From today’s Crikey email:
The chorus of commenters proclaiming WorkChoices and economic responsibility as synonymous is one symptom of a largely misinformed and hysterically partisan debate over industrial relations.
Another is inattention to basic facts.
Some are available, despite the fact that apparently it’s too complex a task for the Employment Advocate to compile any on AWAs. The ABS still exists.
Very few newspapers now retain specialist industrial relations reporters, and the best coverage of workplace matters, in the “bosses’ bible�, the Fin Review, rarely seems to set off the radars of national political reporters and columnists.
As with other areas of debate over policy, reporting has become increasingly partisan, and distorted by prevailing myths. Those myths, which are often exaggerations which contain partial truths, can usually be traced quite precisely back to political spin, as with “Howard’s battlers� (a phrase coined by Andrew Robb in a press club address on the 13th of March after the 1996 election).
Yet, perhaps paradoxically, we also live in the era where all political reporting must bow down to the gods of balance.
In light of these considerations, it will be very interesting indeed to see whether a press release issued yesterday by Tony Maher of the CFMEU (Mining Division) gets much of a run, or any run at all.
Maher has compiled statistics which directly challenge the claims that AWAs are the backbone of the mining industry, and that AWAs are necessary to its continued health and productivity growth.
For the sake of argument, let’s set aside the interpretation placed on the stats by the union (although figures cited by business lobbies are seemingly rarely suspicious because of their source). The figures themselves all derive from government sources – either from the ABS or from WA bureaucratic agencies.
Maher’s press release states:
“Recent ABS data (6306, Feb 2007) underlines that Australian mining does NOT rely on AWAs – just 31% of workers in metal ore mines, and only 16% of the mining industry’s workforce are on AWAs. Mining relies more on common law contracts (as provided for in ALP policy) rather than on AWAs. About 55% of metal ore miners are on common law contracts.
The ABS data also shows:
• Unionised coal miners earn an average of $46.40 per hour. Largely non-union metal ore miners earn $35.20 per hour. Coal miners earn an average of 32% more.�
Maher also cites figures on productivity growth. Since 1996, productivity growth has been negative in gold mining in WA, and average annual productivity growth in the largely collectivised coal industry has been 2.87% while over the same period it’s been 0.33% in the largely de-unionised WA coal industry.
It would of course serve more than the cause of “balance� if these figures were reported. It would also serve an old-fashioned journalistic notion – reporting the facts.
I was thinking that the famous “skills shortage” plays here too?
I would hope that the opposition does nothing to water down their opossition to AWA’s and lets the Government and Murdoch press froth at the mouth and throw tantrums over them and let the Big Business organisations waste their shareholders money running ads.
At least then we can get away from the eternally damaging argument that voters can’t pick the difference between the parties. The polls have been negative for Howard since Workchoices was introduced and more negative polls for Howard can only be a good thing.
They need reminding though, that the business community do not make up the majority of voters and that the resources sector, of all sectors, is the least representative of the effects of AWA’s- given the phenomenal demand for resources and the simultaneous skills shortage. If Resources is going to become the flag bearer of the AWA, someone needs to call them on this.
I have often been worried by ‘Balance’ theory for the simple reason that it stifles growth. The very word balance tends to mean that a state of equilibrium has been reached where no progress is possible. A stalemate in other words.
On contentious matters where the Government Mud throwing puts one in a vulnerable or lossy situation balnce is the neutralising position but where a matter of basic justice and principle is concerned then deliberately breaking from the balanced position makes sense.
An interesting debate on balance in IR policy from a non union, non party perspective is here. Thankfully one of the comments urges a more progressive approach.
I agree the media hysteria about AWA’s is over the top, particularly The Australian.
Is the economy really going to crumble if WA’s mine-workers have to sign a different kind of agreement? We are talking about less than 2% of the workforce.
But don’t dismiss the impact Commonwealth public servants could have on this debate.
After WA miners, they are probably the next biggest group of AWA up-takers.
It’s been “no AWA, no start, no promotion” for years in departments like DEWR & OWS.
And like the WA mining industry - as opposed to the Spotlight chicks in retail - public service AWAs have not really been used to cut pay. Yet.
Why? Because even Howard’s hand-picked Mandarins recognise a tight labour market when they see one. And frankly they are not that interested in waging an ideological IR war for JH if it means they can’t run their agency/dept effectively.
But what happens if decent, reasonable public sector types get the sense that their pay/conditions/jobs are going to be trashed by the ALP’s blue collar anti-AWA fatwah?
Will they may be so keen to swoon for Kev and Jules?
From the cardigan’s mouth
http://cpsuweb.blogspot.com/2007/04/in-major-speech-at-national-press-club.html
Hysteria is the right word.
What flummoxes me is the regularly repeated nonsense that scrapping parts of ‘workchoices’ will return us to some union bosses utopia.
Since when were the 2004 workplace laws a union bosses utopia? Mr Howard certainly didn’t campaign at the 2004 election on the need to make major changes to them, even though he quickly unveiled his extremist vision as soon as he saw he had control of the Senate.
And this before we take into account that Rudd is not even going to go all the way back to 2004, having conceded ground on unfair dismissals and secret ballots. Sure he will scrap AWAs, but individual contracts will still be permitted, and the number of allowable areas that will be required looks likely to be fewer than it was in 2004.
The whole ‘debate’ has almost no connection with reality - which makes it rather hard to engage with in any logical way. It’s just shallow sloganeering and straight out bullshit.
Very clear article in “Rupert’s Voize” by Mike Steketee which outlines what a hysterical beat up the attacks are:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/despite_the_gillard_gaffe_labor_is_right/
I’m with all of you - let’s hope that Kevin and Julia don’t change their IR policy. Without a change they have no hope of winning an election and that can only be good for Australia.
Good to see Coalition spirits up today. Its amazing when you are this far in the doldrums how half a days positive media coverage can lift the heart.
Now the public have been informed by News limited and the mining companies how bad Labor’s IR policy is and more importantly how good the Coalitions “Workchoices” is, I now expect to se a strong surge in “battler” support for the government regardless of what it means for their own economic situatiion.
The whole debate may have no connection to reality but neither does the media coverage either. It is hard to read what is likely to happen when every mistep or stutter by the opposition is seen as the ” big mistake”. I think the main story for the non politically engaged yesterday was Heffernan’s outburst.
Su,
I suspect you are right. Ever since Rudd became leader, the Howard coalition have been acting more like an opposition, than a government. Rudd’s been releasing all the ideas and setting the tone, and Howard and his attack dogs have been out there stamping their feet and getting the soundbytes.
Now that Rudd has some initial policy out in the public domain, I think he needs to switch his approach to a series of rhetorical questions, aimed at the electorate, which put the pressure back on the government to give some answers.
Some good examples I would suggest to him are:
Outside of the resources sector, which employees are keen advocates of AWAs?
What has the Governments internal polling been telling them about the key challenges to implementing widespread support for WorkChoices and AWAs.
What are the key advantages of an AWA over the existing common law contract system? Would miners not still be able to negotiate as high a pay package under a common law contract if AWAs were abolished?
In the current conditions would a phased switch over to common law contracts to AWAs in the booming resource sector really cause any significant ill effects, or slow productivity in any other employment sectors?
What percentage of the Australian workforce are currently on AWAs?
Are the majority of the resources and mine sector employment contracts AWAs?
…. i’d like to see some decent answers to these, and some journalists who would actually ask these questions.
Qld_voter will be waiting a long time for answers to the questions posed, because no journalist will ask them, and if the ALP does, it will be denounced as ‘old fashioned class warfare’. At least we know that class warfare is only ever practised ‘up’, and never ever down.
I still think a good strong labor leader HAS to ask these questions. Labor can not go on being the party that keeps on absorbing attack. Politics should not be a one way street. Labor has a proud long history and they should not be afraid to step away from it by caving into the desiccated coconut’s fear campaigns. While all this whoo-hah is about is the perfect opportunity for Rudd to go for broke on Howard’s Achilles heel. Its only the Media, big business and the government that are screaming on this one. The axis of coercion.
The public have yet to make up their mind. What is MORE dangerous will be if the swinging voters sit back and watch this play out, and think to themselves that what labor promotes is nice but won’t work because all the power sits with big business and the media on IR.
It doesn’t sit with them as long as Labor can get a strong advocate with a back bone to stand up for core labor (not union) but ‘Post-keating’ values. Make this the debate on values it should be, put the pressure back on, don’t cave in. How I miss leaders like Keating who had the balls to stand up and give them both barrels!
How could anyone be against balance? Unfortunately, most of the electorate fall for this one.
The truth is no longer important. The media have to provide balance. So it doesn’t matter if the CFMEU data is right. The Govt has the right to say otherwise so as to not upset the gods of balance.
Those productivity figures are particularly interesting. The fact is that if employers can attack wages and conditions then they are nor motivated to pursue productivity gains - they can make cost savings more easily by lopping off penalty rates etc. One of the reasons why the Australian building industry is one of the most productive in the world is that the employers haven’t had the option of paying crap wages to illegal immigrants (as they do in Europe and North America) and have had to look at other ways to cut costs than attacking their workforce.
It’s interesting to speculate if there is a similar correlation with the better productivity performance in the unionised coal sector.
I’d say almost certainy, Robert, and I remember seeing a paper on the comparative productivity of US and Australian construction and the differences are quite startling.
Most of the coal mined in Australia comes from QLD and NSW. WA’s not big in coal, with only one operating coalfield (Collie). Comparing the wages and productivity of QLD and NSW coal miners with WA coal miners - let alone iron and gold miners - using Maher’s approach is a stupid exercise.
Not only is Maher comparing apples with oranges, he neglects to point out the artificiality of his productivity numbers. His own source shows that if you strip out the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 (during which time the coal industry shed 3,152 employees, or 15% of its workforce), the coal industry has had WORSE productivity growth than WA iron ore or gold. Using Maher’s approach, coal mining productivity has fallen 6.6% pa in the last five years. That’s an inconvenient “truth” for collective bargaining, isn’t it?
It should be needless to say that there’s also no allowance for the different mining techniques between iron, gold and coal, ore grades, mine life, economic recoverability, capex, yadda fecking yadda, but that’s all pointless nuance, isn’t it?
Cherrypicking garbage.
I think everytime Sharan Burrow or Greg Combet gets on Telly HoWard wins votes.
afterall who’d you rather talk to.. Sharan.. or your Boss?
It would also be interesting to look at the effects of capital investment in the coal industry - I suspect that is where most, if not all, of the productivity improvements have come. The returns to additional capital in industries where workers are (comparatively) expensive are high - which is why you get huge machines, few workers (on high wages) and employment reductions.
OTOH, where conditions are flexible and hiring and firing is comparatively easy you get higher labour employment and lower capital use.
It really is just simple, simple economics, people - and personally, I would rather have most people working and earning their keep than a lot of big machines and many unemployed.
The one thing that Howard can not claim is higher productivity increases during his regime. Keating definately had the wood on them here.
You’re correct Fyodor - but is it any more ridiculous than asserting that by removing AWA’s we’ll cripple the mining industry, as BHP effectively said?
The industry’s prime period of growth was actually just before AWAs kicked in, I’ve been lead to believe.
steve,
The reason for this is that picking the low hanging fruit is an easy thing to do. The sheer mess of IR left by the legacy of Menzies, Whitlam and Fraser was holding us back. Early on (in the 50s and 60s), this mess was covered up by post war recovery. Keating made some worthwhile changes, but to get the rest takes real effort - effort that Keating was never able (or perhaps willing) to put in.
.
Kate,
It is difficult to grow quickly when everyone who wants a job in a particular industry has one. Just an observation.
Where did they “effectively” say that removing AWAs would “cripple” the industry, Kate? There’s nothing in BHP’s statements so far that represents anything on a par, ridiculously, with Maher’s abuse of statistics.
The industry’s prime period of growth has been the last few years. This has nothing to do with AWAs or collective arrangements, but the commodities boom generated by China’s rapacious demand for industrial materials.
The question, in this case, is what method of employment bargaining works best for the mining industry. BHP itself uses several different form of contract, including collective bargaining as well as AWAs. Its opposition to mandated collective bargaining and third-party involvement is not in the slightest bit ridiculous as it is certain to reduce their flexibility in managing their workforce.
Your riposte to Kate is unnecessarily pedantic, Fyodor. Whether or not the BHP dude said that losing AWAs would be the wreck of the mining industry or not, (and Kate qualified the phrase), the entire tenor of the hysterical press coverage has been to suggest just that.
I said, quite deliberately, that I made no comment on Maher’s stats. I’m inclined to believe, with Quiggin, that different forms of workplace regulation and employment agreements per se have little influence on productivity. The furphy that AWAs automatically translate to productivity increases needs rebutting, and perhaps Maher hasn’t chosen the most apt way of doing it (and I’m well aware that there are significant technical differenances between different types of mining). Nevertheless, the fact that business and the government are allowed to get away with either no or wildly distorted statistical evidence is very important. Steketee’s quite right to say that the entire “debate” has little or no relationship with reality.
I will say that it is important to underline the fact that only a minority of employees in mining are on AWAs.
This needs to be said because, again, the rhetoric used by business and government suggests otherwise.
Ha! That’s gold!
What you mean is, what IR system produces the highest return on capital?
The mining industry also consists of employees.
Employees are interested in a viable industry, but they are not fixated on the return on capital, especially if they are receiving a proportionately lower return than shareholders for each unit increase in operating surplus.
Quality of life issues tend to be more important to employees than return on capital, and sometimes even higher than the size of the salary.
A measure of control over the nature of work is one of those quality of life issues that trade unions have traditionally championed in the name of employees.
You’re right Mr Fedya, the word cripple was not used. Mea culpa.
My point was that there’s rhetoric on the industry side as well as on the union side.
And I am well aware of what’s been driving the mining boom. It’s paying my rent.
I was merely pointing out it is ridiculous to claim, as Howard has done, that AWAs have much to do with the current levels of mining driven economic growth in Australia. But I’d suggest that it’s also a little bit of hyperbole to suggest that mining will suffer vastly if AWAs are booted out.
Conversely, I’m not really very worried about AWAs for mining workers, and at this point in time they’re not doing badly at all on numerous measures.
But as the editorial in the OZ by Mike Seketee said, there is a certain class of workers who need more protection and I think are rather disadvantaged by AWAs and its these people Labor policy should be aiming to help.
Baby, say bye-bye to bathwater.
Oops. Both gone.
It’s solid thoughtful commentary like that which brings me back to teh interwebs.
Mark, it’s not pedantic to note that the hysteria isn’t emanating from BHP, which is not responsible for the media or Coalition spin you find so objectionable. Kate contrasted Maher’s comments with those - allegedly - of BHP and drew an equivalence. There isn’t one, and I called her on it.
As for your supposed indifference to Maher’s adventures in data-mining, pull the other one. You and I both know why you were “reporting the facts”.
I’m almost surprised to see you write that, Katz. Please present an oppressed miner upset with only earning $100K for driving a truck and I might take your sob-story seriously.
Really Andrew,
So I guess the Luddites were right after all?
I would rather have a high wage, high capital investment economy, than one where the only way to ensure that everybody was employed was to pay people wages below the rate of the cost of their reproduction, and ability to live in dignity from their efforts at work. Using transfer payments to effectively subsidise employers sends quite the wrong signal I would have thought. You know, it could lead to a sense of ‘entitlement’ and we all know the moral hazards that that incurs, don’t we?.
Kate,
Geez - that is harsh. I thought it was about the best comment I had ever made. Hmm, thinking about it that may be scary in itself.
For an explanation: to me that is the core of your argument - because there may be some dirty bathwater causing some workers somewhere to get wages you consider too low or conditions worse than you consider to be the bare minimum, you are advocating throwing out the baby of high wages and flexible conditions negotiated between parties of strong bargaining power.
To me that is the baby / bathwater problem of your argument.
amused,
Nonsence. Nowhere have I advocated Luddism. I expressed a preference that people were actually working rather than being unemployed. If that means that there is a different labour to capital ratio, then so be it.
To conflate that with advocating the destruction of capital stock is simply silly.
That doesn’t follow at all. No one is arguing that people should note negotiate high wages and flexible conditions!
Andrew, a few points points.
I seem to remember that there was a big push for productivity increases with the introduction of enterprise bargaining hardly easy pickings,I’d have thought.
Secondly, I thought it was a skilled labour shortage that was the main cause of the lower productivity during the Howard era bought about by a dodgy education policy and cuts to R&D funding etc.
Aren’t most of the high achievers over in London and Europe now?
How does someone confronting a company to negotiate an Individual Work Contract suddenly become a position of ’strong bargaining power’?
While much is argued about one partuy or the other keeping the AWA’s or not little thought is given to what if the High Court of Australia were to reverse its 14-11-2006 decision and by hindsight does admit (as it did with the – no defunct- Cross Vesting Act) that the so called WorkChoices legislation is beyond constitutional powers!
In my book, due to be published this month;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation
A book about the validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD),
ISBN978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W),
ISBN978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
I have set out what the judges nicely did not include in their judgments but should have as being relevant!
Indeed, had they done so their decision would have been to find the WorkChoices legislation to be unconstitutional.
So, while the government and opposition parties are seeking to claim the high ground as to who is the better one, in the process I have done the real work needed to seek to get rid of this unconstitutional legislation.
And, WorkChoices doesn’t even affect me personally, other then that I don’t like it someone interfering with my constitutional rights, such as “civil rights� that belongs to the States.
Likewise so “factory laws� as they are commonly referred to remain to be with State legislative powers, regardless if the business is a registered company.
Also, since when can WorkChoices deal with religious public holidays where this in breach of Section 116?
Perhaps, rather then to look at which political party is right or wrong we simply should look at what is constitutionally appropriate and if the High Court of Australia had it wrong, then is not the best way to try it to reverse its decision before too many people are harmed by it? After all isn’t the High Court of Australia supposed to be the GUARDIAN OF THE CONSTITUTION, to protect the peoples constitutional rights?
Sadly, this is only the beginning of an unholy bloodbath. The collective economics IQ of parliamentary Labor is about 23.5. They are going to be bitchslapped from asshole to breakfast from here on in. Too many luvvies and hacks and not enough intellectual firepower.
Some comments a propos: http://www,jmcdonald.org/opinion/ - Rage and Enthusiasm.
I formerly ran the IR Policy webpage, but - ahem - have retired since (ha!ha!)
Still got an opinion on everything: I ain’t dead yet.
Jim
Gary, I have long been an ardent admirer of your work from afar (via the pages of the Heidelberg Leader). Good to see you bringing your special brand of lobbying to the wider internet community.
Mark,
I think your definition of flexible conditions and mine must be a little different. Remind me of what the difference between an AWA, a common law contract and the award conditions are. I seem to remember a test of some description being involved.
.
steve,
Tinkering with the rates granted within the current system and negotiating with good mates is low hanging fruit.
I think the skilled labour shortage is possibly more to do with too many universities and not enough tech places. How many lawyers and arts students does it take to change a light bulb?
The high achievers are coming back - at least they are in WA. I like to think I am among them.
Someone confronting an employer who needs workers desperately because they need to export more is in a strong position. I think the guy on the front page of the West Australian today would be a good example - $142K for a two on one off roster at 26 years old. To me, that indicates a strong bargaining position.
Looks like the mining lobby will settle for pre-workchoices AWA style arrangements. I reckon the ALP should say “hell yes” and can these worms.
Its a good deal: pre Workchoices AWAs means a no-disadvantage test applies in relation to the relevant award. But that test can ‘average out’ wages against any conditions which may be traded off - ie its flexible, but cant undercut awards willy-nilly like post-Workchoices AWAs.
The difference with individual common law contracts is, in my understanding, is that these cannot undercut any aspect of an award, since a contractual term will be void if ‘unlawful’ - so they’re really only an above-award device.
Me, I’d settle for that AWA compromise. Personally, Id even say to industry they’re welcome to use the damn things any way they bloody like for anyone earning over 100k. Who cares? Aside from OH&S, and the essential leave minimums, the union movement neednt worry overly above people on that wage level. They really can look after themselves. Its just not core business, IMHO.
Hi Jim, nice to see you back on the internets!
Andrew, AWAs and awards are both statutory instruments, whereas common law contracts (as the name implies) are not. Because statute law prevails over common law, common law contracts can’t oust award conditions (awards provide the basics of employment in particular industries - on both pay and conditions). Because in many instances, the mining employers have relied on AWAs to supersede awards for 10 years, the awards themselves contain provisions that they don’t want - for instance the 12 hour shifts and the 10 day weeks, etc). The awards could of course be updated and varied on application to the AIRC, but unions are respondents to the awards and thus would have a say, at least in terms of putting submissions to the commission. That’s why the employers aren’t happy with common law contracts. Of course one solution would be to change the manner in which awards are varied, and to modernise them, which would now be possible with the new understanding of commonwealth constitutional powers (formerly federal awards weren’t “common rule”, meaning that they had to theoretically arise out of a dispute and had to have named employers and unions as parties). This probably wouldn’t be problematic, and as Lefty E indicates, the “no disadvantage test” which formerly applied ensured that workers weren’t worse off when measured against the awards and statutory minima. Now, AWAs can completely oust awards and statutory minima, and there doesn’t have to be any monetary compensation or other gain for employees to compensate. So, to put it simply, the pre-WorkChoices AWAs had to (at least in theory) provide an advantage to the employee, whereas the new ones can disadvantage the employee.
As to 146k or Fyodor’s 100k, I wonder whether either of you gentleman have ever visited a mine. There’s a reason why high wages are offered - the work is dangerous and unpleasant and hard and you have to live in a shit hole in the middle of nowhere. Money can’t buy you love, comrades!
Looks Like Howard is Backpedalling.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1913939.htm
If it was never the intention, then it’s hard to see why the no disadvantage test was deliberately removed!
But a very interesting development.
I think we can conclude internal coalition polling says they’re screwed on IR.
Yep!
From The Oz
JOHN Howard has backed down on Work Choices by introducing a formal assurance that workers on less than $75,000 a year cannot be worse off after trading away penalty rates, shift allowances, holiday pay or overtime.
Under the control of a new Workplace Authority, employers will have to “fairly and adequately” compensate people they sign up to Australian Workplace Agreements.
Fair and adequate compensation will have to be “bona fide” and can include more money, flexible working hours, extra conditions such as a car parking space, or fewer hours.
The decision effectively revives a “no-disadvantage test” for those on less than $75,000, from midnight next Monday.
Well, it’s a smart move politically - it enables them to say that they will preserve fairness, but without unions. It makes their line of attack somewhat more credible and bolsters their defence.
Doesnt that commit them to permanent maintenance of the award system? Otherwise, whats the criteria?
The five minima, and comparison with the award, presumably.
WEll, it gives the ALP carte blanche to make a few tweaks, and blunts any attack the coalition were trying to build over the last few days. Its essentially an admission of a wholly unfair policy.
Yes, but it also gives them some room to move in claiming that you can have fairness without union involvement.
Well yes, after all, it will be “protected by law“!
true enough though…
The ball is definitely back in Labor’s court.
But it will also be intriguing to see if the hard edge of WorkChoices’ unpopularity can be blunted, whether the electoral malaise the government finds itself in is more deep seated than just this one issue. The consensus among psephologists that WorkChoices has only shifted at best a couple of per cent of the vote towards Labor combined with the persistently large Labor leads in the polls suggests that might be the case. The budget, and Labor’s response to both this move and the fiscal goodies to be handed out next week, will be the test.
Quelle Surprise!
Ratty is reconciled to the fact that his lies and the adipose Joe Hockey have done no good.
It’s back to the tried-and-true salami politics
He proposes to slice ‘n’ dice the workforce still more.
He’s proposed as $75,000 the imposition of a no-disadvantage regime.
This he adds to the mix with his plus or minus 100 enterprise workforce.
Running like an ant on a hotplate Ratty seeks anything to avoid his fate as the ultimate loser.
Keep running Ratty.
Ha, the rat has admitted that Labor was right all along - NoChoices is fundamentally unfair.
And the point that Gillard made on AM this morning is one that will resonate - few will believe that a devious shit like Howard will not reverse this back-flip post election.
Desperate politics.
Yes, Mark: many.
The wages are currently extraordinarily high because the mining boom is sucking in more workers than are readily available. You (should) know how it works: market forces and all that shite.
Conditions at Australian mine sites are vastly better than you seem to think. I’d ask how many mines YOU have visited, but I doubt I’d be satisfied with the answer.
FYI, money may not buy love, but I’m reliably informed you can rent it on very short term lease.
Note to Fyodor: You’re not nearly as amusing as you think you are. I find amused much more amusing and even John Greenfield has his moments.
Shorter Fyodor: Markets rule!
Who is?
Thanks, adrian, that’s rooly excellent feedback. I’ll remember to try harder next time.
Why? Because you’re worth it.
If you’re in Real Estate Sales, and you’re pulling more than $75,000 a year, you might be in for some interesting times.
I’m more amusing than I think I am.
But NNAAAATITIA, that’s the problem - you’re trying too hard already.
Looks like the old taxi driver conditions for all. No sick pay, no Holiday pay, no Super, no minimum wage and pay the bosses insurance bills as a favour while living on tips alone. What a great idea, and they think this will turn the polls in the Coatition’s favour?
Trying too hard to amuse YOU, Infrequently Slightly Amusing Person?
Much as I’m flattered by your attention, I can’t help but believe that you might have an inflated sense of your worth as an audience.
However, point noted: I will endeavour to amuse you less in future. In fact, I’m fairly certain I’m succeeding already. You tell me; you know how important your bad opinion is to me, and I’d be very disappointed not to disappoint.
LOL - now that’s better.
I know people who love working on the mines. Someone cooks all your meals, you get away from the nagging demands of wife and kids, and you can spend every night drinking beer and watching sport* if that’s what you desire.
*Provided your camp has a wet mess and cable TV and you don’t go over the limit, of course.
Mark,
Just FYI - during the last minerals boom (late 80s) I worked on sites for a total of two years - one as an offsider and then a driller on RC drill rigs and the second year operating crushing plants and ball mills - and, in my current position, I go out to them occasionally. The conditions on these were good then and they are much better now than they were. Getting paid over $100K for a two on one off rota on those is a bl**dy good job and reflects the sheer desperation for staff out here.
Sorry, but I do know what I am talking about. Do you?
.
Kate,
Without a wet mess and satellite (any cable would have to be a long one) TV the number of staff willing to work there would approximate zero. Most of these site also have women working on them, so they could be away from the nagging husband and kids.
Does that mean adrian’s disappointed by not being amused, or disappointed to be amused? Is it more or less of a disappointment to be amused less or amused more? Is commenter adrian actually commenter amused? Inquiring minds want to know.
So now you have to have worked on a minesite to talk about industrial relations? The goal posts are shifting rapidly!
To Fyodor and Andrew: I’m missing the bit where saying miners working hard under often quite tough conditions was, like, an insult?
Because miners often do work hard under tough conditions. Sure, miners in Australia have got it easy in comparison to Chinese coal workers, but I reckon working in an underground mine where the humidity is close to 100% and you’ve got to handle machinery and work with explosives and other such minery-type jobs could be quite a tough gig.
Or what about standing beside a drillrig for 10 hours a day in 45 degree heat lugging core trays around? Or hiking 8kms every day with a backpack full of geological samples (ie, rocks)? Or spending months and months away from your loved ones and mates and every sort of normal life?
I was making a bit of a joke about the people who love the FIFO lifestyle but for some people not seeing your families and friends for months on end does get a bit wearing.*
Sure, mining isn’t all manual labour under the blazing hot sun but from what I’ve seen your average mining job is a darn sight harder than typing all day.
Kate,
Mark implied that we did not know what we were talking about on mining, as he doubted we had worked on them. While clearly playing the man, not the ball, it was also incorrect.
Strange you use all those example. Except for the core trays (they are on diamond rigs - I was normally on RC), I have done all of them and I know they are harder than typing. BTW - the worst days were where we had cloud cover or even rain and over 30 degrees. Awful. The rain would evaporate before hitting the ground.
100K plus and all expenses thrown while on site? Not bad even under those conditions. Trying to claim that these are somehow hard on the workers is, to me at least, clearly an absurdity. If the flexibility of AWAs allows workers to negotiate conditions like this then they are a good thing.
Just knew I couldn’t resist this for ever - I could bang on and on about life in t’mines. But just one little bit…
By far and away (better than 90%, I’d bet) of Australian mine workers are in open cut operations. Most (say 60% plus of the total workforce at any open cut mine) are heavy equipment operators. This involves sitting in an airconditioned, noise protected cab with a CD player, driving a truck, dozer, shovel, excavator etc. While this is not without difficulty, and good operators are a valuable commodity, it is generally neither hard nor dangerous. Most Australian open cut mines have injury frequency rates not dissimilar to office based industries. The biggest OH&S problem is boredom-related fatigue. While some indeed live in shit holes, many live in nice places like Capricornia in QLD, the Hunter Valley, or the LaTrobe Valley. Many of those that live in more isolated spots inland have stayed there for many years, because they like it - like the central QLD town where I am, where most of the workforce has willingly stayed and raised their families for 20 years or more. As for love, Mark… I met my wife in a mining town….
Another inconvenient historical fact - productivity growth in the WA mining industry began with the Court Govt’s individual Workplace Agreements in the mid 90’s. Where I worked then, we had voluntary take up of 95% within a week of offering the first one, and the subsequent productivity explosion saved the industry in the dark days of relentlessly dropping prices between then and about 2002/3. How quickly we forget.
But, unfortunately, Fy, I could still find many an “… oppressed miner upset with only earning $100K for driving a truck…”. Lefty E’s right - they ought to just walk away from the argument and concentrate on people who may actually need some help.
No, Andrew, that wasn’t what I was trying to imply at all. It was an honest query - because it was quite possible that you had just been going by what is reported in the papers.
My broader point, which is what I meant by what was meant to be a sardonic reference to the Beatles song, was that earning 100k a year doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re as happy as Larry. I’m just a bit disturbed by the mindset that lots of money is the only goal worth aiming at!
Sorry, Mark - the way you phrased that made me think you thought I lived in some ivory tower.
I would agree that lots of money is not the only thing worth aiming at, or I would be out at the mines rather than working on bank regulation. The point about the wages, though, is that their sheer availability creates options and choices and, to me at least, this is a good thing.
The reason why I do not like things like awards, minimum wages and minimum conditions is that they, by their very nature, reduce choice and eliminate options. To me, if I choose to take a job or enter into any other contract I should have the ability to do so and, short of there being any use of force or its threat on the part of any of the other contracting parties or anyone else, no-one should be able to stop me.
WorkChoices in itself improves, but does not remove, the number of choices available in a contract of employment and so, from that point of view is a good thing. The real problem with it is one of the ones identified by Gary above - the taking of the powers from the states - which also reduces choice. This is the real fault with the Act and it is a point I would like to see made more often.
Andrew Reynolds:
“The reason why I do not like things like awards, minimum wages and minimum conditions is that they, by their very nature, reduce choice and eliminate options”
I don’t like what I see here, Andrew.
You are privileged to be educated and skilled to a level where any job that you take is likely to keep you comfortable, as regards pay and conditions.
People like you are vastly outnumbered by those for whom finding a job that pays them enough per hour, for a sensible number of hours per week, at sensible times of day, that will actually pay the rent and feed them, is a problem.
Agreeing to insane hours on pathetic pay rates is not a “choice” that anyone wants, except irresponsible and/or incompetent employers.
Safety nets are necessary, although, of course, you should be free to choose as large an improvement above them as you can negotiate. Collective agreements can improve on awards, and can allow individual incentives above the collective agreement. This was never a problem with them that needed correcting, and I am amazed at the amount of ignorance and misinformation on this matter.
And as far as the freedom of you and your employer to negotiate what you like - I agree. Apart from the need to protect you from being bullied into 100 hour weeks at 30 cents per hour. So, what do you think of the power that Ratty and the Rattites have given themselves to ban you from including various things in the agreement, and to personally interfere in your agreement if they don’t like it, and slap $35000 fines on you both for Daring To Talk About Forbidden Things?
I note that Workchoices Lite: The Backflip still contains that part of the original.
I’m not so hung up on the choice thing. I’ve reckon I’ve probably worked most types of contracts, collective agreements and all that stuff. But as I’ve weasled further up the management ladder I’ve found myself in common law contract land. I tried to negotiate the last contract, with the help of an IR lawyer and succeeded in changing only one condition, and not some of the craziest things in there. The bit that says something like I have no set hours of work but will work until the job is done, for instance. I did manage to negotiate some terms around the part that said even after I resigned I would keep working until I had finished all my projects - I successful negotiated that I would get paid for this work. And I was nervous negotiating all this.
My preference would be a collective bargaining thing or an award. I just want someone who knows about this stuff to sort it all out.
And having been in positions where I have considerable staff management responsibilities and responsibility for negotiating industrial conditions as an employer, I would much rather have a collective bargain. Especially in work places that are too small to have an HR department. It takes alot less time and resources to get a single agreement that includes pay scales, basic conditions and all that stuff and have it all written down in one place than have to work it all out individually when you’ve got lots of other stuff to do. Few people I have worked with have been confident in their own understanding of industrial laws and what they should reasonably expect. But they do want to be treated fairly and paid fairly.
I just don’t think that medium to small business has really sat down and worked out the benefits and costs of individual agreements particularly where they are genuinely committed to a genuine negotiation. Choice is expensive.
andyc,
I know that many people are not confident enough in themselves to negotiate - but this is where I see a union (or another third party) being a very useful part of the process. People are free to talk to their union and discuss these things and to get them involved in the process.
To me at least this should be the primary function of the union - being a true advocate for the people who want or need them to be involved in the process. To me at least, a huge mistake was made decades ago when unions sought to influence government and became not much more than another lobby group. Declining membership and increasing irrelevance has been the result.
.
Angharad,
Choice is expensive. Its lack, though, is devastating.
Most of the things with a collective agreement could be in some form of a standard contract - as there is for (for example) a home building contract and negotiated from there. No need to write more regulations around that.
Mark</