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

[ger]

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


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.


Peter 14.7

Hi Peter

Thank you for clarifying above
I was wrong the way I read your original post
sorry about that
I thought all weekend penalty rates was abolished
A friend of mine works in the hospitality and
when the original awa's came in a week later
the weekend rates overtime was abolished
the boss told them if you don't like it leave
I have been on both sides of the fence (20 years had own bussiness) and totally agree with you there are a lot of bad employers AND a lot of bad employees.

 

[our obsession]

Michael Croft:

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.

G'day Michael, actually, I would be very, (and genuinely) interested in having a read about other models, would you be so kind to point me in the direction of where I might source a bit of this info please?

 

[ger]

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

Hi daviddanae
Firstly I did not know AWA's were around that long.
I really can not understand how if you are not on AWA's ypu can not tell your boss to stick it.
You may have a special skill that you may demand to be paid what you
think you deserve BUT for 90% of employees THE BOSS pays what
he/she thinks you are worth especially if there are a dozen people
that can do the same job.
Imagine a 20 year old starting work going to his boss demanding
to be paid what he is worth.

 

[Michael Croft]

Hi OO,

Ricardo Semler is worth studying. Not just businesses, but schools and politics too. The Semler model coupled with open source systems will set the world on fire, if self interest is ever put in it's proper place.

MC

 

[daviddanae]

Hi All and thank you for the response.
The key (I believe) is educating ones self, or ensuring we are confident in our own ability to perform our work at a higher level than the other applicants. Proving this as a 20 year old would be providing past work history and former employer referrals.
As for Trying to gain employment where there are “half a dozen” other applicants, my moto is “you get what you pay for” (if you want to pay peanuts, employ a monkey). I believe Peter hit the nail on the head ‘you do get rewarded for hard work and study’. I take a little offence to the claim that I may be a little green behind the ears to assume that there are no rough waters ahead pertaining to the current employment climate. I admit I am young. Although believe me, I (and so should everybody for that matter) ensure I keep up with the latest’s training and information therefore trying to keep ahead of the pack. In addition to this I save like hell, pay down my debts and invest wisely (and be good to the misses & kids!). All I’m trying to say is we as employees have the ability to arm ourselves with the necessary attributes thus demanding more than others.
Thanks for the opportunity to reply, and keep up the good work with this forum.

Take care,
dd

 

[Peter 14.7]

Hi Peter

Thank you for clarifying above
I was wrong the way I read your original post
sorry about that
I thought all weekend penalty rates was abolished
A friend of mine works in the hospitality and
when the original awa's came in a week later
the weekend rates overtime was abolished
the boss told them if you don't like it leave
I have been on both sides of the fence (20 years had own bussiness) and totally agree with you there are a lot of bad employers AND a lot of bad employees.

It was my error as I wrote in shorthand assuming it was clear.

And that is the whole issue. It is very emotional and open to corruption on both sides, employee and employer.

It is clear to me I could take advantage of the system and I worked for a prop developer for two years and mate, he was , how can I say, a #$%%#. He once tricked a staff to resign to retrain and then never gave them work. He would offer to pay a subbie, write a cheque and promise to send and then tear it up after the subbie left. They do exist.

The other side I use to work in the public sector and I know staff who literally do nothing all day and cannot be sacked. Then other staff says why should I work hard? We don't get any more money because the system is “everyone is equal”. It breds laziness sucking of the tax system. And they retire with massive super ( the future fund) for being so slack.

I don't really understand workschoices but it seems to me the vast majority feel it is unfair and that is enough for me. I just hope that Labour and at this stage I leaning towards them, will consider the good and bad of the present system.

So to pull this debate back to topic.

I welcome Labor outlining the policy in detail.

The recent debacle with Rudds wife business shows it is not that simple to please everyone. It should be interesting.

Peter

 

[Michael Croft]

Sorry dd, was speaking rhetorically about those who believe the good times will last forever. Should have changed from the personal to the generic at that point.

MC

 

[Michael Croft]

Moderators,

May I respectfully suggest that this thread goes to the coffee lounge?

MC

 

[our obsession]

Thankyou very much MC...I look forward to learning about the Semler models.

 

[Peter 14.7]

Imagine a 20 year old starting work going to his boss demanding
to be paid what he is worth.

The irony with this statment is as boss I paid some 20 year old what they were worth they would be getting less! But I get your point Ger.

Peter

 

[Peter 14.7]

Moderators,

May I respectfully suggest that this thread goes to the coffee lounge?

MC

Good point. I will consult with the other Mods.

Peter

 

[daviddanae]

Thanks MC,
Going for a coffee now!

 

[natmarie73]

Really great posts here guys. Peter, you do sound like a dream employer! I'm sure your business will not have trouble finding and keeping good staff with that attitude.

Ger, employees in the hospitality and retail industries are the hardest hit by AWA "flexibility". Both these industries operate on a severe cost-cutting strategy, so any extra payments to workers have been cut over the years, even in union negotiated agreements. I can't think of a single retail AWA or EBA I have read that contains weekend, late night or overtime penalty rates as "ordinary hours" of work pretty much contain all the hours retailers are open.

Quote by Michael Croft
"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."

Michael, a very sage post. Most young people who are just starting out in the workforce have no idea what it is like in times of high unemployment and don't think for a moment that recessions are possible. I remember very well the recession we had to have, but I had adequate skills to ensure I was not unemployed at the time thank goodness. A lot of people I knew were not so lucky though. I think that if AWAs had been around at the time, the wages and conditions offered by employers would have been a lot lower than they were.

A recent interview I had with the HR Manager for Myers really opened my eyes to the attitudes of school leavers and uni students. They expect to walk into a casual retail job that pays ridiculous amounts of money and call all the shots. Many of them just walk out mid-shift because they "don't feel like working any more that night" or "are tired". The only reason they don't get sacked is because even the retail industry is having a very hard time finding staff and they know that they can walk into another job straight away.

Ensuring that as employees we each have skills, knowledge and experience that is sought after by employers is necessary no matter what government or IR system is in place. Like Xenia said, we can't just sit around and wait for someone to tap us on the shoulder and offer our dream jobs.

 

[Spectre]

Hi OO,

Ricardo Semler is worth studying. Not just businesses, but schools and politics too. The Semler model coupled with open source systems will set the world on fire, if self interest is ever put in it's proper place.

MC

Michael

I saw Ricardo speak down the Gold Coast when he was here a few months ago. He is a fascinating guy, and he doesnt get enough praise.

I'd love to see him come into an aussie corporation and sack the management team in the first week... oh to be a fly on the wall

A lot of it reverbs with people, dont know why it hasnt gotten more airtime (bearing in mind the time the book was done to begin with).

 

[BV]

If it wasn't for the mining boom, China, $$ sale of Telstra
the economy would not be as healthy.
As for low unemployment the are a lot of workers now placed on casual and part time
and even if you work more than 5 hours a week it means
that you are FULLY employed.

Ger,
I agree, I will be surprised if John H manages to survive this time around.
IMO he should move aside now and let someone else take over.
This way he won't suffer a defeat just before retirement....
Cheers

 

[MarkB]

Ricardo Semler is worth studying. Not just businesses, but schools and politics too. The Semler model coupled with open source systems will set the world on fire, if self interest is ever put in it's proper place.

This is off topic, but....

Self-interest makes this world go round.

The fact is that we all act in our own self-interest, all of the time.

In another thread you said -

I sponsored a teacher to go there 2 years ago and she has just returned. Damn the flights are expensive, but worth it though.

Some might call it charitable or altruistic and it could be seen as cuch.

But the reality of human behaviour is that you did it because it was in your own self-interest based on what you percieve your self-interest to be.

And that's why some people spend their life doing charity work, others making money, and others lying on the couch getting fat eating KFC, etc and so on.

It's no more complicated an explanation than why some people like milk chocolate, others dark chocolate, or no chocolate at all.

The reason - we are all different.

So the problem isn't that people are pursuing their self-interest - because people will always do that, the problem is that their self-interest isn't what you would like it to be.

M

 

[Michael Croft]

Hi Pitt St.,

Life is never black or white. Where do good intentions stop and self interest begin? It's often a mix.

What of the passing person who jumps into the burning building, risking life and limb, to save a stranger? Was it self interest? Hey, they'll call me a hero. Instinct? I just did it! Conscious act for good? That person needs help, and I'm the only one who can give it right now. A combination of all of these?

Self interest is but one of the human motivators. Unfortunately due the dominant dogma of economic rationalism, self interest is the only motivator that has been prominent of late. But selfless acts of kindness, particularly when at great personal cost, should not be debased with the title of self interest. Yes it may have been present, but in the extreme minority.

I suppose you could argue that the 'common good' is also ultimately a form of 'self interest', I'm sure it has been tried. The French have a saying, "With ifs, you can put Paris in a bottle". But really, common good as self interest, is a chicken and egg argument.

My own motivation? Not sure, and don't really care; it wasn't at great personal cost. The teacher in question previously taught my children, was in a rut, needed the experience and the school of St.Jude needed her. I had the money and paid. As an agnostic I wasn't buying my own salvation or cleansing a conscience. She a good woman, but I wasn't trying to win her favours either. This is the first time I have made it public, and it's the last time I will mention it - so I don't think I was buying an enhanced reputation for philanthropy. It just seemed the right thing to do at the time. It wasn't even tax deductible. Not sure where my self interest lay actually - I'm a bit disappointing as a capitalist really.

MC

 

[MarkB]

Life is never black or white. Where do good intentions stop and self interest begin? It's often a mix.

I'm saying that there's no difference between self-interest and "good intentions".

Or indeed self-interest and (for example) "bad intentions".

There is just self-interest.

Which, for an economist (and this makes me contrary to what most economists would say) equates to saying that "all behaviour is rational" - which I believe it is.

It's a personal theoretical p.o.v. which I expressed here a long time ago.

Re: A - "Irrational Exuberance"

Be warned - you're talking to an economist whose personal theory is that there is no such thing as "irrational" behaviour (hence no such thing as "irrational exuberance").

Rationality is a concept created by economists to try and help fit the real world into their models of behaviour.

If something doesn't fit their model it is far easier (and more palatable) to label that event or decision "irrational" than it is to admit the limitations of their model (and hence themselves).

I won't go any further than that at the moment - it would take me several thousands of words. I really should right a journal article on the subject (though someone else probably already has).

M

ps. Mods, sorry WAY off topic.

 

[Michael Croft]

Put two economists in a room and you get three opinions, so we will agree to differ. I majored in international political economy last millennia, but double majored in wine, women and song

MC

 

[Michael Croft]

I'm saying that there's no difference between self-interest and "good intentions".

Or indeed self-interest and (for example) "bad intentions".

There is just self-interest.

Which, for an economist (and this makes me contrary to what most economists would say) equates to saying that "all behaviour is rational" - which I believe it is.

It's a personal theoretical p.o.v. which I expressed here a long time ago.




M

ps. Mods, sorry WAY off topic.

OK, so let's bring it back on topic.

Using your theory, explain the following:
A prominent business person, employer to hundreds, votes Labor. She does this because in spite the obvious benefits to her financially of voting Liberal. Just the changes to AWA's alone may cost her tens of thousands of dollars. Yes she is concerned for the environment too, and is prepared to suffer financial penalties that carbon trading will bring for the common good, she thinks Labor's carbon hoops and bureaucracy will be more onerous and expensive. She has no children, and knows she won't be around long enough for climate change to bother her personally, only professionally. She is successful and bright; when she thinks about it, she realises that she has always voted Labor because it is accordance with her beliefs, and realises full well that this is not in her economic self interest.

You may have guessed that this is not a hypothetical. She holds two simultaneous and contradictory positions, and she knows it. It is not in her economic, financial and business interests to vote Labor, and yet she will. Why? So that her actions agree with her values.

Now you will argue that there is a hierarchy of values, and that her desire to avoid cognitive dissonance is greater than her desire for wealth. Therefore she has acted in self interest. This would be correct if we were having a philosophical discussion around Maslow's theory. However we are having an economic discussion which places financial decisions at the pinnacle. So within this economic framework, if she acts in a manner that is contrary to her economic well being, she is being irrational and not behaving in a self interested manner.

It's all very logical and, to quote a slogan, "economic rationalism isn't".

MC