Err, we heard you the first time. Like to see full detail but looking good!!

quote:

YOU won't get any shift penalties, public holiday rates, meal allowances or overtime and, whatever you do, don't adjust your bra. This is the new face of work in Australia's hotel and hospitality industry, where a template Australian Workplace Agreement is being rolled out that strips all award conditions and replaces them with a starting wage of just $13.47 an hour. At the same time, workers at one motel restaurant have been given instructions not to wear perfume or aftershave, nor to rub their nose or even "pull at a slipping bra strap". Unions described the moves as appalling but operators say they are just doing what they are legally entitled to under WorkChoices. Revelations about the standard workplace agreement for Goulburn's Lilac City Motor Inn and Steakhouse came as Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey admitted the Federal Government "got it wrong" when it introduced the WorkChoices laws without proper protection for those losing benefits. "We underestimated what would have happened if we put in place a system that may lead to people trading away penalty rates without fair compensation," he said. The agreement at the Goulburn Motor Inn strips just about every single award condition and penalty rate and replaces it with a starting wage of $13.47 an hour – the legal minimum under WorkChoices. A handbook distributed to staff also contains standards for grooming and hygiene, including bans on:  HAIR ornaments, necklaces, bracelets and rings (not wedding rings);  PERFUME and aftershave; and  RUNNING fingers through hair, pushing hair out of eyes, rubbing nose, scratching, adjusting clothing, yawning and "pulling at bra strap". Unions NSW secretary John Robertson said the rules were absurd. "Employment guidelines such as these are a further sign the balance in the workplace has shifted too far in favour of the employer," he said. Lilac City owner Don Doolan said the hygiene standards were drawn up by the motel but were largely aimed at people handling food. "It's a guideline only. I'm not going to sack you if you touch your hair," he said yesterday. Mr Doolan said the AWA removing staff conditions was a template workplace agreement drawn up by the Hotels, Motels and Accommodation Association. He said the HMAA had presented it as a standard AWA in line with the new laws. "We follow the Government legislation and that's all you can do as a citizen of Australia," he said.

link

but hey- its creating jobs isn't it? isn't it??

quote:

MARK COLVIN: The Prime Minister today mounted a counterattack on critics of his industrial relations laws. He says it's the WorkChoices system that's behind a surge in job creation. The latest employment figures put the jobless rate at a 32-year-low - just 4.5 per cent. More than 270,000 people have gained work in the last year, most of them full-time. And John Howard says the repeal of unfair dismissal laws is one of the reasons why. But leading labour market economists have disagreed, as Economics Correspondent Stephen Long reports. STEPHEN LONG: Three months, six months, even nine months in, John Howard says it would have been too early to make any definitive claims about the impact of the Work Choices laws on job creation. A year on, he isn't holding back. JOHN HOWARD: I do believe, after a year, and a year in which 276,000 new jobs have been created, it is reasonable to assert that one of the contributions made to this spectacular growth in employment has been the removal of the unfair dismissal provisions under WorkChoices. STEPHEN LONG: The Prime Minister says the repeal of unfair dismissal protections has given smaller employers the confidence to hire. JOHN HOWARD: There is no doubt in my mind that there is a greater incentive for small business to take on new staff now that the threat of unfair dismissal action has been removed. STEPHEN LONG: But economists with labour market expertise have plenty of doubts. BOB GREGORY: Nobody would believe that those sort of policies could have anywhere near that impact. STEPHEN LONG: Professor Bob Gregory of the ANU is a labour market economist of international renown. BOB GREGORY: I mean, the major source of all this growth is the strong growth in the economy, which is mainly being driven by China, both through cheaper import prices and stronger export demand. STEPHEN LONG: And that's what conventional economic theory would tell you, that aggregate demand in the economy is the main driver of employment growth, regardless of the settings for industrial relations policy? BOB GREGORY: Yeah, there's no doubt about that. But the interesting issue, and the difficult issue is how much of a contribution might WorkChoices have made. STEPHEN LONG: What do you think? BOB GREGORY: Well, my personal view is not very much. And I'm basing that on the following pieces of evidence: WorkChoices applies to all Australia, and all Australians, and it's likely to bite most of all… impact most of all, on the unskilled. But when we look at the growth of demand for unskilled workers, it's almost all centred in WA and Queensland. Victoria and New South Wales have done nowhere near as well. And so that's a bit of a puzzle if you want to argue WorkChoices, because WorkChoices should apply across the board. STEPHEN LONG: That would suggest more that the employment growth has been driven by the huge mining boom and the spin-off job creation. BOB GREGORY: That's right. That's right. STEPHEN LONG: In other words, it's the economy, stupid. And that's also the view of David Peetz of Griffith University. He isn't the Government's favourite researcher. It's attacked his involvement in a trade union choir, and maligned his poetry. But in academic circles, Professor Peetz's research is well regarded. And he points out that job creation was stronger when the federal unfair dismissal laws were first introduced in 1994 than after their repeal - 4.4 per cent versus 3.7 per cent now. DAVID PEETZ: Well nobody would make an argument that the introduction of unfair dismissal laws led to this splurge in job creation, just as I don't think you can make an argument that the abolition of the unfair dismissal laws led to jobs raining down upon us. STEPHEN LONG: But what about the fact that 96 per cent of the jobs growth over the past year has been full-time? JOHN HOWARD: There's a reason for that, and the reason is not only that people feel freer to make commitments in relation to new employees because they realise with the removal of the unfair dismissal laws they can, if things don't work out, let somebody go. But the other reason is that the old unfair dismissal laws provided an incentive for people to be employed on a casual basis, because the old unfair dismissal laws did not apply to somebody except where that casual person worked regular and systematic hours for more than 12 months. STEPHEN LONG: Professor Bob Gregory is sceptical. BOB GREGORY: I'm not sure about that. It's certainly true there has been strong growth in full-time employment, and that's good, because we have lots of people who want to work full-time. But my guess again is that the growth in full-time is primarily being generated by the industry mix, the sort of jobs that are being created around building, export industries, and the point I made earlier, that perhaps in hospitality the hours worked are tending to go up. STEPHEN LONG: Professor David Peetz argues it's because more people want, and some times need, full-time work. DAVID PEETZ: What we've been seeing in the current decade is that most of the supply of labour has been people wanting full-time work. In the 1990s, the supply of labour had a very large component of people looking for part-time work. But now people are only really interested in full-time work. These days people can't really afford to just go looking for part-time work, with the high levels of debt and increasing interest rates. MARK COLVIN: Professor David Peetz of Griffith University. Stephen Long was the reporter.

link

surprise surprise.

___________________

quote:

WOMEN in low-paid jobs are even worse off under the Federal Government's Work Choices regime, a NSW Government-funded study has found. NSW Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca will announce the NSW study's findings in full later today. But this morning he said women at the lower paid end of the jobs spectrum were being exploited under the Federal Government's new workplace laws. "They are left in a situation with diminished circumstances, diminished mental health, and of course a diminished ability to contribute to the community," he told ABC radio. The study of 25 NSW women was jointly funded by the State Government and the University of Sydney, and was written by Associate Professor Marian Baird and Dr Rae Cooper. They undertook in-depth interviews with women in low-paid jobs, who they say have been directly affected by Work Choices. Low-paid women, whose wages and conditions were previously guaranteed by the award system, are among the most vulnerable to the changes introduced by Work Choices, the study said. These women have suffered pay cuts, work intensification, job insecurity and frequent abuses of managerial power, the authors said. They found women are struggling financially as a result of the changes at work and this is having a direct effect on their capacity for financial independence. To make ends meet, they are becoming more dependent upon family members, male partners and welfare. As well, the study found considerable evidence that women had internalised many of the changes and felt powerless and fearful as a result. This had made women less healthy and more unhappy, and was proving corrosive to family and community life, it found.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22163928-2,00.html

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by batemanscott No ofence mate, but I'd love to see you invest a million dollars of your own money into a venture then not be able to fire somebody who is stealing from you without paying him to leave due to unfair dismissal laws (as my parenmts had to do). Generally if you do your job well you'll be an asset to the company you work for. Talk to most company owners and they'll tell you their greatest asset is their staff. I'm sure if you do your job well your boss wont want to lose you by dicking you around. Most employers complain that it is hard to find good staff so again, do your job well - why would they fire you? I dont plan to be an employee for any longer then i have to, so for me....go johnny go! This could save me alot of bullshit in time to come.

Thank-you!

We're in exactly the same situation.

We can't fire people without a major hassle, even if they're doing deliberate malicious damage to the business!

Unions are such a bunch of fucking thugs, they abuse their power so much.

It's very hard to strike a balance with the laws, because there are as many bad employers as there are employees, and someone will always abuse the law if they can, but these new IR laws are a step in the right direction.

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog Thank-you! We're in exactly the same situation. We can't fire people without a major hassle, even if they're doing deliberate malicious damage to the business! Unions are such a bunch of fucking thugs, they abuse their power so much. It's very hard to strike a balance with the laws, because there are as many bad employers as there are employees, and someone will always abuse the law if they can, but these new IR laws are a step in the right direction.

Under the current IR "reforms" you can sack anyone you like and the only recourse they have is through the courts!! Very few employees can afford court action! Particularly ex employed !!

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog Unions are such a bunch of fucking thugs, they abuse their power so much.

unlike bosses of course!!

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog It's very hard to strike a balance with the laws, because there are as many bad employers as there are employees, and someone will always abuse the law if they can, but these new IR laws are a step in the right direction.

bollocks. and labor will win the election so you wont have some of those laws anymore. ha. labor's amendments are a step in the right direction.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN unlike bosses of course!!

Did I not just say that there are good and bad employers?

At the moment, workers have far more power than employers.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN bollocks. and labor will win the election so you wont have some of those laws anymore. ha. labor's amendments are a step in the right direction.

Mate, I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm guessing around 20-21, since you seem to play computer games all day, and never work.

Once you work full time you will realise that the amount of people out to screw their bosses is ridiculous. On the other hand, it's not in a bosses' best interest to screw their workers, because that leads to strikes, legal action and loss of money.

My sister and I both work in the building industry. I don't know how unions are in other industries, but in in building/construction, they are malicious bastards.

Often they will shut down sites for two or three days because of something trivial, like the fact that there are ten people on site, and only nine chairs, or, the workers have to walk through rain for 5 metres to reach their lunchrooms from the main site. These are both real examples that have happened to us by the way.

The result is that the workers get paid for those two days, while we get sued by our clients for lost time, and therefore lose money, and fuck up our own lives, so don't tell me that Labor handing power back to the unions is a good thing - there's fuck all left to hand back, they already have it all.

Besides strikes and closed work sites, there are thousands of workers that fake long-term injuries (backs usually) and go onto compensation, without doing any work, yet their employers can't fire them because of the law. Then the company has to pay them for 3-4 years, without any productivity.

THIS is my point. If the law were more lax, unscrupulous bosses would fire people left right and centre, but with stricter laws, it allows the workers to screw the fuck out of their bosses. It's a fine line, and the law may never be able to please both parties.

Answer this though - if you're doing your job, and your boss is happy, what reason is there for him to fire you? Huh? It's because people are so fucking lazy that these laws are introduced.

I often work overtime without being asked, or asking for more money, hell, the other friday I stayed back til 11pm to get shit done. As a result my boss will never fire me, because he knows I work my arse off.

On the other hand, there are lazy fucks taking ninety minute smokos, stealing stuff etc, then complain when their boss fires them. If they did their fucking job, they wouldn't have to worry about it.

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

quote:

Originally posted by DIDI Under the current IR "reforms" you can sack anyone you like and the only recourse they have is through the courts!! Very few employees can afford court action! Particularly ex employed !!

So??

So what???

If you do your fucking job properly, you don't need to worry about getting sacked. Why would your boss sack you if you are doing a great job? Conversely,why would a boss want to keep a dud worker who is losing them money?

Besides, that's NOT the law, that's just what you've been led to believe. There are still unfair dismissal laws to prevent pregnant women or people with a genuine sickness from being fired - which I completely agree with. There need to be laws in place to prevent shit like that from happening, because that's just wrong.

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Mate, I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm guessing around 20-21, since you seem to play computer games all day, and never work. Once you work full time you will realise that the amount of people out to screw their bosses is ridiculous. On the other hand, it's not in a bosses' best interest to screw their workers, because that leads to strikes, legal action and loss of money.

Sorry, I just remembered that you work full-time in some form of government department, do you not?

Well, that just proves to me that you are naive on this subject. Enter a private or public company of any size, and you will see clearly on the subject of employers/employees and unions/employees.

How can you comment on this with any authority if you work in government?

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog So?? So what??? If you do your fucking job properly, you don't need to worry about getting sacked. Why would your boss sack you if you are doing a great job? Conversely,why would a boss want to keep a dud worker who is losing them money? Besides, that's NOT the law, that's just what you've been led to believe. There are still unfair dismissal laws to prevent pregnant women or people with a genuine sickness from being fired - which I completely agree with. There need to be laws in place to prevent shit like that from happening, because that's just wrong.

[IMG]

BAHAHAHAHAHA.

I have!

Part of my job involves industrial relations, and I studied all the new laws when they came out.

You can't just fire people for no reason. There is still such a thing as unfair dismissal...at least in this industry.

Anyway, I'm over this thread already. I hate politics, because no one is ever going to make the other person see the light. Arguing/discussion is pointless, and just brings about unnecessary anger.

I'll just say this: you enjoy your life, whinging about the law and how you'd be earning 200K a year if they changed it, and I'll just ignore whatever they do and get on with actually working my way towards a 200K salary.

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide