Work(NO)Choices.....Proof of workers screwed.

member34258 · Joined: 05 Nov 2006

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22107704-661,00.html

stui magpie · Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:42 pm

I know Steve jones. great politician, I don't think maths is his strong suit.

This was a case of a non union industrial agreement voted on and accepted by workers, not AWA's from what I read.

Proud Pies · Joined: 22 Feb 2003 Location: Knox-ish

I personally know Steven Jones, have for many many years, in fact, one of the greatest teachers i ever had in Industrial Relations Law. (He is a Lawyer). What's math's got to do with it?

It's a non union collective agreement,but when your looking at NO JOB, as opposed to A job, you'll vote for anything.

London Dave · Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:33 am

stui magpie · Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:55 am

Steve is good at putting spin on things, as he should be in his role. I'm not disparaging him for that.

Couple of key things in this for me.

The words "up to" in front of the $ reduction means it's a hypothetical maximum rather than a real figure.

The bit "WORKERS will no longer be entitled to representation at meetings to resolve disputes" is tricky because it doesn't mean that they can't have a representative, it means that the previous agreement was worded to state that they could and the new one doesn't have that clause. They may still be able to bring a rep to meetings regarding a dispute under company policy but that could be anyone, not necessarily a union rep. This isn't necessarily a negative for the people, it's a perceieved negative for the union as they no longer have the "right" to attend.

The part about overtime, it's very common to have clauses in industrial agreements that require people to work "reasonable" overtime.

I actually read thru the AAPT Bendigo agreement a couple of years ago and noted it was reasonably generous compared to the industry.

AAPT walked out because I assume they felt it was no longer commercially viable. That may be a case of the union doing too good a job negotiating conditions of employment.

The new employer came in with a brief to save jobs, but they aren't a charity and won't be prepared to make a loss on the exercise.

So how do you take a business that is making a loss and turn it around to at least break even or hopefully making a profit? Increase productivity and reduce costs.

AAPT decided to reduce costs by closing the centre down, the new people don't have that choice so they have to reduce costs (in part) by cutting wages.

As others said, would you rather take a pay cut or lose your job?

Last point, I'll assume Steve was mis-quoted on this bit because he doesn't deliberately lie.

Culprit · Joined: 06 Feb 2003 Location: Port Melbourne

Anyone who actually thinks they have rights under this legislation obviously have not read the fine print. The devil is in the detail and depsite the mega bucks being spent to let us all know how fair it is simply spin to sway voters.

Sure you cannot be sacked if you do not sign an agreement. In saying that if they turn around and say due to no work you are dismissed then that is legit. You will have ot take them to court and prove they fired you for not signing. Very hard when you have no money.

The other one about anyone under the age of 18 can have their parent or guardian read it and sign for them is a bigger joke. Your kid wants a job. Your work choice is, Sign he/she is employed. Don't sign he/she can keep looking.

Australians are dumb and apathetic by nature and have just started to wake up to these laws. Don't be fooled by Rudd either, these laws will not change they are here to stay as big buisness dictates what they require.

The laws have been used to cut back the workers who feel they have no choice but to sign. These are the workers we need safety nets for as they are most likely from poor, non english speaking areas etc.

member34258 · Joined: 05 Nov 2006