The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

Lib MPs fight for workers

An interesting title, but one that's to be expected given the paper's editorial line.

Edit:
Beazley flags 'family fair' plan

 

[Generator]

Provisions of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005

Will employees be worse off?

Myths and legends that workers will be worse off under Work Choices abound. Government party senators believe it is worth reiterating the falsity of many of the allegations that arose in the course of the inquiry process.

3.72 The inquiry was conducted in an environment in which highly hysterical and implausible claims were continually being made by opponents of the bill. There would be insufficient space in this report to do justice to the fully range of extreme claims being made by bill’s opponents, however, the following were some of the more absurd that have been made:

3.73 The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley MP, argued that the enactment of the bill would increase the divorce rate:

It is not good for the economy for workers to be unable to afford their holidays, their relaxation or a decent family life. Divorce is not good for the economy. Divorce is patently bad for the economy.[61]

3.74 A Victorian state Labor MP argued that the bill would provoke circumstances in which women and children could be murdered on picket lines:

The history books show what happened in America. People on picket lines were murdered. Women and children were killed, and that is the road this Prime Minister wants to take us down. It is a disgrace. [62]

3.75 The Transport Workers Union claimed in a radio interview that the bill would increase the road toll:

Truckies have staged a mock crash at the front of Federal Parliament to highlight their concerns about the IR changes. They fear drivers will be forced to work longer hours to make ends meet. Truck driver Tony Upton is worried the added pressures could see lives lost on the roads.[63]

3.76 The News South Wales Industrial Relations Minister, Mr Della Bosca, claimed in evidence to the committee that the bill contained elements of fascism:

while the rhetoric of the Commonwealth—both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—has been around the issue of taking third parties out of industrial relations and out of the workplace, they have in fact inserted a third party with almost fascistic powers, and that will be the way in which a Commonwealth, as a state, will operate within the system...

Senator Joyce – Mr Della Bosca, you just said fascistic powers. You honestly believe that there is a comparison between this and fascism. I think that is an emotive statement and ridiculous.

Mr Della Bosca – I think this is emotional territory, Senator, and I hope you apply your emotions and sense of decency to the way you consider this in the immediate future. I am saying that the Commonwealth is attempting to insert itself into the employment relationship in a way which has not been seen in this country before. We have always taken the approach that there is free bargaining between employers and employees, either collectively or individually, and we have always taken the approach that the state, whether it be at a state level or at a Commonwealth level, provides a judicial or arbitral umpire. The Commonwealth is now completely rejecting that approach. It is one that has stood us in very good stead for 105 years, and yes, Senator, it is very close to fascism.[64]

3.77 These claims have formed part of a highly political campaign being run by opponents of the bill, in which factual information has been discarded in favour of political scaremongering designed to frighten voters into voting against the Government. The Secretary of the ACTU admitted as much in the week he announced its campaign when questioned about its objectives:

Interviewer: To bring down the Government?

Greg Combet: Well, the longer term position for working people to have decent rights in this country, means that we need a change of Government. And we need to change these laws. Now, we've confronted that position in the past in our history. We're confronting it again now, and we'll work very hard to bring that change about.[65]

3.78 Witnesses have falsely submitted that sick and carer's leave is threatened by the legislation. In fact, a minimum of ten days paid personal or carer's leave is provided under the Fair Pay and Conditions Standard, and unlike now, cannot be cashed out or traded off in an agreement. It was also alleged that employees would be required to submit medical certificates every time they are away from work, even for a short-term illness. The Department has responded that, as is the case currently, there is no universal standard, and that the new provisions were modelled on what currently exists in many federal awards and under Schedule 1A of the WR Act. These came under no criticism from witnesses.[66]

3.79 Witnesses repeatedly alleged that employees would be put under duress by employers wanting them to sign an AWA. Officers from the Department reminded the committee that section 104(5) specifically prohibits duress being applied in connection with an AWA[67]

3.80 It was also alleged that employees will be forced to 'cash out' their annual leave, or at least part of it, and that work-life balance will suffer as a result. In fact, this bill allows for 2 weeks annual leave to be cashed out, but only when the employee instigates the request, and the employer agrees. Currently, the WR Act places no restrictions on leave being cashed out, and parties are free to cash out annual leave in its entirety. This bill actually requires the preservation of at least half of an employee’s annual leave entitlements.

3.81 It was alleged that those seeking to include disallowable matters in their agreements would be sent to jail. The Department was able to clarify this point, too:

No, it is not correct. The bill provides a prohibition on anyone seeking to include prohibited content in an agreement. That is at section 101M. That section provides that it is a civil remedy provision. If you turn to section 105D, it provides penalties for breach of a civil penalty provision. The breach of that particular provision attracts a civil penalty of 60 penalty units for a natural person or five times that amount for a body corporate. There is nothing in this bill that provides for the jailing of a person for breaching that section.[68]

3.82 The evidence presented to the committee by the ACTU was instructive of the highly misleading arguments being advanced by unions in relation to this issue:

Senator Nash – Being a working mother, I am very well aware of needing to spend time with family. I want to revisit the annual leave part of this. Currently we can cash out four weeks annual leave and under the Work Choices bill we can only cash out two. Isn’t that an improvement?

Ms Bowtell – The union movement has never supported the cashing out of leave. It is true that there is no limit under the current provisions on the cashing out of leave, but if you look at the collective agreements compared to AWAs, the cashing out of annual leave is not common in collective agreements. The only arrangements in relation to cashing out that are common in collective agreements are cashing out of excess accrual. In fact, the union movement was involved in a significant case back in the nineties involving a company called Arrowcrest, where we opposed the capacity to cash out annual leave, and we opposed it on public interest grounds. That has always been our view. We were rolled in that case. That has continued to be available, but for additional compensation. But it is not something that unions go out and negotiate. You see it in AWAs but you do not see it in collective agreements.[69]

3.83 The evidence advanced by the ACTU omits any reference to numerous collective agreements currently in force which have been negotiated by unions and contain specific provisions to allow annual leave to be cashed out. For example, the Wespine Industries Pty Ltd CEPU (Dardanup Site) Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2004 (AG934958) contains the following provision:

17. CASHING OUT OF ANNUAL LEAVE

17.1 It is the intent of the parties that all employees should be encouraged to take their normal annual leave entitlement on an annual basis.

17.2 Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-clause 17.1, where it is agreed by both parties and where an employee has an accrued annual leave entitlement of four (4) weeks or greater, the employee may apply to take up to two (2) weeks of the accrued annual leave as a cash payment per year in lieu of taking the equivalent time off.

17.3 An application for cashing out of annual leave must be made and agreed to in writing.

17.4 Where an employee has 'cashed out" a portion of his/her accrued annual leave he/she is not then entitled to have the cashed out portion as time off at a later date.

3.84 The ACTU’s evidence also overlooks the Western Australian industrial relations system, as amended by the Gallop Labor Government, which allows for the ‘cashing out’ of a portion of annual leave. Section 8 of the WA Minimum Conditions of Employment Act states:

8. Limited contracting out of annual leave conditions

An employer and employee may agree that the employee may forgo up to 50% of his or her entitlement to annual leave under Division 3 of Part 4 if –

the employee is given an equivalent benefit in lieu of the entitlement; and

the agreement is in writing.

An agreement referred to in subsection (1) is of no effect6 if the employer’s offer of employment was made on the condition that the employee would be required to enter into an the agreement.

3.85 Parental leave was another area prone to misinformation. The bill preserves parental leave, and adds extra protections. Up to fifty two weeks parental leave, shared between the parents, the right to return to a job with the same terms and conditions, and the extension of benefits to casual workers, are all included in the bill.

3.86 There is a general tendency amongst critics to see employers as inherently untrustworthy and employees as inherently vulnerable. Yet demand for labour is strong, real wages continue to grow, and the changes in the Work Choices Bill will enable productivity increases that will continue to raise the standard of living of employees. Employees are currently in a strong position to negotiate the wages and conditions that best suit them. This position arises from labour shortages at nearly all levels, including unskilled workers. For instance, the National Farmers Federation gave evidence to the committee that due to the shortage of workers in rural areas, many farmers negotiate employment packages with their workers that are well above award rates and provide many extra conditions not accommodated under the award system.

3.87 This situation is common through many industries in many parts of the country. Work Choices will allow more flexibility to incorporate those benefits that the employee wants and the employer wants to provide.

3.88 The interaction between agreements, award rates and the Australian Fair Pay Commission will also ensure that an effective safety net is in place. No employee will have a rate of pay that is lower than a rate they currently enjoy under an award. The large number of workers not covered by awards will also be protected by the provision that ensures the minimum classification wages will never fall below the level set by the Safety Net Review 2005. There is every reason to conclude that workers will enjoy the ability to negotiate improvements to their pay and conditions.

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/wr_workchoices05/report/c03.htm

Long live the parliamentary process and may we, the public, always be served by inquiries of substance!

 

[Generator]

Legal experts say right to strike will be drastically limited

On the sixth day, the Senate's IR work is done

Unconditional support for new bill

Most won't notice any change: Libs

Howard stands firm on IR


Joyce calls for IR changes

Andrews considering IR changes

 

[Generator]

Support for penalty rates grows

No extras, no incentive on big days

Meanwhile, on another front...

Uni locks out union

 

[Generator]

Qld Nats urge Joyce to hold off on IR bill

Concerns won't stop IR changes, Andrews says

Costello expects Nats to pass IR reforms

Later today I'll post the link for a report from today's The World Today. It was kind of refreshing to hear someone from the Nationals (the Queensland Nationals, admittedly) publicly state that though unions have their faults, they and collective bargaining are required given the disparity in bargaining power between many and the employers.

 

[walrusbear]

i must say your dedication to this is very admirable generator

arguing this is like hitting your head against a brick wall though, it seems
even within this board most right wingers here aren't willing to acknowledge the benefits of collective bargaining in any way, shape or form.
seems like a hugely lost battle since the government doesn't appear to be budging

this video has its moments:

http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/static/special_message.wmv

another john clarke and bryan dawe effort

 

[Generator]

i must say your dedication to this is very admirable generator

arguing this is like hitting your head against a brick wall though, it seems
even within this board most right wingers here aren't willing to acknowledge the benefits of collective bargaining in any way, shape or form.
seems like a hugely lost battle since the government doesn't appear to be budging

this video has its moments:

http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/static/special_message.wmv

another john clarke and bryan dawe effort

I think that it's pretty sad, to tell the truth . Still, it gives me something to do.

Much like out in the 'real' world, I wonder whether this thread will still be alive in years to come... I won't be here, but I do hope that someone else keeps it (or one of a similar nature) ticking along.

I'm far from being the first to say this, but this issue in particular deserves constant attention because it's an important issue for all that is being pushed through the parliament with next to no regard for the democratic process or the general populace, with an illustrative example of this being Kevin Andrews' comments regarding the protests and how he considers the debate on the street to be a mere sideshow with the debate in the parliament being the one that is of some importance (hah, a debate on IR in the current parliament!). No matter your economic preferences, surely we must all agree that the way in which this amendment is being dealt with is an affront to all in favour of a constructive, effective and transparent parliamentary process.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I think it's utterly disgusting. Even if you are staunchly in favour of the IR reforms you have to admit this is a gross abuse of the parliamentary process.

Howard's excuse is "it's been an ongoing debate for the past 20 years."

Well no, it hasn't. It has not been properly debated in parliament. It has not been debated with attention to the specific legislation put forward. It has not been debated by the current representatives of parliament whom the people elected. The people who represent us are not the people who were elected 15 years ago. They are the people in parliament today.

Unfortunately no-one seems to care. I just can't believe the audacity, pushing through such a controversial piece of legislation without proper debate. Regardless of any attitude for or against the reforms it really is astonishing.

 

[Generator]

Hahaha this is fantastic!

Workers' court cases killed as IR changes start to bite

I liked this part in particular -

A run-of-the-mill unfair dismissal claim in NSW will cost thousands of dollars to mount, meaning some claimants will lose large sums already invested in getting their claim to hearing. A standard two-day harsh contract case - under which a successful claimant can win costs - would take a minimum $30,000 to prosecute.

The Government yesterday acknowledged the effect of the legislation in terminating pending claims. A spokesman for the Minister for Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, said: "Under WorkChoices these claims will lapse because people will fall under the new system, which has protections for illegal dismissal, including up to $4000 in free legal advice."

"It costs more to mount an illegal dismissal claim than it does one for unfair dismissal, but that's not our concern, even if you have spent however much mounting an unfair dismissal claim under the current system. Here, take this voucher and get up to $4000 in legal advice. Remember, the Coalition is forever looking out for you."

Good luck, Barnaby.

Edit:

Joyce to challenge IR changes

Nationals threaten to oppose IR bill

Hard choice for Nationals

Contractors pay the price in stressful marriages

The researchers said their project began long before the present industrial relations debate took shape and was not intended to be political.

Oh well .

Skills get power in new jobs market

A new IR system and a push towards a greater number of small businesses... Rights in the workplace? What are they?

 

[Generator]

Reforms claim first casualty

Brad Norington
November 25, 2005


UNION protests against John Howard's workplace changes have claimed their first known casualty, with a truck driver sacked for attending last week's rally in Melbourne.

Steve McGee, 47, who was paid $15 an hour to haul cargo containers from Melbourne's docks for RSP Transport, was dismissed via a telephone message left on his home answering machine.

The message from RSP Transport general manager Grant Smith said: "Steve, it's Grant from your work, mate, where you should be today.

"Everyone else has turned up, but you've taken it on yourself again to go to this, whatever it is in the city, rally, whatever you want to call it.

"At the end of the day, you make up your own rules all the time and I've had enough of it, and that's it Steve. So I don't want you back, mate. So don't bother. See you later. Bye."

Mr Smith confirmed he dismissed Mr McGee for going to the rally instead of turning up to work on Tuesday last week.

Mr McGee said he had advised his employer in advance that he had wanted to attend the rally.

 

[townie]

Moonlight, Generator, i applaud u, u are two of the few people who seem to care. this country has become so "me, me, me" as long as I have money. as long as I have a life. as long as I feel economically secure. nobody cares about any1 else.

i will declare hear today wat i have believed for a long time. democracy is dead in australia, it is a sad world we live in hear in Aus. i feel ashamed and disgusted to belong to this country, and should i ever find the money, i shall gladly leave.

this, anti-terror, telstra, all pushed through the parliament without adequate debate. libs keep crapping on about how signifcant the reforms are, yet not enough debate is allocated to the issues.

and every1 is to scared to cross party lines, god forbid people should have different opinions. america may be lead by an idiot, and not much better on civil rights than us, but at least republicans and democrats have their own minds to vote how they please.

 

[walrusbear]

Hahaha this is fantastic!

Workers' court cases killed as IR changes start to bite

I liked this part in particular -



"It costs more to mount an illegal dismissal claim than it does one for unfair dismissal, but that's not our concern, even if you have spent however much mounting an unfair dismissal claim under the current system. Here, take this voucher and get up to $4000 in legal advice. Remember, the Coalition is forever looking out for you."

i read that this morning
unbelievable
this government is contemptible

 

[Collin]

Chances are it's gonna turn Australia into a two-tier workforce. One with skilled workers and professionals able to assert bargaining power to their employers, and the second with low-skilled workers lacking the skills, power nor position to bargain. With quite a few of us here on this board being adequately educated, I'm sure that many will end up in professional jobs, including myself hopefully. But this doesn't deter the fact that this is a rubbish deal for a whole group of Australians.. and for that I think Howard can go eat shit (I think he should go eat shit for a whole range of other issues too.. but that's another story ).

Knowing that the Coalition pretty much won't consider amending any part of the core/fundamental parts of the legislation, I hope Barnaby Joyce puts his money where his mouth is and kills this bill.

 

[Generator]

Beazley promises to overcome IR 'flaws' - Kind of late, but it's still a transcript that many may find interesting (he even talks about Michelle Leslie with some authority, something that some may find to be quite funny).

Workplace changes bad policy, Senate hears

Howard protects Xmas Day holiday

Christmas IR pledge 'just tinkering'

Joyce gets 85,000 IR complaints

Changes 'will undermine family life'

 

[Sarah]

Chances are it's gonna turn Australia into a two-tier workforce. One with skilled workers and professionals able to assert bargaining power to their employers, and the second with low-skilled workers lacking the skills, power nor position to bargain. With quite a few of us here on this board being adequately educated, I'm sure that many will end up in professional jobs, including myself hopefully. But this doesn't deter the fact that this is a rubbish deal for a whole group of Australians.. and for that I think Howard can go eat shit (I think he should go eat shit for a whole range of other issues too.. but that's another story ).

Well i'm no labour market economist but it might (not saying it will for certain) provide incentive for lesser skilled workers to up skill.

On a side note, the union movement should use this opportunity to attract new members provided they can move with the times and start offering relevant services. Not saying they're all trapped in an 80's timewarp but there are some unions which do more for their members than others.

 

[Collin]

Well i'm no labour market economist but it might (not saying it will for certain) provide incentive for lesser skilled workers to up skill.

I think that's a pretty naive way to look at it. Do you realise the time, effort and dedication it will require for many low-skilled workers to advance to say, professional level? If it was so easy, no one would give a shit about examinations like the Higher School Certificate, since it wouldn't matter if your UAI was crap as it would be easy for you to become professional anyway, right? Many low-skilled workers already don't find it feasible to acquire further qualifications such as university degrees, simply because they don't have the means (can't afford it, don't have the time because they have kids to feed or their actual crap paying jobs to go to so they don't have time to do much else etc.).. and after the IR reforms, chances are they'll be even worse off and such a notion of advancing themselves to a more professional status would become even further off.

However, there is validity in your claim, and that's where we talk about high school students prior to HSC. Once they become educated in IR, I'm sure many will strive harder as to avoid the lower-tier outcome, post exams. Just that my whole point comes from the fact that once the HSC is over and they are stuck in a low-skilled profession without an offer or route towards further education or training, they'll tend to be in a bit of shit and might find themselves hard pressed to get out.

 

[Generator]

Studying for a degree isn't the only way to upskill, JKD.

I'm of the opinion that though those on the bottom may now have the desire to upskill, now (well, soon) they may not necessarily have the time. Still, that's all dependent upon the way in which the employers approach the new regime.

 

[Collin]

Studying for a degree isn't the only way to upskill, JKD.

I didn't say it was; 'acquire further qualifications such as university degrees'. Twas' an example.

As for not having enough time, well assuming this gets pushed around Christmas or even early next year.. I would like to think most employers will certainly implement it as soon as possible, so yes, many low-skilled workers probably won't have sufficient time.

 

[Generator]

Sorry, it's just that you example appeared to ignore the other ways in which people may upskill, and it seemed to suggest that to become a professional is the only way to improve one's employment prospects. Sorry again if my interpretation wasn't correct.

 

[Collin]

No worries but yes that wasn't what I was implying. Just that when debating, I prefer not to list down all the possibilities unless I knew them all (incase I would then get attacked for leaving any out). In this case, I couldn't be bothered isolating all the other ways you could improve one's prospects so I chose to ignore them all and just stick with one particular example (in this case, I chose 'becoming a professional') to convey the point. Well, atleast that was the logic I approached that post.