms,until they have been pushed into a corner. Then before it goes through there were changes to ensure a positive outcome,because the original proposal was to one sided.

Now they have a majority,there are no checks and balances.

It is always said..."trust me we're your best friend".

Well I for one do not trust them.

[paul7v7]

meh my company uses the award as a guide, in other words they have their own one.
i guess we'll see what happens, it may all end up like y2k, a lot of people up in arms and nothing happens.

[347Stroker]

Just make sure you are not stripped of what you already have......and dont work for any less conditions....

[parawolf]

Yeah - damn am I glad i'm not on award wages, or stuck to the union for my increases. My increases are performance based. Also if I was paid award wages for my age, I couldn't own a car, have a mortgage on a house or be getting married.

[pauljh74]

If anyone believes that these changes will make the vast majority of workers better off, then you're a fool. The silence from the Howard government on the details of this policy and their refusal to guarantee no worker will be worse off says alot I think.

[parawolf]

Originally Posted by pauljh74

If anyone believes that these changes will make the vast majority of workers better off, then you're a fool. The silence from the Howard government on the details of this policy and their refusal to guarantee no worker will be worse off says alot I think.

Why wouldn't they guarantee this? because at renegotiation time, it means that it comes down to the individuals wants and needs from their employer and how well they can bargin for it as a result of how good/productive an employee they have been.

Now you might argue that this process benefits the smart or the cunning? does it? you can still be a member of your union and ask your union rep to advise you and potentially sit in on negotiations. Why can't the unions telling you this? because it would be too much work for them.

And guess who should be most scared by these changes? those that it would be too much work for them to care about their future.

[pauljh74]

Originally Posted by parawolf

Why wouldn't they guarantee this? because at renegotiation time, it means that it comes down to the individuals wants and needs from their employer and how well they can bargin for it as a result of how good/productive an employee they have been.

There are employers out there that will see these new laws as an opportunity to push workers around. Employee won't sign that AWA with no penalty rates? Sack them. There's 5 more available unemployed who will. With the exemptions from unfair dismissal for the 99% of companies that employ less than 100 employees it is possible. The new laws count on the goodwill of employers to do the right thing - this won't be the case with many of them. At negotiation time, if you increased productivity by 10%, do you think you'd be offered 10% more. I'd say it would be closer to 5%. My own supervisor and another equal level co-worker of his had to take on a significant part of a vacating manager's duties, who was not replaced, they were not offered any more money at the time and have only just recently received a whopping 4% increase.

Now you might argue that this process benefits the smart or the cunning? does it? you can still be a member of your union and ask your union rep to advise you and potentially sit in on negotiations. Why can't the unions telling you this? because it would be too much work for them.

No I said if you (not actually referring to any one person) were smart you'd see that the majority would be vulnerable to being worse off. Less rights doesn't equal better off in my opinion.

And guess who should be most scared by these changes? those that it would be too much work for them to care about their future.

I myself have more than 10 years as a casual with one employer working 5 days per week. I work 50 weeks of the year and have public holidays of course. I'm a casual yet I now have accrued long service leave. I believe that the only reason my employer would get rid of me is if the company closed down or I suddenly decreased my performance substantially or through misconduct - unlikely. Our section has been cut by 2/3rds due to a number of factors, yet I'm still there.

I am currently applying for a full-time job, I'm on the short list of 5 people for 2 positions. I listed my supervisor as a reference. I believe I will get a good reference. I'm far from a undesirable employee. Yet I am still worried about the new laws. The job I applied for is now offering only afternoon shifts, which I can do and it also offers a 17.5% loading due to the hours. Penalty rates are under threat - and it is unfair to think that a person who works odd hours should now get less when he has to sacrifice going to social events that their 9 to 5 working friends work, or not see much of their family because they are starting work when the kids get home from school. If you have an agreement that takes this into account and remunerates you for it - fantastic for you. But by reducing the base conditions for AWAs, it leaves vulnerable workers - which is a large percentage - open to losing money.

I'm worried because the area I work in there are few full-time jobs advertised and most ads for workers are usually by employment agencies looking to recruit on-call casuals. So because supply appears to exceed demand in this example, I and many others in a similar position can be given 2 choices - accept what is on offer that would most likely leave you worse off than the award, or go elsewhere.

The Howard government never had the mandate for these laws. They have been markedly altered since the election to the point where the people who voted Liberal are voicing their strong disapproval. His approval rating has dropped 20% in one month - hardly a vote of confidence.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/as...a.howard.reut/

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by pauljh74

........
The Howard government never had the mandate for these laws. They have been markedly altered since the election to the point where the people who voted Liberal are voicing their strong disapproval. His approval rating has dropped 20% in one month - hardly a vote of confidence.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/as...a.howard.reut/

The Government has a mandate to run the country. John Howard is not a President, the Liberal Party runs the country, he is leader of the Party. The Party makes decisions has a whole, with the leader leadership.

54% approval rating is better than any other previous Prime Minister.
http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/no-su...321850793.html

He is unique in the 30-year history of opinion polling in Australian politics. A leader always takes power with a stock of public hope and trust, and then depletes it as he goes about the difficult business of governing. In Howard's case, he has broken all precedent by building public approval the longer he stays in power. This is clear in his approval rating. The latest Newspoll, this week, gives him 54 per cent, a remarkably high rating at any phase of a prime ministership but stunning for a man who has been in power for more than nine years.

[parawolf]

Originally Posted by pauljh74

The job I applied for is now offering only afternoon shifts, which I can do and it also offers a 17.5% loading due to the hours. Penalty rates are under threat - and it is unfair to think that a person who works odd hours should now get less when he has to sacrifice going to social events that their 9 to 5 working friends work, or not see much of their family because they are starting work when the kids get home from school. If you have an agreement that takes this into account and remunerates you for it - fantastic for you. But by reducing the base conditions for AWAs, it leaves vulnerable workers - which is a large percentage - open to losing money.

These benefits are only under threat if you let them get under threat. Start mailing your local liberal MP and other political parties MP's to get them to understand your problems, your future concerns and how this will effect them. If you ask for a response, they are required (by law I believe) to give you one.

You are fortunate that you get 17.5% leave loading, I certainly don't get that for working afternoon shift at my current place of work, however i'm part of the Union. Should I sack my union representatives? No because this is an agreement I personally signed up for when I agreed to take on the job. I believe other things in my job are more important than the money. Things like flexible work time and flexible work days, time off in lieu, workplace conditions, workplace toolset, management treatment of employees.

These things to me are more important and allow me to travel home on public transport without worrying what the hell is going on tomorrow, or if i'm going to have a job tomorrow.

Think of this. My current employer has about 70 people in full time positions and contracts. So i'm just as much at stake as you might be or anyone else. However I know that if they attempt to switch 70 people into individualised workplace agreements, is that everyone is going to want mixed agreements with different benefits and different legal representation. Do you really think, this small company is going to maintain with an external legal firm 70 different contracts as well with the external accountants 70 different pay agreements. Logistically that would be a nightmare for them and it would massively inflate legal and accounting costs away from operational budgets and profit lines. Seriously it is not going to happen and for a 70 head of staff company the accountant would tell the manager to get their head checked as they will be flushing raw profit down the drain.

[bindi]

Originally Posted by pauljh74

If anyone believes that these changes will make the vast majority of workers better off, then you're a fool. The silence from the Howard government on the details of this policy and their refusal to guarantee no worker will be worse off says alot I think.

Agreed, scum sucking bastards... and not just this government, ALL governments, and actually all politicians :nutsycuck Just IMHO.

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by bindi

Agreed, scum sucking bastards... and not just this government, ALL governments, and actually all politicians :nutsycuck Just IMHO.

Well the problem is that those politicians are the best we have, and that we don't have anyone any better. If everyone gets so critical and passionate about politics then they should form the ultimate opinion - run for parliment!

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by pauljh74

If anyone believes that these changes will make the vast majority of workers better off, then you're a fool.

Let's not get personal huh? I dont really appreciate being called a fool... these topics are great and i'd hate to see them closed because of name-calling.

[tickford2001]

award? meh that would mean i would end up with less than half my contracted salary, less holidays, less super, and have to pay for my train ticket!

contracts can be good - work hard, and you will be rewarded

oh, and when will unions get off this bloody scare tactics bandwagon?

[johnydep]

Sounds like all the bullsh*t that was spread out when the GST was coming, remember that, we were told that "we will be worse off, the economy would die, cost of living would go through the roof, only the rich would benefit, blah blah blah.

The Government were elected to run the country, let them do there job, if they stuff up we vote the Labour party in & they get their chance.

[Perana]

Originally Posted by johnydep

Sounds like all the bullsh*t that was spread out when the GST was coming, remember that, we were told that "we will be worse off, the economy would die, cost of living would go through the roof, only the rich would benefit, blah blah blah.

The Government were elected to run the country, let them do there job, if they stuff up we vote the Labour party in & they get their chance.

Exactly right !

Also these reforms are nothing new. Even Keating wanted to do something fairly similar...

I agree Politicians arent the most truthful people but they are also necessary for keeping things running smoothly...

Also for those worried about The government having control of both houses... Most European Parliaments and i think it was the Queensland Parliament dont have a second house at all...

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by johnydep

Sounds like all the bullsh*t that was spread out when the GST was coming, remember that, we were told that "we will be worse off, the economy would die, cost of living would go through the roof, only the rich would benefit, blah blah blah.

The Government were elected to run the country, let them do there job, if they stuff up we vote the Labour party in & they get their chance.

And they said they would not put GST on petrol too. Everything they say is bull. Free trade agreements are OK if you only have to pay slave labour wages, how can we compete against that. Its no wonder so many automotive suppliers are moving to China. Soon there will be bugger all left, but Johhnie doesn't seem to mind. I'd back my union all the way, they may not be perfect but they are the ones sticking up for my rights, not some lying commie pinko like Howard.

[parawolf]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I'd back my union all the way, they may not be perfect but they are the ones sticking up for my rights, not some lying commie pinko like Howard.

And where are you sticking up for your rights? Just paying your union fees and hoping the problem will go away? Why aren't you working to innovate at work and make yourself indispensable?

Calling John Howard a "lying commie pinko" is just deconstructive and undermines your point of view in the attempt to make a valid argument/discussion.

[Grunter]

Union and politicians.... in the middle, somewhere lies the truth.

Unions are putting a spin on their point of view on IR, not because they are protecting the little man, but for their own self interest and preservation.

Politicians are putting their spin on IR to sell (ie force) the unsellable.

From a employers point of view both sides cost me money with their ongoing bull, which prevents me from employing additional people. Go figure... :

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by parawolf

And where are you sticking up for your rights? Just paying your union fees and hoping the problem will go away? Why aren't you working to innovate at work and make yourself indispensable?

Calling John Howard a "lying commie pinko" is just deconstructive and undermines your point of view in the attempt to make a valid argument/discussion.

I'm a production worker in a very large company, innovation is not an option in a mass production system.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I'm a production worker in a very large company, innovation is not an option in a mass production system.

Bullsh*t. Come up with a good idea to improve or save and there will be someone in the company intersted.

[parawolf]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I'm a production worker in a very large company, innovation is not an option in a mass production system.

Thats utter crap as johnydep said. If you see potential workcover issues, your manager would want to know before the workcover person comes along. If you see consistant quality issues notify your manager. If you have an idea about how to improve your job to produce a better quality more reliable product, or how to better stick the "MKII" badging on the back of a falcon then let someone know.

Sorry but anyone that says that innovation is not an option in any job, is just going through the motions to get a paycheck. You are not looking to make a career out of that role. Now that can be just fine if you are doing external education to get yourself a better job in a different industry, but doing external education shows that you are willing to adapt which is exactly the kind of employee lots of companies want.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

And they said they would not put GST on petrol too. Everything they say is bull. Free trade agreements are OK if you only have to pay slave labour wages, how can we compete against that. Its no wonder so many automotive suppliers are moving to China. Soon there will be bugger all left, but Johhnie doesn't seem to mind. I'd back my union all the way, they may not be perfect but they are the ones sticking up for my rights, not some lying commie pinko like Howard.

Is the Australian economy, way off life and general hapiness worse or better than prior to the GST? Answer that.

Before GST we had a hidden sales tax, 22% on electrical goods, carpentry screws were taxed, nails were tax free, car tax started at 22% & worked it's way up. Every budget the Hawke & Keating did, the first things that went up everytime was smokes, alchohol & petrol everything to hit the working person.

Unions, I hate them. When I was a kid working at Hungry Jacks they made me pay & when I asked for help because of poor work conditions & a manager that trimed everyones worked hours down, they did SFA

Go ask some of the old union guys what they got upto in the 70's, I've got a couple of uncles that bragg about the good old days.

Unions & politicians, you get good ones & you get bad ones, read the fine print.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I'd back my union all the way, they may not be perfect but they are the ones sticking up for my rights, not some lying commie pinko like Howard.

Whilst you should back your union, i'm wondering if you even understand what makes someone a "commie pinko"?

The agenda of the howard government is the complete opposite of a socialist approach. Whilst not as conservative as their American counterparts, the liberal government is still has a strong right wing flavour. This government's philosophy is for individuals to look after themselves. GST - an optional tax. Superannuation choice - look after your own retirement. Decentralised wage system - represent yourself to your employer. These are the completely opposite tactics to a "commie pinko". Perhaps, if you require some sort of catch phrase you caould refer to him as a right-winged pigeon? A fascist *****? One thing he is not is a commie.

Originally Posted by parawolf

And where are you sticking up for your rights? Just paying your union fees and hoping the problem will go away? Why aren't you working to innovate at work and make yourself indispensable?

HERE, HERE!! Again, I highlight the fact that the liberal approach puts responsibility unto the individual. The socialist, 'commie pinko' approach puts the responsibility unto the collective.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Quite an informative post. Holds little for me as i'm already on an AWA and sit down with my boss every year to discuss pay and conditions. But an interesting perspective...

Although i cant help but notice the people over at QNU couldnt help themselves but slip in a bit of anti-howard rhetoric into this 'fact sheet'...

i.e.

What this means to you:

- Howard Government has opposed every increase to the minimum wage since it came to power.

So now we've heard from the left, a few quotes from the workplace homepage...

"The reforms will:
-Retain federal minimum wages and conditions
-Retain a role for the AIRC
-Retain collective union and non union agreements"

Paints a suprisingly rosy picture huh? I'd suggest taking both perspectives with a grain of salt...

I'm not gonna sit here and regurgitate a pile of right-winged propagandha (lol, plenty of that coming from me in the other thread) but the numbers speak for themselves (but you wont read these on a union website or in a mainstream newspaper).

[Axle-F]

bah these are rediculous scare tactics.

the IR reforms are aimed at making australia more competitive in the overseas markets. ie less jobs going overseas thus a more prosperous country.

the changes are good imo but thats just me

[eb2fairmont]

Scare tactics?

If we are to compete with countries with lower wages and costs, then we will need to be at that level too. This legislation will provide the means by which this can happen.

David