John Howard is out selling WorkChoices. Apparently it will empower employees to demand the dismissal of that critical and annoying colleague that makes your life hell!
Mr Howard said workers would find a more flexible attitude to unfair dismissal under the laws, starting next Monday.
“(But) some people who have been a disruptive influence in a small firm may not find it as easy to remain,” he told Southern Cross radio today.
Mr Howard defined a disruptive influence not as a union shop steward but as somebody in a small office of five people who constantly and unreasonably complained about how the office worked.
“So many people have spoken to me and said, ‘I know exactly what you are talking about – we work in a small office and there is one person who makes our life a misery’,” he said.
“That does not happen all that often but when it does, when it has happened in the past it has been very hard for an employee to do anything about it.”
“Don’t like having a [fill in the blank] in the office? Well, you have WorkChoices!”
Interesting that he’s insinuating that employees get to sack people - must be some way of sneaking in the “you have choices, you’re empowered” rhetoric.
Alternative hypothesis: He’s talking nonsense.
Can these principles be applied to government ministers by their employees -the Australian electorate?
Survivor: the Office!
“The tribe has spoken. Bob, the Assistant Financial Officer, you must leave the office.”
Tired of those bastards stealing your milk and embedding your stapler in plates of jelly? Have em all sacked!
“there is one person who makes our life a misery”
Yeah, and in the numerous small offices I have worked in that person is usually the boss - the one person who won’t be sacked anyway
I was just about to log in here and write exactly the same thing Polly.
Seriously though, I think this really shows the level of contempt he now has for the collective intelligence of the Australian electorate. He’s basically saying “you dismal idiots chew on this rubbish for a bit, while we figure out how to sell this dog”
The idea that workers will be able to usurp mangerial authority to hire/ fire under this legislation is of course, strictly for moron consumption.
And now his Darkness stoops to harness to electoral power of petty office rivalry.
Is it just me, or is this “worker’s self-management and empowerment” line a sign of lack of PR preparation/ desperation?
Perhaps I’m reading the whole thing the wrong way, LE, but, say, you have 6 people in an office and 5 of them don’t like the 6th. If they approach the boss with their complaints he may be persuaded to sack #6 to keep the others happy.
“The boss” being the operative concept there, Rog. Hardly ‘empowering employees’ is it.
Especially #6.
Yes, I must admit, His Darkness has a masterful ability to harness the ordinary evil of makind’s pettiness.
Could work well, I guess. After all, there’s a really high achiever in my floor - been showing the rest of us up for too long, I say!
“Mr Howard defined a disruptive influence not as a union shop steward but as somebody in a small office of five people who constantly and unreasonably complained about how the office worked.”
Well look at it this way: all those execs and directors at James Hardie would have been spared a lot of grief if this legislation had been around when things hit the fan there.
Reads to me like Jack’s getting all tied up in his own bullshit.
This is Lord of the Flies stuff. “When given a chance, people often single out another to degrade to improve their own security.”
I note that it’s inconsistent with the wishes of unionised workers, who may prefer not to see contractors (casuals) being hired. In such circumstances, the Employment Demands legislation specifically deprives those workers of any right to determine who they work with.
Snap.
The other point is that workplace pests are generally pests precisely they are protected by management.
The interesting part of this is the window it casts on Howard campaigning. He loves to invoke folksy references to people coming up to him and imparting heartfelt truths. In this case, it’s not his idea, nor even that of people he’s spoken to, but of people who feel so strongly that they come to him.
He used this in the election to tell us about voters who came up to him with glowing reports of their home prices.
It’s very clever communication using the Disinterested Third Party to add authority.
See you all during the next Post-Federal Election wash-up. I can visualize it now . . . but . . but . . don’t these voters understand how bad the WorkChoices legislation has been for them - how could they keep voting the coalition into government. This was the most important change in 100 years . . . and on and on and on. . .
Will people be able to demand that workplace bullies be sacked?
Sacha, complaints about workplace bullying are normally made under state OHS legislation and or anti-discrimination legislation.
It’s worth oberving that there are a range of statutory remedies and remedies in contract still available to dismissed employees. There have been a number of columns in the Fin from industrial lawyers warning employers of the potential for large damages under these actions, and that the removal of the unfair dismissal provisions doesn’t create a free for all.
There’s also some interesting developments in jurisprudence on these issues in the Federal Courts which imply that due process may be interpreted as a requirement under the contractual obligations owed by employers to their employees.
“There’s also some interesting developments in jurisprudence on these issues in the Federal Courts which imply that due process may be interpreted as a requirement under the contractual obligations owed by employers to their employees.”
Is this in contract law Mark?
Yes, Mark, thank you for your insight re “There’s also some interesting developments in jurisprudence on these issues in the Federal Courts which imply that due process may be interpreted as a requirement under the contractual obligations owed by employers to their employees.� Like Cristy I am also interested in learning more about this alternative avenue. Please fill us in with more info.
Good thing I’m no longer working in Oz. I would have had my ass fired long ago.
Yes, in contract law, Cristy and Carol.
I’ll have another look at what I was reading in passing a few days ago and get back to you.
Oh look, Fat Albert lost his job. Fat Albert, you are clearly not looking for work because you have such good qualifications and you never score a job. You are failing your obligations to the rest of us. No dole for you, Fat Albert.
I suppose you could argue that Fat Albert will get thin and therefore get a job, but it doesn’t work for other sorts of disability.
Seems to me, in the times when I have had an actual job in an actual largish organisation that one of the key disciplines is to work harmoniously with people who are completely different. In the offices I know of, Hillsong Christians would fit that bill, so maybe the Libs should think again.
“See you all during the next Post-Federal Election wash-up.” - Razor.
Judging by the abysmal performances of the Federal ALP, you may well be right, Razor. I am reminded of an assertion by Kim Beazley Senior of the 60s Federal ALP
(then controlled by a Joe Chamberlain-Victorian Left alliance): “it has the Midas Touch for electoral failure, to the point of sheer genius.”
Alas, his son now leads a party (or is it coalition of factions) with similar traits.
Still, Industrial Relations does seem to offer a glimmer of hope. Remember the Reith-Dubais debacle in 98? It turned the Maritime Services Union (who were a pretty close second to the old BLF as the most unpopular union in the country) into folk heroes. I thought then that a negative campaign on Howard’s IR attitudes might have got them over the line in the 98 election (it was pretty close anyway), but the timidity of Beazer and his mates prevailed and it was hardly mentioned.
It’s only a gut feeling, but I suspect that Australian voters react against something that’s transparently unfair. And a $55 million government advertising campaign hasn’t seemed to have changed that perception of unfairness. Nor has the use of Orwellian language like Workchoices, and Fair Pay. We’ll see in 2007, I guess.
Don - I wouldn’t be so sure about the Maritime Service Union being seen as folk heroes. Most people I know believe they are evil, killed people and deserved to cop it. I disagree, but this is a very common view.
Tony - “When given a chance, people often single out another to degrade to improve their own security.� I plan to reflect on this behaviour at some point. It appears to me that nothing binds people more than hate. If you single out a person, everyone except that person feels better by having a target. This scares me, because if you are that target, you are stuffed. If people decide that you are it, there is little you can do - you best quit and get another job.
Original Article - It is far more likely that your workplace pest will be protected by being mates of the boss. Eventually you complain about the employee and you are sacked.
You’re probably right, Stuart, certainly before the Government and Patricks tried to trash them, and perhaps a year or so later after the crisis had passed.
But I was referring to events which climaxed in the High Court requiring Patricks to reinstate them. At that time there was a lot of sympathy for them, a lot more than there seemed to be for Patricks, the Government, or the scabbing attempts of the NFF and the ex-army guys. And that was my point. If you push beyond the boundaries of ethical behaviour, as Patrick’s ‘Bottom of the Harbor’ corporate fiddle and the Govt’s secret Dubais training scheme did to get rid of an entire workforce, even the most unlovely types (such as the MUA)can win public sympathy.
After the initial seeming victory in the lockout, I still remember TV newsreel footage of Howard rushing up to Reith in Parliament to shake his hand and slap his back. I kept wondering how that would look in TV commercials with the voice-over, “Is this how much they care about YOUR job security?”