The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

Re: The official IR thread

Abattoir lesson depends which way they slice it

Cable firm sackings under microscope
New body tries 'great balancing act' over wages

 

[Generator]

Businesses question law on tracking staff hours

Businesses question law on tracking staff hours
The 7.30 Report
Reporter: Heather Ewart


KERRY O'BRIEN: Welcome to the program. Shortly, we hear from the Jordanian connection in the AWB kickback scandal. But first, the latest twist in the developing saga of the new industrial laws. And this time it's the employers' turn to complain about the legislation. Their beef is that the new law requires employers to log the hours worked by all employees - from the humblest cleaner to the chief executive - or face stiff fines. Employers argue that complying with this requirement will impose an extra cost on business, and point to the difficulty of tracking the hours of executives who never really knock off. Employer groups have been quietly lobbying the Minister for Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, to drop the provision, so far without success. Heather Ewart reports.

[continued - see link]

 

[Generator]

Row not abattoir boss's first

I'll overturn court's IR rulings: Beazley

 

[Generator]

Same work, $40 less: take it or leave it

Same work, $40 less: take it or leave it
By Kelly Burke
April 10, 2006


AMBER OSWALD is a forthright and enthusiastic 16-year-old who was thrilled when she scored her first part-time job early last month, at a juice bar in Warriewood.

But on March 29, two days after the Federal Government's new workplace laws came into effect, Amber learned that she had been made redundant and then "rehired".

She was now party to an Australian workplace agreement. The contract remains unsigned, despite taking effect from March 27 - day one of the new laws.

Amber saw her new contract for the first time only yesterday, which confirmed that her hourly pay rate had dropped from $9.52 to $8.57 and her penalty rates had been abolished altogether, reducing her pay by $5.70 an hour on Sundays and by as much as $11.25 an hour on public holidays.

"I'm pretty upset they can do that," Amber said yesterday after finishing a seven-hour shift that would have earned her $99.89 before tax two weeks ago but now pays just $59.99.

"I'm doing exactly the same job as before but I'm still young, so they think they can pretty much get away with it."

Amber's boss, who would only identify himself as Andre, said that between 15 and 20 staff at the three NSW Pulp Juice franchise shops had been given workplace agreements.

"If they don't want to sign, they can leave," he said. "It's not about what's fair, it's [about] what's right - right for the company."

He said a previous award became invalid after Pulp was placed into liquidation on March 24, effectively making all the staff redundant.

The AWAs were issued the same day by Pow Juice, which won a licensing agreement to run the three shops, and for whom he worked as a "consultant".

The president of the ACTU, Sharan Burrow, described Pow Juice's ultimatum to staff as outrageous.

"The new laws are a Government-sanctioned licence for employers … to treat people in whatever way they choose, and young people and older workers, particularly women, are the most vulnerable," she said.

A spokeswoman for the federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, said the minister was not prepared to discuss individual cases. But anyone aged under 18 would require a parent or guardian to sign a workplace agreement, she said.

"Any examples of employees feeling they have been treated unfairly can take their claim to the Office of Workplace Services," she said.

A part-time medical receptionist, Rhonda Walke, received a similar assurance from the Liberals' Danna Vale last November. The recently widowed Ms Walke got a comprehensive reply from her local MP, which included assurances that it would be "unlawful for an employer to apply duress in the negotiation of agreements, or to terminate an employee for refusing to negotiate an AWA".

On March 29, Ms Walke was handed a workplace agreement by the office manager, who insisted she sign it immediately. Ms Walke declined, saying she wished to take it home to study it in depth. The following day she told the manager there were several points she needed to clarify before signing. At lunchtime she was served termination papers on the grounds that her reluctance to sign proved she did not wish to become part of a team.

Ms Walke's case, with two other allegedly illegal dismissals involving older women, are now being investigated by the ACTU.

 

[leetom]

The above case of the sixteen-year-old is particularly worrying, as it is a picture of the worse-case-scenario that could befall students such as ourselves.

There is nothing to prevent what happened to that girl happening to any other student, other than the benelovence of your employer. The problem for students is that nobody cares much about our income woes as it is expected that we can all rely on our parents which for many of us- even those of us with high-income parents- is often not the case as our parents squander their income on personal indulgences.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well of course she feels the pain there, but then she goes to buy herself a juice and what do you know? The price has gone down due to cheaper labor.

 

[leetom]

Well of course she feels the pain there, but then she goes to buy herself a juice and what do you know? The price has gone down due to cheaper labor.

You don't know that. The money saved from cheaper labour is probably added to company profits. The girl's income loss could be offset by having the price of juice reduced, but then she would have to be a heavy consumer of juice for any real effect to take place.

 

[Generator]

Beazley flip on sackings
Labor promises family-friendly workplace
Winding back WorkChoices 'relatively simple': expert

Andrews hits out at Labor IR plans
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1614661.htm

Easter holiday 'a test' for new IR laws

---

Unlike the above, the following article isn't directly related to the IR reform agenda. However, given the timing, it's clear that it's an event that is of some relevance.

Workers win on infested shack case

 

[Generator]

IR laws potentially aid dodgy businesses

 

[Generator]

Employee claims he was sacked for smirking

 

[withoutaface]

Why is a company going to fire someone with 9 years experience (who is therefore productive and they've spent a lot of money training them) for something as small as that? There's obviously been ongoing problems and that was the last straw.

EDIT: Reading the employer's account makes it sound like the guy was a cockwipe.

 

[Generator]

I think that the employer was by far the more reasonable party, but it isn't as though he's free of any blame given that what he said, in the current situation, could (and was) quite easily be interpreted as being a veiled threat -

DANIEL HOARE: Did you tell them that you could sack them at any time?

JIM SUTTON: No. That was a complete lie, and there's 20 other people up here that will verify that. Sacking was never mentioned. All I said was that we now have got much more power to control our workforce.

DANIEL HOARE: In other words, you said your jobs aren't as secure as they used to be.

JIM SUTTON: I said, "If you people are not prepared to achieve the production rates that the management set, then you might as well not work here, because we cannot survive if you don't."

Without knowing the nature of the new/still to be set production rates relative to the abilities and productive capacity of the workers, there isn't much that we can say beyond that the the employer seems to have given the workers and the Union room to complain. For a more authoritative view, we'll just have to wait for the Office of Workplace Services to report, I guess.

 

[Generator]

Beazley uses accident to attack new IR laws

Beazley links Beaconsfield accident to IR laws

Beazley under pressure over Beaconsfield comments

An act of 'heartless' politicisation or the mobilisation of a current event for a credible purpose? I'm with the latter, even if the ALP's and ACTU's interpretation turns out to be rather excessive.

 

[_dhj_]

Beazley uses accident to attack new IR laws

Beazley links Beaconsfield accident to IR laws

Beazley under pressure over Beaconsfield comments

An act of 'heartless' politicisation or the mobilisation of a current event for a credible purpose? I'm with the latter, even if the ALP's and ACTU's interpretation turns out to be rather excessive.

Everything gets politicised. In this case, it's been poorly done and easily attacked.

 

[Rafy]

While you cant place union training provisions in employment contracts, OH+S laws still apply and therefore training would still be provided.

Anyway, a miscalculated remark from beazley, especially considering Steve Bracks has questioned its wisdom.

 

[Generator]

SBS - Insight

YOU'RE FIRED

In the run up to the implementation of the changes to the Workplace Relations Laws, there has been much fear, fury and also praise from people of all backgrounds and circumstance. Now they are here. So what are its effects in reality?

In the six weeks since the Federal Government introduced its new industrial relations laws, the news has not been good. Nearly every day there are reports of dismissals, pay cuts or workers claiming good working conditions have been reduced.

Workplace Relations Minister , Kevin Andrews, assures us that these are just teething problems, and that ultimately the new laws will result in greater productivity and prosperity all round.

The ALP has promised to scrap the laws should they gain power, and recent polls show the issue is starting to bite in marginal seats.

Previously, we’ve put together a program on proposals to change the Workplace Relations Laws and more recently, a program based on a hypothetical of what might happen when the new laws are introduced.

In INSIGHT’S ‘You’re Fired’, we bring together politicians both Liberal and Labor, unionist Bill Shorten, employer representatives and employers together with sacked employees, meatworkers and guest-workers to debate who is winning and who is losing in the Brave New Workplace.

‘YOU’RE FIRED’ will be broadcast on TUESDAY 9 MAY at 7.30pm on SBS. Repeated on FRIDAY at 1pm and MONDAY at 2pm.

 

[Generator]

The High Court challenge begins -

States challenge IR laws in High Court

Worker backs High Court IR challenge

 

[Generator]

Kirby warns of IR challenge's impact

Kirby warns of IR challenge's impact
Friday, May 5, 2006. 2:07pm (AEST)

The High Court has been warned the relationship between the states and the Commonwealth will be changed forever if the federal industrial relations (IR) laws are upheld.

The states and union groups are challenging the validity of the laws.

[continued - see link]

 

[Generator]

High Court reserves IR decision


Also, here's the transcript to the Tuesday's Insight, You're Fired!

 

[michael_77]

The IR reforms are a joke! They are aimed to abloish the minimum wage, so that the rich can earn more and the rest of Australia earns less. Lets just wait and see in 10 years time what the Australian public feels about these laws