Who will you vote for if a federal election was held tomorrow

[natmarie73]

I agree the silent majority enjoy AWA flexibility to suit the employer and the employee.

Hmmm, please post some links to solid proof of this Peter. Certainly the research I have read has said no such thing.

I actually have a report which shows that a number of workers are worse off under AWAs - mainly in the retail and hospitality industries. It is an in-depth study of AWAs conducted by Prof David Peetz and the Vic IRC.

FWIW, the majority of employers have chosen not to use AWAs so far - 10 years after they were first introduced!

Data from a report by David Peetz and Vic Industrial Relations Commission shows:

The data from the ABS show a far lower level of AWA coverage than claimed by the Commonwealth at the time. AWAs covered 258,000 employees nationally in May 2006, an increase of just 59,000 from May 2004. At the time, the Commonwealth was claiming 538,120 AWAs were in operation. The inadequacies of the Commonwealth methodology for estimating coverage have increased over time, with the extent of over-estimation increasing from 60 per cent in 2004 to 109 per cent in 2006. (pp 4, 10)

o The number of operating AWAs at the end of 2006 was probably between 335,000 and 340,000 (equivalent to approximately 3.7 per cent of employees), of which 56 to 57 per cent were WorkChoices AWAs. By the end of March 2007, AWA coverage would probably still be less than 400,000, well short of the ‘almost a million today’ that has been claimed. (p 10)

Obviously, they are not the be-all and end-all Howard thinks they are. I believe Workchoices legislation has been enacted solely to force employers to use AWAs (whether they want to or not) with the sole purpose of crippling the unions. It has nothing to do with increased productivity or the economy at all - its nothing more than his own personal vendetta against unions - much like GWB and Iraq. If Howard truly cared about businesses, he would let them make their own choices about how they wish to organise their employees - whether they chose union or individual contracts. Under Workchoices, both employers and employees don't actually have any choice at all.

The same goes for Labour too - there is no need to "scrap" AWAs as long as they ensure the underlying award does not allow the "baddies" too much power to treat people unfairly while not penalising good employers who realise that by treating their employees well they will be much better off.

Only a small minority of employees are covered by WorkChoices agreements to date and employer surveys indicate that the majority of businesses have decided against taking advantage of the ‘opportunities’ WorkChoices presents. This is a factor limiting the effects of WorkChoices so far. (p 13)

o However, the Western Australian experience from the 1990s suggests that more employers may be forced to change strategy as a result of WorkChoices, but it may take some time for this to happen and may affect employers who had not originally intended to change strategy. (p 13)

If AWAs are the answer to all our ills, why does the govt have to force employers to use them?

I personally have no issues with AWAs. If someone wants to trade in their annual leave for money then good on them, or if they're happy with what their employer is offering thats fine. Before the reinstatement of the no disadvantage test however, there were a number of employers who were caught out sacking their employees and then offering to employ them on AWAs for the same job but with much less pay and conditions than previously. I have real issues with the whittling away of award conditions that allow unscrupulous employers to take advantage of vunerable employees.

Like Nor said - if a business needs to cut the pay and conditions of it's employees to make a profit during a booming economy, then it is clearly inefficient and should not be in business anyway.

Barracuda, to clarify what I mean by "entitlements" I define them as
Paid sick leave
Paid annual leave (4 weeks)
Long Service Leave
Superannuation
Maternity/Paternity leave
A 40 hour/week
paid overtime or time in lieu and the right to refuse to work overtime if you don't want to or have family committments.
A safe place of work.

Not too much to ask I don't think.

 

[Barracuda]

o The number of operating AWAs at the end of 2006 was probably between 335,000 and 340,000 (equivalent to approximately 3.7 per cent of employees), of which 56 to 57 per cent were WorkChoices AWAs. By the end of March 2007, AWA coverage would probably still be less than 400,000, well short of the ‘almost a million today’ that has been claimed. (p 10)[/COLOR]

Thanks for the stats Nat.

So, it really is much ado about nothing? 3.7% of workers on AWA's (which is not synonymous to being 'worse off') is certainly not the 47% of workers worse-off that Nor suggests.

This is one of the points I'm suggesting - this is a discordant clamour. The level that it is trumped up to in the media is far beyond its calling.

The same goes for Labour too - there is no need to "scrap" AWAs as long as they ensure the underlying award does not allow the "baddies" too much power to treat people unfairly while not penalising good employers who realise that by treating their employees well they will be much better off.

I think we agree.

I personally have no issues with AWAs. If someone wants to trade in their annual leave for money then good on them, or if they're happy with what their employer is offering thats fine. Before the reinstatement of the no disadvantage test however, there were a number of employers who were caught out sacking their employees and then offering to employ them on AWAs for the same job but with much less pay and conditions than previously. I have real issues with the whittling away of award conditions that allow unscrupulous employers to take advantage of vunerable employees.

I think you'll find that similar things existed prior to Work Choices. Again, perhaps it is the experience of differing industries. The opposite also happens in my industry, where employees quit and return on Monday as contractors. I'm not suggesting this is good or bad.

I'm just more of a free-market type of guy I guess. I work in an industry where downsizing happens every day of the week. You learn to live with it, do your job to the best of your ability, keep your options open and look forward to the opportunities that present themselves in change. I don't like the idea of forcing employers or employees into corners.

Barracuda, to clarify what I mean by "entitlements" I define them as
Paid sick leave
Paid annual leave (4 weeks)
Long Service Leave
Superannuation
Maternity/Paternity leave
A 40 hour/week
paid overtime or time in lieu and the right to refuse to work overtime if you don't want to or have family committments.
A safe place of work.

And we agree there - that's about the limit that of entitlements I think are core.

At least there's another thing we agree on - I think I know where 3 votes are going . Now up to the rest of our countrymen to make their decisions.

Cheers,

 

[BayView]

I will be voting Liberal.

 

[Xenia]

Totally agree Xenia, fancy those pesky workers actually asking for time off on public holidays, annual leave, sick leave, or a fair wage for a days work! The cheek! Bring back slavery I say!

Seriously though - who has the bigger "entitlement mentality" ? Is it the employee who expects a wage that is enough to pay the rent/mortgage and buy food in return for working a 12 hour day, or families who get paid $1000's of dollars for popping out children and scream gimmee gimmee gimmee for more childcare rebates, more family benefits, more tax breaks etc etc etc even though they live in big houses and drive energy guzzling 4WDs to drop the kiddies off at private school? I think we all know the answer to that one don't we.

Slavery????? LOL To me that's what you become once you have kids (no matter what colour you are)
seriously though, I agree that good employees should be paid well and I have never had a problem paying our employees above the industry average plus bonuses, I think that as we grow as a company our employees deserve to grow with us, they have contributed to our success!

I also have no problem in getting rid of employees who are not performing, I don't feel that I owe them a living, if they are not doing a good job and cost more than they add, then its bye bye. I did this recently with a cleaner who was hopeless, she spent an hour on the phone telling me how victimised she felt and her husband has just lost his job and she needs the money.......... Although I felt for her situation, our company is a real estate agency not a charity organisation.

I don't like this robin hood society that labour is trying to create, steal from the rich to give to the poor. Everyone is responsible for their own destiny and waiting for someone to do it for you is not a good attitude to have in any society.

 

[Xenia]

PS just out of curiosity, who are the families that get paid thousands to pop out children? Were they are product of the labour government or the liberals?

Not sure what you are refering to there

 

[our obsession]

Xenia:

I don't like this robin hood society that labour is trying to create, steal from the rich to give to the poor. Everyone is responsible for their own destiny and waiting for someone to do it for you is not a good attitude to have in any society.

Kevin Rudd and the gang, do not pretend to be running around in green tights, nobody is *trying* to steal anything from anyone....apart from the Liberals dismantling workers rights and entitlements and chopping off the legs of the unions: (unions that got our hard working Australians their rights to begin with).

Working class Australians have every right not to be screwed over, ever so nicely! by Liberals pretending this is in everyone's *best interest*

Who said everyone was *not* responsible for their own destiny?, this is merely basic, fundamental worker's rights and entitlements, no more, no less Xenia, a country which gives a fair go to everyone....Labor's Policies sound great, you and I must be reading two different Policies ...because nowhere in it is robbing people to pay the poor or people not being in charge of their own destiny!?

 

[our obsession]

Xenia:

I don't like this robin hood society that labour is trying to create

http://www.alp.org.au/media/0107/spe230.php

Labor’s reform credentials
Throughout Australia’s history, Labor has been a party of reform.

Labor believes in the market. Labor believes in a strong market economy. But Labor also enshrines fairness, equity and a role for government in taming the market.

During the 1980s and the 1990s, Labor pursued wide-ranging reforms which embedded into the Australian economy the capacity to withstand domestic and international shocks and provided the basis for the current long period of economic expansion.

In the 1980s and early 1990s Labor Governments:

floated the Australian dollar, lifted exchange controls and introduced foreign banking competition;
cut tariffs to ensure that Australia’s companies remained internationally competitive;
slashed the high personal income and company tax rates inherited from the Fraser-Howard Government;
deregulated the financial services sector, the airlines sector and the communications industry;
created a national superannuation scheme; and
reformed workplace laws to allow enterprise bargaining.
These were difficult and tough decisions, but they were necessary for Australia’s long-term prosperity.

this except from the above link; a Kevin Rudd speech made at Melbourne University; 23/01/07

Xenia, also Norwester posted a very interesting link:

http://www.cbs.curtin.edu.au/files/junankar.pdf

You may find it quite informative...I for one, consider myself a fortunate person we live in such a wonderful country...I do think we can always improve on what we do-while remaining a fair and equilibrium balance for all Australians.

 

[WinstonWolfe]

OO, I believe that 'fair' and well informed unions are necessary to keep a balance between employers and employees, though I'd rather see employees taking a more active and informed role in their own affairs, and considering co-ops as I mentioned above; rather then outsource the responsibility to some Joe Union Boss out to pad his own nest.

You talk of unions not being Robin Hoods. Well I would encourage you to look at any university union in Australia, before they were made uncompulsory. My experience with them was that they p*ssed money up against the wall year after year.....they were totally unaccountable....and exploited the naivety and idealism of kids just out of school. Every year money was thrown at projects for vocal minority groups, that fizzled the following year due to their under use or flea brained impracticality.

In this day and age, you have union elites corrupting the whole worker/employer process, skimming cream where there is no cream to be skimmed....

Just consider the way Kevin Reynolds has profited from doing personal deals with Multiplex honchos. DO you think Multiplex would have had anything to do with him if he wasn't a union heavyweight, able to bring Multiplex to its knees whenever he chose?

And look at Bob Hawke...one of the most self righteous hypocrites ever. He considered himself to be the champion of the working man....but as he has aged, he puts as much expensive real estate and 3 metre high fences between the working man and himself as money can buy...and beds down amongst the elites he once fought against. He now shares nothing in common with those who catapulted him to where he is now.

Have a read up on Jack Mundey also.

Now we have Kevin Rudd's wife, getting more than her fair share of government contract work, enough to push the wealth of her company to 170 million odd.

Labor elites and diehards might consider themselves political Gandhis, but they are hypocrites one and all IMHO, never beyond ignoring the principals they bleat the rest of us follow.

As for what Labor stands for, I think a lot of Aussies need to wake up to the fact that the 'state' makes a very very unreliable 'nanny'. Even moreso, when the state puts a bias on being a nanny, and obfuscates in the minds of citizens, the imperative to keep Australia globally competitive.

Global competitiveness is a necessity in this day and age, and Labor and the unions, IMHO, have not evolved to understand that, nor address it intelligently. Those who expect holiday and sick leave to be the same in 20 years if Australia doesn't remain globally competitive, are the sorry victims of union propaganda and delusion.

 

[our obsession]

You have an interesting *take*as ever Winston; you and I will just have to agree to disagree...your perception is not my perception.

 

[WinstonWolfe]

OO, yeah I like to express myself clearly....

but am a soft hearted guy really, and do stand up for the little fella..... I just don't want to see Australia fall behind globally. the consequences of doing so will be disastrous for your kids and mine. and I wonder if the unions think 2 generations ahead...

despite my rantings above, I think a lot of Kevin Rudd. He is a decent guy. and smart. And I think it weak of the Coalition to try and grill him over his "appendages" comment. He didn't mean that derogatorily to stay at home Mums..

 

[WinstonWolfe]

Now isn't that funny...

Rein decides to sell her Australian 170m business...

The ABC makes no mention of the 170m.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1934185.htm

The Courier Mail
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21799494-952,00.html
SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rein-to-sell-business/2007/05/26/1179601711711.html
The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rein-to-sell-local-firm/2007/05/26/1179601733608.html

call it a 170m business.

Good ol Auntie....trust the ABC to bury the 170m association with a potential Socialist Prime Minister's wife.

 

[ger]

I agree the silent majority enjoy AWA flexibility to suit the employer and the employee.

It has meant we can streamline our overtime payments to a single rate and not bother with time and half, double time etc.... It means we pay a weekly meals allowance whether overtime is worked or not and when it is they don’t get anymore. Everyone, my company, employee, even clients get more value.



Peter 14.7

Hi Peter
I dont understand how the workers get more value here
they lost all they penalty rates ( a couple hundred dollars I guess)
for a weekly meals alowance!!!!!!!!!

Thats AWA's for ya

 

[buzzlightyear]

Rein decides to sell her Australian 170m business...

So Kevin, who's the appendage now?!

 

[geoffw]

Now isn't that funny...

Rein decides to sell her Australian 170m business...

Sorry WW, I don't know what the problem is.

Mrs Krudd has built a business from Zilch. A fantastic job. A lot better than I could have done (or have done).

There's been questions about conflict of interest.

I would have expected her to continue the business, perhaps with some changes to business practices.

She's done a "drastic", despite what I would have called, damaging but not detrimental omissions. I thought she "may" have been able to survive alongside Kev, but she's decided to sell up.

All for the good of the party, politics, or whatever.

So much for independent roles within a marriage.

 

[WinstonWolfe]

Sorry WW, I don't know what the problem is.

Mrs Krudd has built a business from Zilch. A fantastic job. A lot better than I could have done (or have done).

There's been questions about conflict of interest.

Geoff, the point I was drawing attention to was the ABC's shying away from mentioning 170m. Why would that be????


As for Rein selling the business, I agree it shouldn't be essential a Prime Minister's wife sell a successful business.

However, if that business profits significantly from contracts handed out by public service departments, then that's another story.

 

[Peter 14.7]

Hi Peter
I dont understand how the workers get more value here
they lost all they penalty rates ( a couple hundred dollars I guess)
for a weekly meals alowance!!!!!!!!!

Thats AWA's for ya

Dear Ger

Happy to reply and the fact, that in isolation my comments may appear unfair, is probably why this debate on works choices is so passionate.

FYI as the SS system will not let me repost your quote with my comments, here they are .

Originally Posted by Peter 14.7
I agree the silent majority enjoy AWA flexibility to suit the employer and the employee.

Peter 14.7

I agree with WW because it is my opinion. My opinion is from my experience in running two businesses and being an employee over 20 years. Anything that allows flexibility is good thing provided there are check and balances in place. Inflexibility means employers don’t change with the market and become dinosaurs and die out. WW point. I was retrenched twice by companies that failed to change.

Having said that I don’t think the original Workchoices system was fair and it don’t know is the recent changes make it fairer. Clearly if the employer is in a position of power than some will unfairly exercise that power. I await Labour system to be explained.

But the old Labour system of unfair dismissal for all businesses regardless of size was equally unfair. It has taken me a lot of effort to get good staff worth keeping. I six years I have had staff who were liars, thieves, offensive to clients and simply bludgers. I wouldn’t have employed anyone if I had to keep all the useless ones. SOme union reps think I show not have the right to sack slack workers and let go workers if I simply dont have the work.

Originally Posted by Peter 14.7

It has meant we can streamline our overtime payments to a single rate and not bother with time and half, double time etc.... It means we pay a weekly meals allowance whether overtime is worked or not and when it is they don’t get anymore. Everyone, my company, employee, even clients get more value.

Peter 14.7

Read in isolation the above comments are not clear. FYI we are Facility Management Company (commercial building management). We offer a total service to clients and work a lot of hours after hours rebuilding offices or maintenance.

As a small business one of the biggest hassles is paperwork. I spend at least one day in 5 on paperwork that earns me not $1 in income. If I gave up and went back to me only as a one man consultant then I would earn 5 days.

So we have employee contracts. Each one is similar but reflect that staff’s personal and the companies needs. We empower staff to take responsibility to realise we can provide jobs whilst we have a happy client. No clients and no jobs for anyone including me.

Staff work 40 hours weeks of core hours and we run time in leiu for minor overtime. Up to 2 hours extra a day can be worked for no extra $. This allows us to respond to client emergencies and allows staff longer lunches or get in late / leave early for doctors appointments etc….which other staff cover. We record and tally hours and staff have a copy of their timesheets as well as I do. If it gets too much to recover they get a paid day off. If they leave early they have to make it up. Essentially flexitime.

We do pay Overtime outside of this flexibility. We do a lot of night and weekend overtime on special projects. So the simple paperwork solution is flat rate per hour paid every 15min block. That rate is not time and a half or double time but actually 2.5 x normal hourly rate. Whether it is one hour or 10. It means staff simply record time in timesheet and we can pay each Tuesday an easily calculated amount. It stops staff fighting over who gets the overtime and who works the first few hours only. Every 15minutes is worth $ at that 2.5 rate. The 2 hours flexibility doesnot apply for special projects and staff are paid from the moment it starts.

FYI Overtime is funny thing. Everyone wants it but even at this rate only a few actually put in the hours. Some staff want to get extra $$ to get ahead and some say they want OT but then always have a party that weekend or some thing else that stops them. If staff work a full weekend they must take one day in the week off to rest which they don’t get paid for but at their usual base rate. So one day weekend is worth 2.5daysin the week so they are ahead 1.5 days.

We do not endorse overtime hours being equal to normal hours like some employers. A weekend day is worth more that weekday day. I charge my clients for that so why should the staff not benefit? So 8 hours on Sunday is not worth a day off. It is worth 2.5days off if that staff does not want the money.

In exchange for this:

Overtime. We work together as a team to get the job done. At least 8 hours but often 10 and some times 12 hours days to finish to meet deadlines. We have breaks of course.

Annual Holidays. We pay 4 weeks but on special approval (after we ensure they can cope with a shorter break) staff can take 2 weeks as money. We do not pay 17.5% loading. Again because it is too complex if a staff takes a week off and uses a day in lieu, public holiday and then three overtime days. Also personally I don’t agree with paying something to cover overtime money when not all staff want to work overtime. Why should the guy who never wants to work overtime get an allowance the same as the guys who do it every month? It is hangover from the unions all in rules.

Public Holidays. As usual but if we work overtime the standard rate applies.

Sick Leave. We pay it and pay out half the days out at the end of the year to stop guys using sickies as holidays. It disrupts the commitment to the team.

Meal Allowance. We do pay it. The rules on this is very complex, some many hours here, then 15 min break then so many more hours them a meal worth $11.75 (example only). It would take me more in time and $$ to work it out for a large crew working different hours that it would be worth to them individually. Each pay day would be a nightmare. So we pay everyone whether they work overtime or not that week, a meal allowance and they can bring sandwiches or spend $50 a pub and that is up to them. Having said that I often shout the guys breakfast when we are busy and put it on the company. I also provide a bloody flash cappuccino machine with 10 different flavours (nespresso system) so they can have the best coffee possible after hours. It is hard to get good coffee at 4pm Sunday.

Car Allowance. We pay that as well. Staff have a base income. If they provide a car to do their job they can take a % of that as cars allowance. I could provide a company car but some don’t look after them and it becomes a bun fight on who gets the new car and who is more senior. Instead we pay an allowance and if the young guy wants to get a flash Commodore SS Ute that costs $$ more than he gets as allowance he can. If you want to drive an old but reliable Toyota then you pocket $$. Again we empower staff and it is amazing when they are paying the insurance, rego, petrol and will own the car at the end of the lease how the expensive flash Toy gets dumped for a more practical, economical reliable car. Usually dual cabs to carry the kids.

Tool Allowance we pay when staff provide tools. Some like that as they collect tools like toys and use them privately for private jobs and some don’t collect tools. Tools must be professional and in good condition.

Uniform we provide. They are responsible for it and are required to replace it is lost or damaged by misuse. Same for safety gear and shoes.

Mobile Phones. We all get the best new phone at the same time. We each have capped calls to a limit usually $450 a month. This never exceeds the bus calls because our system allows call internally for up to 10 minutes free. Spare allowance can be used for personal calls usually in the $100’s of $ spare each month. But if staff exceeds that amount they have to reimburse the extra. Usually it is only $30 a month max and a one off. They are responsible for phones and are required to replace it is lost, stolen or damaged by misuse. They do not own the phone.

FYI Superannuation, We pay monthly to a non-profit fund that provides accident and death benefit as part of the cover, CBUS.

Bonus. Staff get bonus at our discretion for excellent outcomes they contributed to. We have paid a number of these.

Annual Reviews new fin year backdated to 1st July.

I think that is it. Despite this even streamlined the contract is five pages and growing.

Now some of you may think I am a dream employer. I think we are. Our whole structure is based on reward for efforts. All of us building the company secure and strong with great rep. As such I do expect and indeed demand 3 things.

1. Absolute honest and integrity. If any staff, steals from the Company, another staff member or a client, spare materials, tools, paper, pens, or are dishonest in hours….there is no second chance. We sack instantly.
   
2. Safety is No 1. Any breaches are serious. A second breach is goodbye.
   
3. Serious Work Ethic. No bludgers need apply.

Yes I could trick young staff into signing off but in the end they will walk or bludge anyhow so where is the benefit?

I hope this answers your questions and helps demonstrate that employers and employee (the silent majority as I stated) can and do benefit from flexibility.

Peter 14.7

 

[daviddanae]

I have worked under AWA's for the last 4 or 5 years, and I am quit comfortable with them. I like the fact that if I don’t like the conditions my employer is offering I can tell him to stick it and go and get another job! This is the choice that all working Australians have with AWA’s. I believe it is in mine and everybody else’s best interest to ensure we are paid what we as the employees believe is a fair amount. This may mean we either work harder than others or arm ourselves with the necessary skills and training to enable us to demand more than the bloke working next to us gets. Time and time again I hear about people working under EBA’s with the blokes working next to them not worth half as much as the others are getting paid. I can’t stand Kev and his mates running the union in wa at the moment. What most seem to forget is that we as the end user (pay for the bloke holding a ‘stop / go’ sign earning 120k per year) is built into our price for our new apartment!!!!!!


WHAT EVER

 

[natmarie73]

Slavery????? LOL To me that's what you become once you have kids (no matter what colour you are)
seriously though, I agree that good employees should be paid well and I have never had a problem paying our employees above the industry average plus bonuses, I think that as we grow as a company our employees deserve to grow with us, they have contributed to our success!

I also have no problem in getting rid of employees who are not performing, I don't feel that I owe them a living, if they are not doing a good job and cost more than they add, then its bye bye. I did this recently with a cleaner who was hopeless, she spent an hour on the phone telling me how victimised she felt and her husband has just lost his job and she needs the money.......... Although I felt for her situation, our company is a real estate agency not a charity organisation.

I don't like this robin hood society that labour is trying to create, steal from the rich to give to the poor. Everyone is responsible for their own destiny and waiting for someone to do it for you is not a good attitude to have in any society.

Xenia, that post makes so much more sense than your previous one, and I certainly agree with some points you are making. As an employee, I have also suffered because of other employees who don't pull their weight, or are hopeless, and don't have a problem with that. I think that most employers realise that they need to treat their employees well if they are to get the best performance from them.

What I take offence to, is the way you suggested that employees don't deserve any rights, and that we have an entitlement mentality. Surely you are not suggesting that employees be subject to the whims of employers who might wish them to work 60 hours a week without breaks,time off on weekends or annual leave for minimum wages that don't even cover the bare necessities? Employees are not like welfare bludgers or The Secret readers who sit in their lounge rooms and wait for something to happen. They are people who have jobs, in most cases multiple jobs and the majority of them work hard with the aim of doing the best they can to get ahead in society, buy a house and live a decent life. For employers to deny them basic rights of a fair wage and time off work for rest harks back to pre-civil war days in the US.

I disagree with you about the Robin Hood society as well. I actually think it is the opposite, where Howard Pty Ltd has over the term of his office continuously robbed from the poor to give to the rich. This can be clearly seen in the reduction of funding to medicare, public education at all levels (a direct contributor to our current skills shortage I may add) and the growth of middle class welfare such as the baby bonus, child care benefit, family benefits and tax reductions (which of course favour the higher tax brackets) which have been introduced as a bribe to keep the middle classes happy and content with the present government but don't do anything for our economy or society as a whole.

 

[Peter 14.7]

I have worked under AWA's for the last 4 or 5 years, and I am quit comfortable with them. I like the fact that if I don’t like the conditions my employer is offering I can tell him to stick it and go and get another job! This is the choice that all working Australians have with AWA’s. I believe it is in mine and everybody else’s best interest to ensure we are paid what we as the employees believe is a fair amount. This may mean we either work harder than others or arm ourselves with the necessary skills and training to enable us to demand more than the bloke working next to us gets. Time and time again I hear about people working under EBA’s with the blokes working next to them not worth half as much as the others are getting paid. I can’t stand Kev and his mates running the union in wa at the moment. What most seem to forget is that we as the end user (pay for the bloke holding a ‘stop / go’ sign earning 120k per year) is built into our price for our new apartment!!!!!!

Great Post Daviddance and welcome to Somersoft.

Your post points out that AWA do reward effort and study.

Peter

 

[Michael Croft]

Hi Daviddanae,

I have been an employer for more than half my working life (40 years), and I wonder how well you'd negotiate with me when unemployment hits double digits? When I have a choice of half a dozen Davids of equivalent experience education and training, I will chose the least cost option, will that be you?

The last 4 to 5 years of record employment growth has given many a false sense of security. Your ability to negotiate terms and conditions are related to scarcity, the old supply and demand. AWA's in lean times will benefit a minority of desirably skilled (scarce) employees, the rest will be worse off. And I say this as one who will benefit. Oh and if you don't believe lean times will come again, I have a bridge to sell you.

The economic rational model under which we currently operate is not the only possible way, and has become dogma in this country. Other more equitable models exist, but we lack the political will to try or implement them.

Welcome to the forum by the way

MC