Julia Gillard is certainly capable of a sophisticated negotiating strategy, and it’s been interesting to observe that the process of formulating the legislation to implement Forward With Fairness and replace WorkChoices – while managed largely behind closed doors – was accompanied over the year by a fair bit of crowing from business that they’d extracted more concessions than in the two documents released before last year’s election. However, the ALP caucus and the ACTU also belatedly secured more of what they wanted – particularly in last resort arbitration, multi-enterprise bargaining for low paid workers, good faith bargaining and union entry and records inspections rights. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if such changes were always contemplated, and certainly explicit attention to the needs of workers with poor bargaining power spread across a number of work sites (for instance cleaners or employees in light manufacturing) was part of the election policy. What is entirely predictable is the tenor of the business reaction, which you can get a sense of quickly by reading this story from yesterday’s Australian. Unions are back and the sky will fall in! In fact, the points business objects to really just serve to underpin bargaining. There’s an element of balancing equity with efficiency, which has always been part of the IR framework in Australia, but we certainly haven’t “gone back to the future”. In many ways, the legislation could legitimately have gone further in redressing some of the imbalance of power in the bargaining process.
If, although as one would imagine there’s some equivocation going on, the opposition allow the laws to pass substantially unaltered, the business whining will be futile. That in itself may push the opposition into a more negative stance. The passage of the laws through the Senate early next year could get interesting.
Isn’t the risk here for Labor that the introduction of the new IR laws will coincide with rising unemployment next year? Although its unlikely to be a large influence, it will enable employers to say “I told you so” every time they retrench a bunch of people.
It’s possible, but there was no good evidence that the unfair dismissal laws ever had the effect on employment that was claimed. By far the most powerful variable causally with employment is economic conditions – either overall or in particular sectors. And in this instance the reintroduction of unfair dismissal protections – of a less legalistic nature – was one of the most popular parts of the policy and a firm election promise.
Oh but that nice Mr Harding said that he was sure that they did. Surely that’s enough?
Unfair dismissal laws mean I will be terminating 10 staff.
THAT is an immediate, and irreversible effect of reintroduction of unfair dismissal laws.
This is based upon my experience of the previous unfair dismissal laws, which were a legalised shakedown of small business.
Had the previous unfair dismissal laws served the purpose they were intended to, I would have no objection.
While Rudd and the ALP obviously had a mandate to get rid of Work Choices, there are some things that I really don’t like about this package. In particular, I can’t see any good reason that unions should be allowed to have access to information about my employment (such as my wages) if I am not a union member. That just seems to me to be a gross invasion of my privacy. Can anyone justify that to me?
I also struggle to see why it is an issue for the government if I want to negotiate an individual contract with my employer (e.g. an AWA). I don’t see how it can be a negative for society for me and my employer to have a range of instruments to choose from. (For the record, I’m on a collective agreement, which suits me fine, but I would like the option of choosing a different instrument if it suits me in the future).
Ultimately, we can never accurately quantify the full effects of changes to IR laws – we don’t have the counter-factual. However what is certain is that – at the aggregate level – tighter, more intrusive labour market regulation will mean that employment will bounce back more slowly after a recession than under a more flexible system.
The victims of this legislation will be the people who are unemployed for a few extra weeks or months after the end of the downturn than they would have been if the government had retained greater flexibility. Compared to the imaginary woman on the pre-election ad who got threatened with the sack if she didn’t rush in for a shift under Work Choices, these people are invisible. But they are out there, and they will suffer because the government thinks it is better to be on the dole than on an AWA. Better to have employers reluctant to hire people than to have them hiring people without agreeing to involve the unions. Better to have people unemployed than to have unions having to ask the bosses permission to come into work premises.
But that’s the choice people voted for, and we have to respect it. Just have to make sure I minimise my tax so I’m not paying extra to cover the cost of the new army of people ‘Unemployed With Fairness’.
steve @ 4 – the new unfair dismissal laws are substantially different both in terms of the ease and cost of dispute resolution and the flexibility of the process for counselling/warning employees about their performance. If what you write is true, I’m horrified that you would make decisions affecting people’s livelihood on the basis of no knowledge of the actual changes – or for that matter, when they come into effect.
You may be paid less than a union member for doing the same job, or (and this is extremely common) you may be a woman doing the same job as a man and being paid less – illegally. Or your pay and conditions may not conform with legal requirements. It’s not a free for all and there are privacy protections.
But you can. You can negotiate an individual common law contract. Perhaps you have a persuasive reason why there should be a statutory instrument rather than a common law contract? You might like to contemplate the fact that contractual protections – implied by courts or explicitly stated – are streets ahead of those prevailing under AWAs.
That’s just wrong.
Mark @ 6, my impending firing of 10 people is a natural response to the proposed change in legislation. Am I the only operator who will take such action.
Furthermore, there will not be as much stability of employment, anybody who pricks the slightest twinge of unease in me will be terminated prior to the end of the probationary period.
All staff will become casual and subject to a fixed term contract. There will be no “permenant” jobs at my place while ever unfair dismissal laws threaten me.
I am taking action which affects people’s livelihood. My livelihood. I intend to preserve it.
Once bitten twice shy.
OMG!!! The RWDBs will go mad with rage. I’ve just been informed by Socialist Alliance National Office that the Commonwealth DPP has dropped the charges against Noel Washington, the CFMEU unionist who defied Howard’s inquisitorial ABCCC [I think I've got the acronym right this time] and went to a union meeting in his lunch hour and refused to tell the ABCCC what was discussed. Looks like its going to be a bit of a toothless tiger now, untill such times as it is disbanded. I can hear the Mad Monk beating his head against the walls of his cell already!
Seems there might be a few other things changing in IR along with Howard’s disgusting Workchoices. Hope I’m right.
steve, it’s entirely up to you if you want to act irrationally, I suppose, but I think your attitude is absurd.
Required @ 5. The government has a mandate to abolish workchoices.
That means to scrap entirely the legislation, the same legislation the ALP spent so much taxpayer’s money fighting in the courts.
Return all workers & employers to the state awards they previously operated under.
Changing name, changing terminology, tweaking of the provisions etc, does NOT amount to abolishing.
Mark, I take exception to your remarks that my actions are irration or absurd.
My actions are rational and understandable.
Your response is noted.
Ooooooooooooooooooooo!
Well, you’re still allowed to dismiss employees. Its just that you cant do it:
1. unlawfully (eg for discriminatory reasons – as was the case under Howard as well), or
2. unfairly, which is generally taken to mean “harsh unjust or unreasonable” in all circumstances (including size of employer), and in which employers rarely lose a case where there was a valid reason provided, and prior warning given.
Frankly, I dont think you should be able to sack people *unfairly*. Neither do the Australian people as a whole; see Nov 2007 for their verdict.
That Inquisition-style star chamber prosecuting building unions for exercising their basic rights to organise should be abolished – it belongs in a tinpot authoritarian regime like Zimbabwe, and is a stain on Australian democracy.
Bin it! And then rub the Libs face in it – it was an illiberal outrage! The only one still speaking in favour of this tyranny is that chair-sniffer from WA – now minister for development.
steve at the pub, I bet you don’t even know what the legislation says and you’re carrying on like a ninny. Name the specific provisions you object to.
Got to agree here—Steve, if you employ enough people that you can drop 10 without substantially affecting your business, you really ought to be consulting your HR/industrial lawyer before you do anything.
If an employer sacks, say ,[for sake of argument], 10 employees, on the grounds that he was once bitten and is now twice shy, and is worried about future “unfair dismissal” provisions, is that sacking in itself unfair?
Chicken or egg?
Having read most of the Fair Work Bill now (and a good part of the memoranda – in total they add up to about 1100 pages), I’m not overly impressed by the changes (but then I was probably never going to be), but I am worried by a few things, which will take time to iron out.
The shift in employment law from the Conciliation and Arbitration power to the Corporations power got the knickers of IR academics and die-hards in a twist (I’ve spent the last three years surrounded by them, and it’s been an interesting experience), and a lot of them are furious now that Labor hasn’t shifted it back.
I’m still trying to get my head around how they intend Good Faith bargaining to work in an employment environment where they *claim* to intend to foster collective bargaining. The lack of a realistic arbitration function in the system has raised the heckles of a lot of unionists I know, and I can see why.
Professor Ron McCallum, for example, thinks the whole thing will come unstuck within 5 years. I’m not so sure, but I can see where he’s going with that argument. I figure a lot of the detail is going to be sorted out in forthcoming decisions of the new “Fair Work Australia”, but I’m not going to hold back my political views until such a time.
The decision of the CDPP to drop the ABCC-related charges (without giving reasons) against CFMEU Vic Vice-Pres of the CFMEU (Construction) is – in my mind – the first filly to be traded between the ALP and unions in the lead-up to FWA coming into effect. In short, it’s meant to sugar-coat the pill of all the nasties in the legislation (including the horrific mess which award modernisation looks likely to produce, and the planned ongoing existence of a specialist construction division of FWA).
I doubt the sugar-coating will mask the bitter taste, but it will take time for the taste to surface (and it will, probably as reflux). I don’t normally hold with Sally McManus from the ASU, but some points she made a week or so ago are spot on (business whining notwithstanding):
“McManus admitted that the union movement “fumbled the ball at the try line”, by allowing big business to set the industrial relations agenda and ALP policy, while unions basked in the joy of Howard’s defeat last November.”
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/776/40035
At the same meeting (which I also attended) she said “[Labor] have been able to achieve what John Howard never could,” in amalgamating awards, and reducing them to a bare minimum, “and it will be the ALP that suffers.” “No union official will be able to sugar-coat it.”
Interesting period ahead, methinks, with all manner of cringe-worthy behaviour to be seen.
Sorry, that should have said:
“CFMEU Vic Vice-Pres of the CFMEU (Construction) Noel Washington”
I for one would also object to a private organisation such as a union of which I am not a member having access to my salary/benefit information without my explicit approval. If they’re that concerned about my pay and conditions, why not just ask me? I’d have no problems with a government organisation having access for legal compliance purposes however.
And I certainly don’t want any union to enter into any negotiations on my behalf without my express permission (as happened to a colleague of mine who had a wage claim submitted by a union to his manager without his permission).
Firing 10 people will certainly impact on the business, and require a considerable adjustment to the business model.
Anybody who objects has equal opportunity to hock their house, go into business, and prove they can do it.
Anybody who is clueless as to why I will be reducing staff numbers has never used their own money to employ people productively in a self-funding operation (ie, a business).
You’re reducing staffing numbers to reduce your perceived risk, steve, of unfair dismissal claims. That’s not hard to understand (though we think you’re wrong and irrational).
You can offset your risk at far less inconvenience to your business by getting the help of an employment lawyer.
SATP is bluffing. He’s not going to fire anybody unless the economic downturn lowers his sales of beer and counter lunches.
Hasn’t anyone read SATP’s blog – it’d hilarious. It could be used by HR groups as how not to manage staff guide.
SATP is one of the thankfully more rare employers these days (or it GM, steve never quite sure…) a employer who is totally unsuited to managing staff.
Small incidents end up with employees being sacked with SATP bragging/whinging about it on his blog. One of my favourites was an employee who resigned thinking SATP was advertising his job behind his back when in fact – SATP says he was going to “double his pay and promote him” & this “trusted manager” had shot himself in foot yadda yadda – the fascinating detail was that he’d only been employed for a few weeks.
Seriously it’s a hoot. He must spend about 50% of his time lodging Income Tax declaration forms for new staff.
Class acts like Jo & Spiros aside, there is no need for this thread to derail into howling at the moon (ie at me)
My response to changes to laws is carefully thought out and is being done at a significant capital cost.
Liam is welcome to hire an employment lawyer, he may report back to us here how that pans out for him. I’ll stick to reducing my exposure.
Who else here has been on the receiving end of Union shakedowns?
Capital cost? Employees? Really?
I agree with that. This thread isn’t and shouldn’t be about steve at the pub.
Steve at the Pub reckons he’s going to sack 10 workers because of the unfair dismissal laws.
Really?
One wonders what he’d do if they increased company taxes by a few percent. Close down the business altogether and throw himself off a cliff?
Good move mate, I can see you’re quite the businessman.
My comment was in response to a claim in #2 that unfair dismissal laws never had (..) effect on employment. I know they did, and they will again. My evidence is anecdotal, but real.
Nutters (Spiros, Jo, Evan et al) shouldn’t attempt to derail the thread.
As stated (more or less) by “Required” #5, me #11 and “Wombo” #19, abolishing of Workchoices means reversing the shift to the federal corporations law, and put IR back to where it came from.
The government indisputably has a mandate for this.
The state ALP governments invested a lot of money in a court action attempting to achieve just that.
So… Why is it not being done?
Twofold: 1/. The federal govt is not about to give up their new power over IR, and 2/. There are a lot of very happy people on AWA’s with workchoices conditions, taking that away from them would be mightily unpopular, and may result in those same employees marching on the Lodge and burning it down.
On purely anecdotal evidence from having managed quite a number of businesses from the 80’s through till now – I’d say that the unfair dismissal laws changed employment relations in a number of ways including affecting the huge increase in the casualisation of jobs during the 90’s.
This was entirely predictable as the right to summarily dismiss an employee was snatched from employers, who up until that time did not have to put any effort into all sorts of areas of HR such as careful recruitment, checking resumes, overseeing probation periods, creating job descriptions, and then managing employees including those whose performance was less than acceptable amongst all other HR issues.
These changes also took effect as anti-discrimination legislation and sexual harassment laws really started to bite etc.
When I started work in the private sector back in the dark ages – bosses and managers were kings and benign dictators. If they didn’t like someone – fired. Get pregnant – fired. Kids sick too often – fired. Reject bosses sexual advances – fired. It was a total free for all. The only recourse was industrial action if you belonged to a union in a unionised industry.
On a side note – if Beazley had promised to exempt workplace with under 10 employees from unfair dismissal in ‘98 – he would have won the election by a country mile.
Anyway, workplace culture did change. The idea of being summarily dismissed was no longer tolerated in the community and employers had to show cause and write things down – and blah blah. Which imo, created a professional atmosphere across workplaces which until then were often more like dysfunctional families where the temperament and views of the father/boss were law.
However, as employees were able to access industrial tribunals for free – lodging an unfair dismissal claim became a bit of a routine for disgruntled employees and too hard for small business to defend past the conciliation process. In industry terms this is where “FO money” crept into the system – i.e.. you’d pay a small amount, way smaller than what would be awarded in a case of true unfair dismissal, for this ex-employee to “fcuk off” – even though, you could ‘prove’ the employee was a ‘good for nothing’ and had been given every opportunity to change attitude/work practices – the cost of “FO money” was less than the legal fees required to defend the claim.
I think this process could have been managed if there was a small financial disincentive applied if the applicant lost the case. Nothing too punitive, but enough to dissuade purely vexatious applicants from lodging a claim in the first place. Maybe some IR legal people would have a better understadning of how this may or may not been able to operate.
I haven’t gone through the legislation (!) but it will be interesting to how this process will be managed. I think there is quite a long-ish “qualifying period of employment” alongside the “probation period” which should in most cases provide a long enough period to access someone’s suitability for a job etc.
I would hate to see employees not being able to access tribunals but otoh, dealing with employees who were ‘fairly dismissed’ can be a time draining and disruptive process.
Will look at what is being offered up.
As to what Wombo posted @ 19, in terms of the bigger picture beyond unfair dismissal – v. interesting times. Thanks Wombo.
The assumption of unfair dismissal laws is that it’s fairly straightforward to demonstrate poor performance. In my field, which involves conducting reviews and writing reports, it is actually very difficult because of the subjectivity in evaluation of creative work and the possible impact of external factors that can be claimed to affect the employee’s performance.
More generally, I can’t understand why I should be expected to continue to employ anybody that I don’t want to. In reality good employees are perfectly safe and the others shouldn’t be.
At least that’s how I see it at the micro level. Meanwhile I would like to continue to enjoy the greater propensity to spend of a marketplace where the majority of people are confident that their employment cannot be arbitrarily terminated.
Shorter me: as usual, I have no idea what I want.
As a former business person myself I tend to agree with SATP.After years of giving into employees who wanted time off to go to funerals,to visit sick aunts,and to do lion taming courses with TAFE, it was just toooo much.
With the advent of work choices it was a God send, I could finally sack my wife.
Because the success of your business relies to a certain extent on the performance and stability of the wider economy. Broad and stable employment provides economic benefits through minimising risk and uncertainty. These benefits flow through to provide and boost the business opportunities that your business relies on to be successful. Also, the business owners are the ones who reap all the rewards when the business goes well so they should bare the cost of financial uncertainty, not the employees.
It’s even broader than that Desipis. Our society has evolved in a way that gives people no practical alternative to working within the constraints of an organisational framework. Some prosper in that environment and others don’t. In the interests not only of basic justice but also of social cohesion, it’s sensible for the ones who don’t to be allowed a fair amount of latitude before they are punished by exclusion from the system.
There will always be room for argument about what constitutes reasonable latitude but resort to the doctrinaire ‘my business therefore my right to employ at will’ is a recipe for social fragmentation. This isn’t deductive reasoning, it’s the obvious conclusion to be drawn from plenty of examples where capitalism has been/is allowed to operate with minimal regulation.
Society gives enormous benefits and privileges to the owners of the means of production, especially those who adopt the protective identity of the limited liability company. It’s a bit rich for them to expect to enjoy those privileges without accepting any responsibilities to the citizens who conferred them.
The abscence of an “unfair resignation” law makes it very one sided.
Businesses invest resources in recruiting, inducting and training staff, who are under no return obligation to remain with that employer, for even so much as one day.
My previous employment contract provided subsidised training and education with the restriction that should I leave the company within a certain time frame I would have to pay it back. Of course you could also realise that providing an working environment that proves attractive to your employees is one of the obligations you have as a business operator. You can sure up your investments in staff by maintaining a competitively attractive working environment. And as I said before, these risks should be part and parcel of running a business, not having a job.
SATP if your accounts of your experiences are any indication, your recruitment and training practices are singularly poorly designed or executed. Yeah I know, it’s impossible to get good help these days.
It’s not valid to conclude that your experiences are representative. In fact there is a lot of evidence that intelligent management practices result in highly motivated staff, low turnover, low absenteeism and so on. By and large these are employers who don’t regard employment as a transaction in which they purchase a commodity, although that perspective was much favoured by Karl Marx.
Despis, how is the working environment “competitively attractive” when the staff not only have to carry freeloaders who can’t be sacked, but have to mix with them?
Ken Lovell, I reject every word of comment #39. Your every word is invalid.
What part of the new laws would prevent you from sacking people who don’t do their job?
This is a key point IMO.
Unfair dismissal laws tend to encourage good management practices, and therefore lower staff turnover. In essence, the old laws, while perhaps a little blunt as an instrument, meant that employers had to be a little less lazy if they wanted to dismiss someone. I mean, what’s so hard about telling someone that elements x, y & z of their work performance was unsatisfactory, then giving them a month or two to demonstrate that they could meet these concerns? If that employee then failed to show any improvement, then they could be dismissed quite “fairly”, and that was under the old laws – the new laws will be even easier for employers to deal with, though that doesn’t necessarily mean that employers won’t whinge about them. The world’s gone mad since the end of slavery – so much red tape!
The problem withe a free-for-all system as advocated by SATP, Marlon & Jenny is that in practice such an approach tends to affect people who have outside responsibilities (Marlon has already touched on this). I wonder who that might affect more than most? Women with child care responsibilities would be my bet. As a society we have moved a long way towards recognising that a) we spend a lot of money on educating women, and b) that women still tend to do most child rearing. If we wish to square that particular circle, then we have to include family-friendly provisions at work (and not just on a “grace and favour” arrangement of employers – these must be rights for everyone), and unfair dismissal protections are a big part of this.
My main issue though with setting policy on the desires of small business owners is that in my experience such people are exceptionally blinkered. This is not so surprising, as many work upwards of 100 hours per week. I’m not criticising them for that, but I’m not sure we should be setting our industrial system in response to over-achievers with no perspective on what’s important in life.
We’ve had a bit of anecdotal evidence presented in this thread, so it is perhaps worth a reminder that most of the properly constituted research indicates that the cost of unfair dismissal legislation was not excessive and its impact on unemployment rates modest.
A mixture of hard workers and loafers is the norm in any workplace, anywhere in the world at any time. At least two employers have explained that to me when I have grumbled about disparate work output.
To assume that a workforce will be a) productive, and b) happy at all times is a fairytale. You do your very best with what you have. An effective manager will attract the best levels out of all staff. An ineffective manager will struggle to do so. And of course, there will be extreme cases which need to be dealt with. People have been sacked in my experience, no matter what the legislation is in place federally. And I’m sure that will continue.
I agree with Hugo at Martin B at 43 that Ken L’s overview is good horse sense from the bigger viewpoint.
“The problem withe a free-for-all system as advocated by SATP, Marlon & Jenny is that in practice such an approach tends to affect people who have outside responsibilities (Marlon has already touched on this).”
Hugo my little input was tongue firmly in cheek.SATP and people of his ilk, if they had there way, would have us all working in conditions that would shock Charles Dickens.
Keeping in mind I ran my own business and employed people myself, I am old enough to remember Saturday mornings being a part of the working week, no sick pay, annual leave, and waiting up to six months to get paid for a workers compensation claim, not from the employer mind you, but from the employers insurance company.Of course back then there weren’t to many lawyers who would take on cases with out the cash up front,hence the injured worker was left to the mercy of charity organizations and family’s.This by the way was not circa 1850 but 1957.
If all employers were fair in their dealings with their employees there would be no need to have industrial laws, and indeed the union movement.Employers from days gone by who did the right thing,(mostly family concerns) kept their employees until they retired into old age.Slave drivers and profiteers who treated their employees like shit,were the ones always under the attention of the union movement,and government appointed safety officers,most of whom in the fifty’s and sixty’s got paid off.
My apologies Marlon – clearly your dry sense of humour was too much for me! But then again, unfair dismissal is no laughing matter….
“unfair dismissal is no laughing matter….”
Indeed Hugo. Oh the irony John Howard a victim of his own I.R. Laws.
I woder if he’ll make a claim?
Back in your box Marlon.
Nowhere, at any point, have I advocated for a Dickensian system. I challenge you to back up your statement.
Unfair dismissal is indeed no laughing matter Hugo. As applied in the past, the laws were a shakedown of small business. Hence my understandable desire to minimise my exposure to it.
Had the laws been applied fairy I would have no fear of them.
oh no, you don’t want to sack ‘fairy’ as well, do you SATP?
Ambigulous, that fairy business is the last straw. Dismemberment will be carried out. The replacement will be reminded in tones most stern of the fate of the predecessor!
Sticky keyboards are one thing I can treat how I wish!
“Back in your box Marlon.”
Thankfully I don’t work for you, or you for me, so I will go back in my box at a time of mine or the moderator’s choosing.
“Nowhere, at any point, have I advocated for a Dickensian system. I challenge you to back up your statement.”
Your attempt to hide your true intentions in the thrust of your argument and points to the debate,the nuance of which, can be worked out by a three yr old.
I do not have to take on face value what I read, I can work out what is inferred under a veil of innuendo, as good as the next person.
That you are sacking in your words “ten people to protect your livelihood” if this is not Dickensian then it is by any measure,a good picture of your managerial skills.
In the current financial crisis SATP, your view of the world of employer/employee relationships,and the wider world of industrial relation laws, you are not going to impress anyone,especially me who was running a business in Baghdad, when you were in Dad’s bag.
That’ll do me for a concession that the “Dickensian” slur was fabricated.
I think Steve is my boss.
Harley, I think I am, please explain under cover of anonymity how you manage to be online during work hours, hehe.
“I think Steve is my boss.”
Deepest sympathy, Harley.
I can’t, and so won’t, comment on your personal experience of these laws. You are, however, wrong to generalise your experience. The research that involved surveys and interviews of small business, as described above, does not support this position.
I put it that studies, interview etc have not captured the feeling of small business on this matter.
Certainly the “I’ll go you for unfair dismissal” chant from the lazy, idle, corrupt, skiiving element and the effect this has on employment, and on a business, has NOT been captured.
My opinion, and my experience are perhaps more widespread than the ostriches of this site would care to admit.
There is a reason what previously were permenant jobs morphed into short term contracts, labour hire, casual placements etc.
Businesses being unable to remove a dud employee, and good employees being unable to get anything other than a short term placement, these aren’t good for anybody.
I’m afraid my own experience with unfair dismissal isn’t too flash either. We had a dud employee that every employee in my firm was desperate to get rid of. We tried to assemble a body of evidence to support his justifiable dismissal. Then we endured a steady stream of sick days, stress leave and union enquiries as to why we were victimising this ‘poor man’. His immediate supervisor cracked up under the constant strain we were all enduring. I was ready to give up and figured the easiest thing to do was to give this bloke some butcher’s paper and crayons and tell him to play in the corner on full salary, leave the rest of us alone and keep well away from our clients. The union advised me that this was unfair and that I had to give him a real job to do. In the end I did what I should have done a lot earlier – I sacked him and took the consequences. We ended up paying him some compensation, but given the situation, it was money well spent. Of course the big firms with HR departments would have handled the whole thing much better. But it left me in the peculiar position of watching Howard going down the gurgler on the basis of one of the few good things he’d ever done.
“My opinion, and my experience are perhaps more widespread than the ostriches of this site would care to admit.”
Not sure anyone is questioning anyone’s experience in this thread. I’d propose that everyone discussing comes from a broad range of life & workplace experiences. Each a unique perspective, hence the decent range of discussion.
I think you may be creating straw ostriches with your proposal.
“But it left me in the peculiar position of watching Howard going down the gurgler on the basis of one of the few good things he’d ever done.”
And praise be, most Australians didn’t think it was one of his better policies.
Out of interest what else did he do that was good for Australia.
“There is a reason what previously were permenant jobs morphed into short term contracts, labour hire, casual placements etc.”
Indeed there was, it was called work choices.
“chant from the lazy, idle, corrupt, skiiving element and the effect this has on employment, and on a business, has NOT been captured.”
Oh I believe it has, it’s losely called the Henry Paulson captured plan. It takes money from the long suffering public taxpayer, to bail out company’s whose lazy corrupt, greedy, incompetant, malingering, C.E.O.’s fit right into this catagory.
Begging your pardon Marlon/Dickens, the move into short term contracts, labour hire and casuals began as a consequence of unfair dismissal laws. Being as this move began some 10 years or more prior to the introduction of Workchoices you are going to have a hard time getting that one up.
No straw Ostriches via Collins. This site is one big ostrich when it comes to failings of the ALP. Clearly ideological distance (read: objectivity) is lacking. This is not a trait to be proud of.
The unfair laws.. pardon me.. the unfair dismissal laws, have been mentioned aplenty on this thread. There IS a lot more to the Gillard IR adjustments.
The big shock for me is the depth of anti-union feeling from some of the workforce.
The union movement it seems, has made some bitter enemies among what should be their core constituency.
Corruption, unconscionable conduct, legalised thuggery, and dishonesty by unions seems to be a far from uncommon practice. Being as this is how unions handle their members, one can only imagine how employers are treated.
Big business certainly deserves unions, I have no sympathy for big business. However neither the members, the non-members, nor small business deserve unions inflicted upon them.
In the same pitiful lack of research or comprehension that surrounded public opinion of Workchoices, the proposed union right to view the payroll details of non-members is rousing the ire of many of those same non-members. Rudd/Gillard may find this little nugget, once put into practice, bites them where it hurts, via lost votes.
“Begging your pardon Marlon/Dickens” My God SATP at least seven paragraphs of the seven paragraphs of your last burst must be in some type of code.Moreover it is a load of right wing talking points twaddle.
It may come as a complete surprise to you that the Howard government was terminated on the very basis of work choices.I mean where were you when Peter Reith and the rest of the Howard government, was planning what was tantamount to a military style coup, of the union movement?
That numbers of the union movement membership have bee dropping for some time,has had five fifths of five eigths of FA to do with their activiy’s illegal or other wise.They were the victims of their own success, I mean it’s human nature, who wants to pay union fees when you can get your rights and entitlements from an employer from the previous work of others.Then POW work choices.
Unfortunately unions are and can be a necessary evil, it’s like laws some of us don’t like, the more innocuous ones are there to protect the morons in society who think they know what’s best.Even Howard got my seal of approval when he got into the gun nut lobby,and took away their penis envy toys.
Rudd and Gillard are going to be in office a long time Steve, so you had better get used to it.Your teams time in the sun for now, is over.
Marlon/Dickens, please read the above about refraining from howling at the moon on this thread. I am not interested in matching wits with the unarmed. Please get onto topic, or get off.
I agree with Chris. An organisation other than a government agency has no right to inspect your wage records, at all, not even for the noble purpose of drumming up business.
Once you get to 16% of private-sector workers belonging to unions, you have to wonder to what extent these organisations can be considered properly representative of workers. The traditional quasi-religious rhetoric surrounding unions (e.g. martyrs, Judases, and now Mark’s attitude that all working people are unionists but some just don’t realise it) has always creeped me out. Unions are not, and ought not become, exempt from FOALMA provisions.
As to SATP – I assume that you have no good and loyal staff and that all your staff are interchangeable. This isn’t a personal attack, I’m entitled to my interpretation of employment laws as they affect your business.
Heavily implied in post@27, steve.
You should, then, be gratified to learn that ‘drumming up business’ would not be an acceptable reason for such inspection.
Unions, even under Workchoices, had the right to investigate potential breaches of industrial agreements. It is pretty easy to work out that non-union members records may be relevant to such breaches and this is the only instance in which unions would have access to those records.
The alternative, it seems to me, is that every dispute, no matter how minor, goes straight to compulsory arbitration. Is this what people want?
One could describe many employers in the same way.
Post#27 isn’t mine.
FYI Andrew, assume incorrectly. There are 60 staff. Some have been here for 9 years, some started this week. Loyalty tends to be quite fierce. The level of respect from statutory authorities & suppliers to the respective staff they deal with is of the highest level.
There is one person here who has rejected properly constituted, published research on the question for no other reason than it doesn’t match his anecdotal perception. Guess who?
State unfair dismissal laws were established in the mid 20th century.
Federal unfair dismissal laws were established in 1993.
The largest part of growth in casual employment happened in the late 1980s.
A simple chronology indicates that you are wrong.
That still does not justify union access to employment records of those who they do not represent. Unless we intend for unions to be the outsourced enforcement agency for the government they should not have access without the employee’s permission – that should be the responsibility of the appropriate government agency.
The intention, as I understand it, is that disputes are resolved at the eneterprise level as much as possible. The alternative, as I said, is to send all disputes immediately off to formal arbitration.
MartinB @ 72 – how many disputes between a union on behalf of their members and the employer would need to involve the salary/working conditions of non union members?
And yes, I believe that if the union suspects there is a problem related to a non union member’s conditions that they should have to either ask that employee for permission to access their information, or they refer it to a government organisation that can verify if there is a problem or not.
@37, not 27 steve.
Martin B, the alternative is that union officials inspect the records relating to their own members and do not inspect those relating to non-members, members granting their consent to such inspection being a condition of membership.
You’ve tried to dodge the moral issue here with differentChris and haven’t wholly succeeded. Your concern for non-members is touching but basically those determined not to be members of unions can make their own arrangements, which may or may not involve recourse to formalised arrangements.
What about making all employment contracts a matter of public record? This would help individual employees to negotiate on the same level as large employers and would increase competition among employers for staff further improving conditions.
Probably not many, which means such access will be rare, and concerns about such access are being overblown.
I don’t give a stuff about non-members.
Unions can inspect the records of non-members only insofar as those records are relevent to a dispute involving a union member. The concern is for the member.
If Unions can’t inspect records relevant to a dispute involving a member, then the dispute can’t be resolved at the enterprise level.
Perhaps so, but I do care about my privacy rights even if others don’t.
I don’t see that as a problem – as you say its a rare occurrence and it would be even rarer that the non-member would not give permission if there was sufficient justification.
Despis @ 75 – yes an interesting idea – also has been argued that perhaps all tax returns should be made public. But its a very different matter for only specific private organisations to be given access to otherwise private data.
I should just point out that prior to the changes in staffing levels prompted by satisfaction with WorkChoices, there was absolutely minimal enforcement of legal minima and pay and conditions required by industrial instruments at the federal level. By the time Reith had finished with the department, there were precisely 5 inspectors for the whole country. Union inspections of records have, at state level, provided an enforcement function over and above that of the government, and part of the idea has been that they’re more likely to know where problems are.
I haven’t had time to check, but my impression is that there are privacy protections in the legislation, and it strikes me that if people wish to keep debating this point, checking those might be relevant!
Mark @ 78 – It basically just says the information is covered by the privacy act. Which doesn’t get me much assurance – as unless it is really necessary (and I don’t think it is in this case) the only way of assuring your privacy in practice is to limit the distribution of the information in the first place.
That would seem to me to indicate that the information could only be accessed and used for very specific purposes, Chris.
All breaches of people’s rights is based on administrative convenience.
If restricting non-members’ information means union organisers have to take time out from duchessing faction heavies to secure their preselections, this is no bad thing.
In theory perhaps, in practice they’re not really going to “forget” the information they gain when it comes to future negotiations are they?
A shortage of inspectors may well be a problem. But giving private organisations special powers to enforce industrial law is akin to giving private security companies police powers because the government doesn’t want to spend more on police staffing.
And if cost is a really significant issue, then it could be partially funded by getting the party who is in the wrong to pay fines to the government.
WorkChoices legislation is still being used against workers! Please see our blog for more details.
My problem is I have 40 employees on one contract which represents 50% of my turnover, when the new awards come into effect Jan 1 next year, I will be closing the project down. The service cost to the client will sky rocket. On the Union Front they are a pack of wolfs, they lied to my management team telling them I had to Pay this and that but in reality, i was paying the correct amount. They provided me with an award that included penality rates and leave loading of which I am not required to pay because I was founded post reform. I did the sums on that the union demanded and I would loose 10k per week in extra wages. Its a mind field. What can I do.
OMG it’s the Birdgroup!
Taxeaters!
Taking us to the cleaners!!!1!
“…I will be closing the project down. The service cost to the client will sky rocket.”
But won’t the client be saving heaps if you’re no longer billing him? Unless of course you keep charging the client even though you’ve closed the project down because of an award you’re not required to pay.
You’re right, it’s a mind field out there.
Yes, what can you do? My advice. “Go Galt” for food.
Speaking as a connoisseur of corporate marketing jargon, I found the BirdGroup site most entertaining.
“Extensive monitoring systems which include rigorous checks and corrective actions.”
– Oi! I just had a look in this. It’s fucking filthy! Clean it up!
Rigourous Checks – Comprehensive inspections are performed in consultation with our clients QA department.
- Geoff’s just had a look in it and reckons it’s still a bit grubby.
Corrective Actions – Cleaners that received bad SWABs are counselled and a strategy is implemented to prevent it from happening again.
- Clean it right this time or I’ll sack you.
Additional Checks and Reports – KPI’s are tracked extensively to make sure our team are performing with excellence.
- I just had another look in it. Yep, that’ll do for now. We can’t afford the overtime.
Working in partnership with our client.
- Give us money and we’ll clean up your crap.
Quality Assurance – Daily liaison with our clients QA officers and regular meetings regarding audits.
- Fucking fix it up pronto ‘cos we’ve heard a whisper the OH&S buggers are working this area this month.
OH&S – Working closely with our clients OH&S Manager and committee to develop standards prior to commencement of operations, provide ongoing feedback as soon as issues arise and regular meetings to suggest improvements.
- I told you someone was gonna lose a finger if you didn’t fix that safety guard.
Operational Management – Daily liaison with our Site Manager.
- Shit mate, how soon can you get here? And bring whoever you can. We’ve gotta check a whole bloody batch for a missing finger.
Maintenance – Daily liaison on issues such as dismantling prior to cleaning and reassembly after cleaning.
– Yeah, you’re right, it’s probably caught in the shredder. Shit we’ve only got two days to pull it apart, find the fucking thing and stick it together before those OH&S cunts turn up.
Financial Administration – Weekly liaison regarding invoices; and contact as required for any other payments, procedures and reporting.
- OK, we think it’s sorted. But sling us an extra grand to pay off the poor bugger that lost his finger. And there’s no need to report this is there?
“High SWAB Standards – Bird Group sets its minimum SWAB levels above client requirements.”
(((SWAB is not a food processing industry term that I’m familiar with and I’m on nodding terms with a lot of the sector’s jargon. Actually spelling out what the SWAB acronym means wouldn’t hurt in attracting new customers who might otherwise be inclined to just google it and come up with hits that are not all food processing industry-friendly.)))
“Motivated Staff – Top results are achieved by offering bonuses.”
(((Hey it worked for Enron and AIG.)))
A company involved in food plant hygiene that keeps quoting buzzwords like “very high performance standards” without anywhere at least showing it’s aware of the existence of ISO standards, especially the 9001-3 series, let alone certified to such standards basically strikes me as a company that well…substitutes buzzwords for actual certification.
Who are your clients Bry? And are they manufacturing foodstuffs I’m likely to purchase from a 7-11 and consume while pissed at 4am?
Also, Blackbeard, Dick Turpin, and Captain Midnight. If only they and the directors of Enron could swap gruesome ends.
And the whole point was they couldn’t afford to pay them more than a pittance or they’d have to close, right? So which one is true?
Yeah I don’t like the sound of them SWABs.
Chris
Isn’t the risk here for Labor that the introduction of the new IR laws will coincide with rising unemployment next year?
Maybe, but nowhere near as much of a risk as they will be for the unemployed, the soon-to-be-unemployed, and now the even-sooner-to-be umemployed
Thanks for the lulz, Nabokov. That was gold.