More evidence of WorkChoices Rip Offs

[nomadjack]

More irrefutable evidence to substantiate what most people already know and what many have experienced. Kiss your arse goodbye Howard.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/09/12/1189276809758.html

Lets hear the apologists.

[Skids]

I signed an AWA in May and it's Excellent!

[Dave The Man]

AWA is Crap can't wait to those Liberal Idiots are kicked out of Parlement

[Magpie Jack]

The new IR laws are a disgrace.

Fortunately it looks like the people who brought them in are going to lose their job over it. Ironic justice.

I work as a casual in stores and drive a fork lift, mainly for agencies like Skilled etc. (Skilled are good to work for)

Working on the shop floor in lots of different locations I can tel you there is horror story after horror story out there.

The weak and the vulnerable are being exploited and ripped off. Don't be fooled by the mining AWAs and Government mid management AWAs which are being used as the shining examples. The people being hurt are the defenceless ones down the bottom, the very people that should be getting protection from the Government.

The laws themselves are not the only disgrace, so are the ads that have been written by fine print lawyers and read out by pretty girls. They are just a pack of lies. You sign or you go work somewhere else, that's the way it works. As if a floor sweeper in a factory with limited English is going to make written submissions to the Ombudsman. Can you imagine what that guy will be working for when the economy stalls and unemployment goes up.

The laws have to go. We have to stick up for the little people.

[stui magpie]

Hello people, the article has nothing to do with AWA's.

[nomadjack]

As you well know Stui, WorkChoices was not just about introducing AWA's it was also about stripping back protections such as union access to the workplace and employees capacity to seek redress if unfairly dismissed. You ask if the collective agreements were so bad why did they get up? Gee, do you think it had something to do with the bargaining power of low-skilled employees being completely undermined by the new laws?

"In the first round of bargaining, under the best macro-economic conditions in a generation, agreements rarely raised employees' work standards and usually lowered them," said the report's author, Justine Evesson.

I've asked this before (without answer) but again, how do you think the laws will function when unemployment increases as it will, even further undermining what limited bargaining power workers still have?

"The study shows Saturday penalty rates were abolished in 76 per cent of WorkChoices collective agreements, Sunday penalties in 71 per cent, overtime rates in 68 per cent, public holiday rates in 60 per cent, and paid breaks in 55 per cent.

All these conditions were stamped "protected by law" in government advertising in 2005."

Some protection

Half of all agreements followed a template, and consultant Enterprise Initiatives produced a quarter of all 339 agreements studied, mocking the Government's claim that its law was about increasing employer-employee negotiation, and eliminating the third parties.

The only third parties the government wanted removed were unions. Apparently it's fine for consultants to help business develop agreements, but not unions on behalf of workers.

The study has, for the first time, calculated the real-world pay rates for workers in retail and hospitality who are moved from award rates to new non-union collective agreements, by modelling how standard rosters in these industry interacted with the new pay rates. They found most people were worse off, with part-time, casual and weekend workers hardest hit.

Only about 25 per cent of workers had agreements that improved on the minimum standards and kept award conditions, and most of these agreements were in larger workplaces, or negotiated by unions.

"This study reveals that the shift from award to statutory-based enforceable rights has profound implications in sectors where workers have limited choices," Ms Evesson wrote.

Reap what you have sown you miserable pack of bastards! It will be three terms at least before you recover from the hit you are about to cop.

[stui magpie]

Mate, you talk about bargaining power for low skilled employees.

There's two types of collective agreements. one is negotiated with a union(s) that cover the employees, the other is prepared by the employer with or without employee input.

In both cases however, it takes a proper vote of more than 50% of employees to accept the agreement before it can be certified. We're talking secret ballot here, not show of hands.

If the proposed agreement dilutes the award and you aren't happy with it, don't vote yes. That's where the bargaining power is. Fall back? you stay on the award conditions. Things stay the same.

You mentioned restricting union access to the workplace. Do you even know what the right of entry provisions are? They're hardly unduly restrictive.

IMO, that article was written by some hack who has no understanding of the subject material and latched onto some facts in a study and thought to use them to further the Aged left wing agenda. yes, I think the Aged is a left wing rag. If it wasn't for their sports coverage I wouldn't even go to their website. At least the Hun has some token left wingers to balance Andrew Bolt.

As far as the unfair dismissal laws go, under the IR reform act 1984 which was the predecessor to the workplace relations act (and had it's origins at the turn of the century) businesses with 15 employees or less were exempt from unfair dismissal. That exemption wasn't carried on in the 96 workplace relations act. The oversight was corrected in the workchoices legislation and the exemption expanded from 15 to 100 employees. Something new and nasty? No.

[Alec. J. Hidell]

I thought you said you were unemployed Stui?

[stui magpie]

I am at the moment Frank. Why? you offerring me a job?