The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

[gnrlies]

Gees.. Missed this thread! haha

I will say my peace with a simple response

The reforms are good....

 

[Generator]

I will say my peace with a simple response

The reforms are good....

Unless otherwise noted, we tend to prefer responses that are a) somewhat expansive or b) capable of contributing to the debate in some way - the fact that one may like something means nothing to us, but we would be more than happy to be informed as to why one holds such an opinion. Of course, what we prefer doesn't count for much .

 

[gnrlies]

Unless otherwise noted, we tend to prefer responses that are a) somewhat expansive or b) capable of contributing to the debate in some way - the fact that one may like something means nothing to us, but we would be more than happy to be informed as to why one holds such an opinion. Of course, what we prefer doesn't count for much .

Haha well see I thought id spare myself the pain of reading 44 pages of IR debating on the grounds that everything I could possibly have to say on the matter would have already been said.

I'll say 5 of many points though to satisfy your need to know why

1 - We need them to make the labour market more flexible to support the productivity growth required to support our loafy parents in their parting years.
2 - Its fairer on everyone. If work hard, we deserve to get paid more. Likewise if you slack off why should you earn the same.
3 - its the controversial side of a two pronged labour market reform process. Lets get the controversial side through whilst the liberals have a senate majority. Labor does nothing but look after their union interests. The next labor government can revolutionise education in australia (but with beasley at the helm we'll be lucky to see anything half decent)
4 - Its had proven results overseas, so any criticisms of the reforms can be shown to be weak.
5 - Whats the biggest cause of poverty in australia? unemployment. Research shows that the lowest income households are those with unemployed people in them, and often some of the lowest earners come from high income households. Lets tackle unemployment. Theres no reason why these reforms will reduce real wages, so lets allow them to tackle unemployment and reduce poverty!

 

[Sarah]

Haha well see I thought id spare myself the pain of reading 44 pages of IR debating on the grounds that everything I could possibly have to say on the matter would have already been said.

I'll say 5 of many points though to satisfy your need to know why

1 - We need them to make the labour market more flexible to support the productivity growth required to support our loafy parents in their parting years.
2 - Its fairer on everyone. If work hard, we deserve to get paid more. Likewise if you slack off why should you earn the same.
3 - its the controversial side of a two pronged labour market reform process. Lets get the controversial side through whilst the liberals have a senate majority. Labor does nothing but look after their union interests. The next labor government can revolutionise education in australia (but with beasley at the helm we'll be lucky to see anything half decent)
4 - Its had proven results overseas, so any criticisms of the reforms can be shown to be weak.
5 - Whats the biggest cause of poverty in australia? unemployment. Research shows that the lowest income households are those with unemployed people in them, and often some of the lowest earners come from high income households. Lets tackle unemployment. Theres no reason why these reforms will reduce real wages, so lets allow them to tackle unemployment and reduce poverty!

I'm annoyed atm, my post I was working on disappeared. Anyway gnarlies, here's some thoughts on what you've said.

1. "flexibility" and "productivity" are some of the buzz words of the reforms. They remain that until they are proved or disproved by evidence and qualified studies.

2. It would suggest a need to revise how employees are remunerated. Would these new reforms address this? I don't know. If you think that we should be remunerated based on how hard individuals work, then paying p/hr may not be the way to go for all industries.

3. Looking at Aust's IR history, when Labor was in power in the 1980s and early 1990s, they had already started the process of labour market deregulation. Did these meet the interest of unions at that time? Not always.

4. Only overseas countries I've heard mention both in this forum and the media is N.Z and USA. These countries have had their own challenges and experiences. Can't really comment on this point.

5. Ok well if as you've said, the biggest cause of poverty in Australia is unemployment, well I ask "what's the biggest cause of unemployment?". Other variables need to be considered. It's not just a 2 way process. Oh and how will reducing real wages enable the unemployment issue to be tackled?

Don't need to reply, just thought you might like to consider the above

 

[gnrlies]

I am reluctant to get into a big debate because the issue has been done to death (obviously here and definately elsewhere), but out of respect I will respond.

1. "flexibility" and "productivity" are some of the buzz words of the reforms. They remain that until they are proved or disproved by evidence and qualified studies.

Well the reforms certainly give flexibility. in fact thats what they are all about. Currently many industries are tightly controlled by awards and regulations which are often not suitable to either party. To give you an example, in my casual job, I had a mate who wanted to work many hours. He finds it hard to work during the uni semester because of workload, so he wants to take any shift he can get during holidays. On a particular week he was already working 38 hours, and I asked him if he could take one of my shifts. He was keen to do it (without overtime) howevor it would have been illigal to not pay him overtime, and the employer was not willing to pay him overtime. There are many more examples, but the main point is that it encourages individual contracts which can be specific to employers and employees.

Productivity growth is something which has been seen in nations who have introduced similar reforms, so it is a fair assumption to make. The process for which this happens, is that it encourages a mutual bargaining process whereby employees can achieve wage increases, howevor by bringing something themselves to the table. Union power has traditionally seen wage increases with little or no productivity increases, and the notion of collective bargaining provides no individual incentive as your wage is determined amongst a group, and its harder for personal action (i.e. working harder) to impact on wage levels.

2. It would suggest a need to revise how employees are remunerated. Would these new reforms address this? I don't know. If you think that we should be remunerated based on how hard individuals work, then paying p/hr may not be the way to go for all industries.

well im not sure what you mean by this, but the plan of these industrial relations reforms are to bring in flexibility in wage determination, in particular with individual contracts. Pay per hour is not something that will stop, but employees will now have the flexibility to demand more money when they have been proven to work harder. For example, could you imagine working at mcdonalds, or a supermarket and asking for a wage rise? Individual contracts would link the two a lot more directly, so the whole "working harder" concept doesn't come in terms of "piecework" but rather show your work ethic and get a pay rise.

3. Looking at Aust's IR history, when Labor was in power in the 1980s and early 1990s, they had already started the process of labour market deregulation. Did these meet the interest of unions at that time? Not always.

Well the thing about labor was this. we had a massive problem with real wages. It was the single biggest cause of unemployment in australia, and really labor had no choice. They had to force wage restriction agreements upon the unions in order to merely survive as a government. Second to that, Paul Keating was the mastermind behind the Industrial Relations act, and working nation and his union interests within the ALP were less than the rest of his colleagues.

4. Only overseas countries I've heard mention both in this forum and the media is N.Z and USA. These countries have had their own challenges and experiences. Can't really comment on this point.

Well NZ is the best example because of their geographic and economic similarities to australia. Surveys indicate that 70% of NZ'rs are happy with the reforms. More importantly, their economy and labour market has shown that the reforms are positive. The USA is not a good example because they are a country with a totally different situation to australia. Firstly they have far greater inequality than in australia, and their reforms were a lot more harsh. In australia we are going to have the fair pay commission which will still determine award increases. Probably the other good example is to look at european nations. Scandanavian nations, and the UK have in place similar reforms to us, and have the lowest unemployment levels in the whole of europe. Germany which has a system similar to what we are moving away from, has unemployment of over 10%.

5. Ok well if as you've said, the biggest cause of poverty in Australia is unemployment, well I ask "what's the biggest cause of unemployment?". Other variables need to be considered. It's not just a 2 way process. Oh and how will reducing real wages enable the unemployment issue to be tackled?

Don't need to reply, just thought you might like to consider the above

Well the biggest cause of unemployment would be either macroeconomic issues for which we are not suffering atm, or structural unemployment issues which is a bit of a problem in australia. That being said we are at the lowest unemployment in over 30 years so unemployment is not a big deal, but it can probably go lower. But the point is not that we need to fix a current unemployment problem now, but more so that we need to address future problems. This is what these reforms are going to do. Think what happens when all of our parents retire? What happens to the skills gap?

Abnormally high real wages always causes unemployment because it makes hiring staff too expensive. Also think of how you would be as a small business and you are thinking of taking on a new employee. Your gonna be far less likely to hire when you have to think of redundancy payouts, and the like. In fact in a MYOB survey 1/3 of small business employers said that if the new reforms were in place they would think of hiring staff. This is an immediate impact. The current system is costing jobs.

--------------

Just as a final note, I think I will have to leave it at that because I dont have the time or patience to keep going haha...

Feel free to write in response, but you may not get a reply because ive done this topic to death lol.

 

[Collin]

I have to say I strongly agree with 2. No doubt it would be foolish to abolish the thought that unfair dismissal wouldn't ever be taken advantage of by some employers in an unethical sense, but on a whole I view it really as the Government's method of removing the Nuff Nuff worker's (incompetent idiots) layer of protection against easy dismissal. If you don't work hard, or have proven yourself to be incompetent, you don't deserve your position. Hopefully these laws will make it more likely some of the people I work with get the boot. If you do work hard, then you shouldn't have too much to worry about, and that's the way things should be in my opinion.

 

[Generator]

This one is for addymac -

Business lobby's plan could cut pay for 800,000, say unions

---

This is for those who don't know about the Award Review Taskforce-

The Award Review Taskforce has been established by the Australian Government to examine and report to Government on two separate but related projects relevant to the Government’s workplace relations reform agenda: the rationalisation of award wage and classification structures and the rationalisation of awards.

 

[leetom]

Well the reforms certainly give flexibility. in fact thats what they are all about. Currently many industries are tightly controlled by awards and regulations which are often not suitable to either party. To give you an example, in my casual job, I had a mate who wanted to work many hours. He finds it hard to work during the uni semester because of workload, so he wants to take any shift he can get during holidays. On a particular week he was already working 38 hours, and I asked him if he could take one of my shifts. He was keen to do it (without overtime) howevor it would have been illigal to not pay him overtime, and the employer was not willing to pay him overtime. There are many more examples, but the main point is that it encourages individual contracts which can be specific to employers and employees.

While the reforms may meet the extremely specific needs of the worker in the example you gave, not all workers are uni students unavailable for work throughout the year exept holidays. While your friend is content to forgo overtime rates for the small part of the year that he actually works, other employees who work on a more long term basis may feel they are entitled to overtime rates if indeed they are required to work over their pre-determined shifts.

Productivity growth is something which has been seen in nations who have introduced similar reforms, so it is a fair assumption to make. The process for which this happens, is that it encourages a mutual bargaining process whereby employees can achieve wage increases, howevor by bringing something themselves to the table. Union power has traditionally seen wage increases with little or no productivity increases, and the notion of collective bargaining provides no individual incentive as your wage is determined amongst a group, and its harder for personal action (i.e. working harder) to impact on wage levels.

That's the theory at least. How the Government plans to practically extract raises in productivity through removing union representation from workers remains to be seen. Making it easier to sack somebody isn't necessarily going to make them better workers.

Well NZ is the best example because of their geographic and economic similarities to australia. Surveys indicate that 70% of NZ'rs are happy with the reforms. More importantly, their economy and labour market has shown that the reforms are positive. Germany which has a system similar to what we are moving away from, has unemployment of over 10%.

If it's so great in NZ then why are so many of them coming to live here?

Abnormally high real wages always causes unemployment because it makes hiring staff too expensive. Also think of how you would be as a small business and you are thinking of taking on a new employee. Your gonna be far less likely to hire when you have to think of redundancy payouts, and the like. In fact in a MYOB survey 1/3 of small business employers said that if the new reforms were in place they would think of hiring staff. This is an immediate impact. The current system is costing jobs.

Scrapping the current system, it seems, would do little in the creation of new jobs. And 1/3 thinking about it isn't an immediate impact.

Work ad blitz falls on deaf ears
SMH-Janurary 5, 2006
MISSING THE MARK

A survey of 1500 businesses by Australian Business Limited (ABL), an employer advocacy group, found only 13 per cent of employers felt they thoroughly understood the changes, despite the $46 million advertising blitz.

Just 3 per cent of businesses had immediate plans to use the laws to make any workplace changes, the research found.


The survey found:

- 84 per cent of respondents did not feel properly informed about the workplace changes.

- Only 13 per cent felt they thoroughly understood them.

- Half said it would not affect how they managed their business, with only 3 per cent planning immediate changes.

- 40 per cent said they would be more inclined to hire new staff because of the scrapping of unfair dismissal laws for small and medium-sized businesses.

 

[gnrlies]

While the reforms may meet the extremely specific needs of the worker in the example you gave, not all workers are uni students unavailable for work throughout the year exept holidays. While your friend is content to forgo overtime rates for the small part of the year that he actually works, other employees who work on a more long term basis may feel they are entitled to overtime rates if indeed they are required to work over their pre-determined shifts.

You missed the point entirely. The point of the example has no relevance to not paying overtime, but rather how the inflexibility of current awards (ie. a one size fits all approach) is unable to cater for situations where it is mutually beneficial for both parties to do something that the award does not permit (in this case it happened to be paying overtime). On the note of overtime, the workplace changes do not challenge the notion of overtime whatsoever. Overtime is still payable, but on the terms of the employer and employee, not on the terms of a union who is trying to create a one size fits all approach. This is the same with all aspects of an award.

That's the theory at least. How the Government plans to practically extract raises in productivity through removing union representation from workers remains to be seen. Making it easier to sack somebody isn't necessarily going to make them better workers.

The government is not removing union representation. They are promoting individual bargaining, and changing the legislation to allow it to be more accessible and that is all. Unions can still represent workers. Individual bargaining DOES result in wage related productivity gains, and it HAS been seen.

The whole thing with "making it easier to sack someone" as you so bluntly put it is about giving small businesses the ability to hire people without fear of having severe economic consequences. Note that these new rules will only apply to small businesses, where one employee represents a large portion of their costs. Many small businesses refrain from hiring people because they dont want to have to pay many thousands of dollars for either a dud worker, or someone they cannot let go if they hit troubled times. These are the marginal positions that cannot exist under the current system, and with small businesses being the greatest employer of personell in australia, these positions are many in number. I would quote again that 1/3 of small businesses would be looking to hire if the new reforms were to be put in.

If it's so great in NZ then why are so many of them coming to live here?

I hope you are joking....

Scrapping the current system, it seems, would do little in the creation of new jobs. And 1/3 thinking about it isn't an immediate impact.

Well according to your article thats not true:

"40 per cent said they would be more inclined to hire new staff because of the scrapping of unfair dismissal laws for small and medium-sized businesses."

These reforms arent designed to solve a short term problem, or to work wonders overnight. They are a long term microeconomic reform which will improve the labour market over many years.

 

[Generator]

Employers urged to hold off on workplace deals
The World Today - Friday, 10 February , 2006 12:24:00
Reporter: Jean Kennedy


KAREN PERCY: You might have thought that with the Federal Government's industrial relations changes just a month or so away that employers would hold off signing any new agreements with their workers so they could take advantage of the new rules when they came into effect.

But there seems to have been a rush by employers to seal new workplace deals with unions.

The unions have been pushing for new agreements or for the rollover of existing ones under the current laws, complete with union friendly clauses and conditions.

It could be that the current skills shortages within the labour market gives the union considerable negotiating power, for now at least.

But business groups are urging employers to wait for the new laws to come into play, before signing on the dotted line.

Jean Kennedy reports.

[continued - see link]

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1566976.htm

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Just 3 per cent of businesses had immediate plans to use the laws to make any workplace changes, the research found.

3 per cent of businesses? Am I to presume these are the largest businesses... i.e. coles, amatil etc?

 

[Generator]

3 per cent of businesses? Am I to presume these are the largest businesses... i.e. coles, amatil etc?

ABL - Study of Australian employers finds lack of understanding regarding workplace relations reforms

The study conducted by Australian Business Limited interviewed over 1,500 employers throughout Australia who employ a total of over 100,000 people.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Oh ok, so this was 3 small businesses then - I was just trying to link together the idea that these reforms may only have much of an effect for larger businesses, not that it couldn't be applied to smaller ones just that it's something small business may not understand?

 

[Generator]

That seems to be the issue - if so many didn't truly understand the former/still current system, then I think that it would be asking too much to expect such people to already be well aware of what the new system will entail. Also, there have been more claims and statements (political and academic) against the reforms than there have been in favour of the changes, so I think that such a cautious and possibly uneasy approach is to be expected.

 

[Collin]

Oh ok, so this was 3 small businesses then - I was just trying to link together the idea that these reforms may only have much of an effect for larger businesses, not that it couldn't be applied to smaller ones just that it's something small business may not understand?

I agree with that. I mean, the Asian charcoal chicken store owners down the street (just an example off the top of my head) with relatively few employees wouldn't find it worthwhile or perhaps lack the comprehensive skills required to understand these changes to apply it. It really doesn't seem to currently affect them enough for them to want to bother about putting in the effort right now.

Meanwhile, big companies like Coles Myer Limited etc., employing over 100,000 people each, would have the means to really look into these laws, and apply it to their business. These laws at the moment just seem so much more relevant to large businesses.

 

[Enlightened_One]

I agree with that. I mean, the Asian charcoal chicken store owners down the street (just an example off the top of my head) with relatively few employees wouldn't find it worthwhile or perhaps lack the comprehensive skills required to understand these changes to apply it. It really doesn't seem to currently affect them enough for them to want to bother about putting in the effort right now.

Meanwhile, big companies like Coles Myer Limited etc., employing over 100,000 people each, would have the means to really look into these laws, and apply it to their business. These laws at the moment just seem so much more relevant to large businesses.

And to further that line of thought, it's probably the large employers who have their lawyers etc looking into the new laws. The average corner shop owner won't read five hundred pages worth of legislation, and if they do, won't understand it anyway (no offence to them). It'll be the big employers who'll use the laws to their advantage.

After a while the smaller businesses will grasp the concepts and understand how best to utilise the new laws.

 

[Collin]

And to further that line of thought, it's probably the large employers who have their lawyers etc looking into the new laws. The average corner shop owner won't read five hundred pages worth of legislation, and if they do, won't understand it anyway (no offence to them). It'll be the big employers who'll use the laws to their advantage.

After a while the smaller businesses will grasp the concepts and understand how best to utilise the new laws.

That's exactly right; big companies like that, often with senior management wielding significant experience and qualifications of business in general obviously make a huge emphasis on maximising profits -- and with more means to do so, such as the cash to hire legal aid for purposes such as looking at this legislation. Aspiring business executives realises the obvious business opportunities provided by these new laws. I mean, just imagine the difference it would make to profitability now that they can now slash off say, overtime pay to an extent to thousands of new contracts in the next year. Another example is the opportunity to lay off incompetent workers in more ease, potentially creating a substantial difference in overall productivity across brands.

Small businesses on the other hand report a far lower turnover, and plus with less employees -- looking into and applying these laws just doesn't seem feasible.

 

[Generator]

Fair Pay Commission to focus on unemployed

Fair Pay Commission to focus on unemployed
AM - Friday, 17 February , 2006 08:07:00
Reporter: Daniel Hoare


TONY EASTLEY: The head of the Federal Government's new Fair Pay Commission last night spoke for the first time in his new role, and he hinted that it might be the unemployed rather than the low paid who will receive his sympathy.

Professor Ian Harper addressed a dinner in Melbourne where he outlined the role of the new body, which is set to make its first minimum wage decision in the second half of this year.

Ian Harper wouldn't be drawn on the specifics of where the Commission will stand on setting wages, but he did tell his business hosts he would take into consideration a range of factors, not just a person's take home pay when assessing incomes.

AM's Daniel Hoare was at last night's dinner.

(sound of applause)

DANIEL HOARE: Professor Ian Harper received a warm welcome last night as he addressed a dinner held by the Business Council of Australia.

But Ian Harper is well aware that his future decisions are set to become the subject of a lot more scrutiny, just like his private business affairs have become.

IAN HARPER: Those of you who have followed the press since my appointment as Chair of the Fair Pay Commission now probably know more than you ever cared to know about me and my private life.

Too much information, as my sons say to me.

DANIEL HOARE: Ian Harper didn't give away a lot of detail in his speech last night.

But he did give the audience a fairly good idea of where he stands when it comes to take home pay.

Ian Harper says that when the Fair Pay Commission makes its decisions, they will do so with the strong belief that a person's wage often isn't their only source of income.

IAN HARPER: It's no longer true that a person's wage is their only source of income to a family unit or even to an individual. So an important part of what we do, and again I made this point in my speech, is thinking about how minimum wages actually articulate with the tax and social security systems so that we can think separately about incomes in the wage.

Now you can't just totally separate the two, but understanding how those two are connected is one of our priorities.

DANIEL HOARE: Ian Harper says that he and his four commission members will need to crunch figures on welfare and tax breaks before they can decide where to set the minimum wage.

IAN HARPER: How we trade those things off will depend upon quite detailed knowledge of incentives and circumstances, as I was arguing, and we're yet to gather those data.

DANIEL HOARE: Ian Harper hinted that in his new role he would be keeping an eye out for the unemployed, the disabled and junior wage earners.

IAN HARPER: In setting the legal minimum, the Fair Pay Commission must consider the level of minimum wages as a potential obstacle to unemployed persons finding paid work.

In this sense, the Commission must set minimum wages over time so as to protect the unemployed and juniors, trainees and disabled workers from being priced out of the labour market.

DANIEL HOARE: The Fair Pay chief refused to be drawn on whether his commitment to the unemployed would come at the expense of low paid workers.

IAN HARPER: If you're saying to me this is a tough call to make that trade-off, I mean this is no surprise to me. If you're saying I don't think it could be done then obviously I'd disagree with that, otherwise I wouldn't have taken the job on.

TONY EASTLEY: The head of the Fair Pay Commission, Professor Ian Harper. That report from Daniel Hoare.

 

[Generator]

Federal IR laws hit state flak

 

[Generator]

Workers protest in IR test case

Workers protest in IR test case
21feb06


A GROUP of 200 workers have staged an angry protest outside a Melbourne automotive factory over what they say are plans to use new federal labour laws to cut wages and conditions.

In the first test of the changes due to come into force next month, unions say Clayton manufacturer Dana is using the laws to strip employees' rights and entitlements. Dana, which manufactures components for the automotive industry in Melbourne's south-east, proposes to cut wages 5 per cent under a 41-point wage plan unveiled in enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) negotiations, according to unions.

Under the plan, new employees would be paid 20 per cent less than the existing workforce, rostered days off would be abolished and workers' compensation would be reduced, Australian Council of Trade Unions secretary Greg Combet said.

Restrictions also would be imposed on union organisers and sick days and overtime entitlements, Mr Combet told ABC radio today.

[continued - see link]

Edit:

Unrest ahead of new IR laws

Unrest ahead of new IR laws
By Carolyn Webb
February 22, 2006


An employer has accused unions of using his company as a pawn to attack the Federal Government's new industrial relations laws.

Bob Day, head of car parts manufacturer Dana, said wage and conditions improvements must be linked to productivity or the company could go under.

[continued - see link]