TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Australia
-- IR Reform
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
gumble's moral of the story: you dont have to be useful to be amusing 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN gumble's moral of the story: you dont have to be useful to be amusing |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by RobSolaris hmm house dont suck nomore? thats right prog house rox! |
and so it begins 
| quote: |
ONE of the eight unionists sacked by a Melbourne company as new labour laws came into force this week intends to mount an unfair dismissal claim against his former employer. The eight men, all long-term employees at Triangle Cables, in Port Melbourne, were given up to four weeks' wages in lieu of notice and told yesterday their services were no longer required. Triangle Cables has fewer than 100 employees and is exempt from unfair dismissal claims under the new Work Choices laws that became effective on Monday. ACTU Secretary Greg Combet alleged today that the eight workers were sacked because of their union membership or union activities. Mr Combet also claimed the company had restructured itself to have fewer than 100 workers so it was exempt from unfair dismissal claims. The 58-year-old worker who plans to take action, known only as Richard, was a machine operator with the company. He said he was given no explanation for his sacking. \"Nothing, absolutely nothing. I was given an envelope and on there it just said, `Please be informed that your services are no longer required by Triangle Cables. Consequently, your employment is terminated',\" he told ABC radio today. \"There was no reason given at all beyond that quote.\" Richard said he had had clashes with the company's owners and had \"made a little bit of noise\" about occupational health and safety issues. He said he plans to take action against the company for unfair dismissal. \"That's what I'm hoping. That's why I'm at union headquarters at the moment, and I'm hoping that I can make that claim,\" he said. \"I will endeavour to do that ... probably in the next day or so.\" Earlier today, Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews said if the ACTU claim about the workers was correct, the eight men could have a case for unlawful dismissal. \"If that's true then this is an unlawful dismissal, they have a case and indeed the onus would fall on the employer to show that they were sacked for some other reason, rather than being members of the union or engaged in union activities,\" Mr Andrews told ABC radio. \"Mr Combet also said that he believed the company had restructured itself to have less than 100 employees – that's also provided for in the legislation. \"A company can't do that without penalty. \"We actually thought about this and we put a specific provision in the legislation to prohibit that sort of conduct.\" |
I wasn't around for the start of this thread, so I missed this.
unfair dismissal laws sucked for sure. As a manager, I had staff I'd love to replace, people who were absolutely lazy or just plain hopeless. others who would have been more productive weren't able to be employed as the positions were filled.
The new laws however are a disgrace. If you are employed in a small business, you now have no job security. Sure or economy is gong strong now, and has for last 5-10 years (we were one of the only ecomies not to be knocked about by 9/11), but what will happen at some point in the future if we go into recession? many people will lose their jobs just because the profits are falling, and business can not keep staff on. Employers will be able to just say 'sorry we have no work for you' and the employees will have no recourse for action.
I am no unionist (I think they were becoming more and more redundant until now) but I can not agree with the IR reforms. Worst decision by this govt.
As for earlier posts about people stealing, that was grounds for dismissal (proof certainly helps), but I think the laws only needed to change from the 3 warnings, back to 1 warning. That way the employee is given the opportunity to alter their behaviour, and then if that fails, bye bye. Now it's just see ya.
Kevin Andrews was asked on Lateline on Monday what would happen if a boss just didn't like the employee, and his answer was along the lines of 'from time to time there will be personality clashes' indicating it is ok to sack someone in this instance. This is seriously bad news.
You can also kiss goodbye to penalty rates, weekend rates, RDO's meal breaks etc if you get a new job, and the employer is a tight ass.
A great example of why these reforms are wrong is the 3 cabinet makets sacked yesterday and hired back as casual labour. They had wages, vans, and mobiles all provided by the company, and they were obviously not the so called troublemakers that we keep hearing about, as the company is hiring them back. Bottom line, more money in the companies pocket. Somehow I don't think this will be passed on to their customers.
I believe that if you are prepared to work a forty hour week and are reasonably competent at your job you should have an expectation of a living wage. Any company that can't afford to pay their employees a living wage should not be in business. Why should your average wage earner have to subsidise other people's business.
We did need change, the warning system did make problems, however they were few and far between. Interesting that in the 1400 odd pages of the reforms the promise of $4000 to help people with unlawful dismissal claims doesn't seem to have rated a guernsey. It was pretty useless anyway the average cost to mount a case like this is apparently more like $30,000, which means it's way out of most people's range particularly if you don't have a job.
Most of the people on these forums won't suffer, they are the type of people that employers want to keep [lot of university people here] The poorly educated , unskilled labour will be the biggest loser particularly in combination with the unskilled visa's for overseas worker who are being paid in their own currencies. I must admit I was shocked that the cabinet makers got the chop though, I would have considered them the type of skilled labour that wouldn't have been vulnerable to these "reforms".
It makes me very sad to see a society's profits based on the suffering of people. And we won't hear from most of these people. They have neither voice or resource.
skot_e, good to see it from both sides.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DIDI the promise of $4000 to help people with unlawful dismissal claims doesn't seem to have rated a guernsey. It was pretty useless anyway the average cost to mount a case like this is apparently more like $30,000, which means it's way out of most people's range particularly if you don't have a job.. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by gumble I'm in a Union, wear a blue singlet and drink VB, and i think the proposed reforms are shithouse. And I'm also sick of all these damn foreigners taken the farken jobs. And this country went down the shitter when we gave women the vote. First that, now guys have to fork out heaps for child support and we've got bloody poofs running around out in the open. Its a bloody disgrace. |
somebody's gotta defend the little people, and it sure ain't johnny!
Do your jobs efficiently and effectively and you wont need to worry... If that means not posting on forums then dont post!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN nah, i disagree. this has been something they've wanted to do since they came into office and has been a background feature always. and by that i mean abolishing the right of any worker in a small business from accessing tribunals. when they have control of the senate as parliament resumes this will be going through at some stage for sure. unless the union movement can get enough people agitated about it (i dont think so) amendments will be flying through to the keeper quicker than shane warne's last fuck. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Paulie Do your jobs efficiently and effectively and you wont need to worry... If that means not posting on forums then dont post! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by eRRaTiK somebody's gotta defend the little people, and it sure ain't johnny! |
| quote: |
| um, yeah. coz good workers have never been taken advantage of or sexually harassed or abused or pressured in any way!! |
PKC is oblivious to that tathi, cause hes time is busy spent in between hairy ass cheeks!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Paulie PKC is oblivious to that tathi, cause hes time is busy spent in between hairy ass cheeks! |
keep up the good work johnny.
| quote: |
A WOMAN sacked while on maternity leave says she has no choice but to accept the decision because it's too expensive to mount a legal challenge under the Federal Government's industrial changes. Elaine Gray was sacked from her job as marketing manager at Dialect Solutions, a payments technology company, five months into maternity leave. She was not given any notice and was also denied termination pay. The Government's industrial legislation, Work Choices, allows employers to sack workers for operational reasons. If a company employs less than 100 people, as is the case with Dialect Solutions, Work Choices removes unfair dismissal protection for employees who are made redundant. Under the previous industrial relations (IR) regime, employees who felt they had been unfairly dismissed could challenge their termination in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC).Now, employees of companies with less than 100 workers, can only challenge terminations through an unlawful termination action, which progresses to the Federal Court if it fails to be resolved in the AIRC during conciliation. Ms Gray said that five months after giving birth to her son, Paul, she received a call from Dialect Solutions informing her she no longer had a job at the company. She said she spent as much as she could on legal advice and was informed that she had been treated unfairly on the grounds of unlawful termination. However, in correspondence with her Dialect Solutions she was told they believed she had not been treated unfairly. \"The next step was to take it further, which, with a new house, mortgage, family to raise, that's not a situation that we're able to entertain,\" Ms Gray said in Sydney today. Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said Ms Gray's situation showed the danger the Federal Government's Work Choices legislation posed to Australian workers. \"You can come back from maternity leave like Elaine Gray and be sacked and there is no recourse,\" Mr Beazley said. \"If you're employed by a company that employs less than 100 ... you're just gone.\" |
So I guess the chances of full paid maternity leave aint gonna happen.
Don't know if it was in SA or reported nationally or not, but there was a group of abatoir workers all sack and offered their jobs back under a contract. They took their dispute to the new body (whatever its called) and the body ruled in favour of the business as they argued that they would go broke if they didn't make changes. Disgraceful.
I work at a pretty fucking shite company (one that will hire asians over aussies because they tend not to 'speak out' when they're being fucked over) but i found out they are attempting to surreptitiously outsource our department to the Phillipines, i hope i've left the country by then!
That's shite dude. how long you need to hang on?
these reforms are going to fuck over this country. it's now easier to sack staff, so that will make it easier to do just what you say and send jobs offshore. The economy will suffer, and businesses will then suffer, and retrench their staff. Vicious cycle.
Although i didn't want the GST it has strengthened our economy (largely because the govt takes more of our money in tax), but the IR reforms - Howard will be cursed and criticised for many years.
I've just seen Acting Minister Ruddock say on the news that it's still illegal to sack someone on maternity leave. i guess they'll have to reinstate this poor woman, and then wait till her first day back.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by skot_e That's shite dude. how long you need to hang on? these reforms are going to fuck over this country. it's now easier to sack staff, so that will make it easier to do just what you say and send jobs offshore. The economy will suffer, and businesses will then suffer, and retrench their staff. Vicious cycle. Although i didn't want the GST it has strengthened our economy (largely because the govt takes more of our money in tax), but the IR reforms - Howard will be cursed and criticised for many years. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tathi I leave November 7th so hopefully they hold out until then! |
i'll give him tonydanza's mobile
One thing is clear: any IR dispute has just become a hell of a lot more expensive. Before, industrial disputes were handled in the IRC, but now they are handled in real courts. Any small business could now be sent broke by ridiculous lawsuits from unscrupulous ex-employees, even if they win. Before, it was alot cheaper to fight industrial disputes.
I guess the big winners out of these laws aren't really small business, but solicitors. Guess who was a lawyer before they entered politics...
nothing like a bit of middle-road politics aye? i think this is much more like it, and a much fairer system for all concerned.
vote 1 labor people.
| quote: |
NOT all workers will regain unfair dismissal protection and there will be mandatory secret ballots before strikes, under huge changes to Labor's industrial relations policies announced today. Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd used his first major speech to the National Press Club in Canberra to unveil his long-awaited plans for industrial relations, expected to be a major battleground at this year's federal election. Mr Rudd vowed not to reintroduce the state-based industrial relations regime, insisting he would create a uniform, national system. �Some in the labour movement have argued for the return to a predominantly state-based jurisdiction. I reject that view,� he said. �A federal Labor government will achieve nationally consistent laws for the private sector. �This will be achieved by the state governments referring powers for their residual responsibilities for private sector industrial relations or through other forms of cooperation or harmonisation.� Mr Rudd said secret ballots before strikes would be mandatory under a Labor government � the first time the ALP has demanded such a requirement. Labor also would ban strike pay, and would restore only limited unfair dismissal protection. The policies are in response to the Howard government's Work Choices laws, which polls show are unpopular with voters. Today's IR pitch was carefully crafted to increase Labor's appeal to the small business community. Mr Rudd said the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) had been a key player in formulating the new policies, alongside the business community. A Labor government would still rip up Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). But Mr Rudd admitted the changes would anger some unions. �Obviously various members of the trade union movement will have reservations about this, some of them have expressed those reservations to us,� he said. �Our challenge, however, is to get the balance right between them on the one hand and small business' need for flexibility on the other. �We think we've got the balance right, and this will be the policy we take to the election.� Mr Rudd said his new unfair dismissal approach was a significant change to Labor's previous position, while saying it �passes the common sense test�. Under the new policy, bosses with fewer than 15 staff can still sack employees for any reason if they have worked for the company for less than a year. For businesses employing more than 15 people, employees will be exempt from unfair dismissal laws for six months. Mr Rudd said the policy struck the right balance between workers and small business' need for greater flexibility. He also promised to streamline the process for hearing unfair dismissal claims. A new industrial umpire with offices in regional and suburban areas would be able to go to workplaces to resolve claims quickly, without lawyers' involvement and through discussion. �If that can't be done, the umpire will make a quick decision so the parties can move on,� Mr Rudd said. Mr Rudd said a Labor government would abolish strike pay, and strikes would continue to be banned unless they were taken in pursuit of an enterprise bargaining agreement. �There can be no going back to the industrial culture of an earlier age, that is why a further reform of the industrial relations culture we propose will be to outlaw industrial action unless there is a secret ballot,� Mr Rudd said. The laws were needed to make the point that industrial disputes were serious, hurting workers, their families, businesses and the community, Mr Rudd said. |
Err, we heard you the first time. Like to see full detail but looking good!!
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.