RodN Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 Unfortunately it is the average worker that will suffer from any industrial reforms that have been brought on by overpaid workers in one militant industry. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ahhh so here's the nub of it, it's the unions fault that liberal is bringing in reforms. This is interesting as that is not what Liberal is saying why. Their argument is that is NOONE will suffer and everyone will benefit because people running a business are all of a sudden going to become uncompetitive to protect the current conditions of their staff. And as far as helping the ones that are really bad off then I would have thought maintaining the current safety net and going upwards of there would be a good start (rather than reducing it to one or two items which don't include things like overtime and 'unfair dismissal'.) PS: Population growth is one of the only ways to ensure that the economy continues to grow - the last thin we need is neutral or negative population growth otherwise we'd really be in trouble!
riley454 Posted November 10, 2005 Author Posted November 10, 2005 Ahhh so here's the nub of it, it's the unions fault that liberal is bringing in reforms. This is interesting as that is not what Liberal is saying why. Their argument is that is NOONE will suffer and everyone will benefit because people running a business are all of a sudden going to become uncompetitive to protect the current conditions of their staff. And as far as helping the ones that are really bad off then I would have thought maintaining the current safety net and going upwards of there would be a good start (rather than reducing it to one or two items which don't include things like overtime and 'unfair dismissal'.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Any company that is in the race for a government project knows all too well the potential delays and additional costs that will occur because of union requirements. There are only a handful of companies that will tender for major government projects. They all incorporate these 'unexpected costs' into their budget. And add their profit margin. Who the f#@k do you think pays for these overpriced government projects, and who do you think pays when the budget is blown out because of union problems? I DO, YOU DO and EVERYBODY who pays taxes does!
RodN Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 Ok now we're getting wound up..... All I was trying to say was that removing some militant unions power does not have to come at the expense of all those other poor buggers in other industries already extremely 'general' conditions as you put it like your local checkout chick.
Santa1503559644 Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 PS: Population growth is one of the only ways to ensure that the economy continues to grow - the last thin we need is neutral or negative population growth otherwise we'd really be in trouble! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dont you just love the outdated fallacies of the early industrial revolution! Wake up and smell the smoke... we're going to cane the last bit of life out of the planet as soon as possible on the altar of endless, ceaseless, "economic growth". BTW: A rhetorical question ... what have "The Economy" & Cancer got in common?
RodN Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 Dont you just love the outdated fallacies of the early industrial revolution!Wake up and smell the smoke... we're going to cane the last bit of life out of the planet as soon as possible on the altar of endless, ceaseless, "economic growth". BTW: A rhetorical question ... what have "The Economy" & Cancer got in common? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> hehe yes I agree, I was being very economics oriented in response, as to the answer to this who knows as we all know that is exactly how the economists think!
riley454 Posted November 10, 2005 Author Posted November 10, 2005 All I was trying to say was that removing some militant unions power does not have to come at the expense of all those other poor buggers in other industries already extremely 'general' conditions as you put it like your local checkout chick. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry nobby, but it's all too late. Its the militant power that was established many years ago(ie Painters & Dockers and Normie Gs BLF) that set the standard. Now the worthless employees that have found their way into these 'professions' refuse to take a step back and be paid in accordance with the rest of the working community that have caused the harsh industrial reforms the Howard government are trying to implement. Don't get me wrong, I think JWH is a major dork come school punchbag, but the industrial issues that are now coming home to roost, were created way before I even knew what work was!
HoffY Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 Generally speaking, most of us are getting what we are worth in whatever field of employment we are in. .... i'm sorry but perhaps in the hustling city of Melb its like this... step 'outside' and its not. Now i'm not knocking the work of administration in this exmple but my wages for years were far below that of a "check out chick" or admin person, and even a trolly pusher at Coles! And this area involves plenty of skill and the other 70% manual labour... flat out.. all day (based on hours so you're always flat out.. times money). The industry i speak of being fabrication. And there are plenty of other jobs that are far more difficult and 'tuff' that get similarly LOW wages while "desk jokies" get far greater pay. i was horrified (not totally as i new a few cases that showed me before) when my Mrs told me she used to get what amounted to twice the wages i was on. And i was on those wages after YEARS, after being naturally skilled and a very fast learner, going fast to the 'top'. I really dont feel the rates as a whole arefair. Perhaps this is something thats impossible to fix. But its a very inconsistant (and often insulting) fact. it is back-to-front. The harder you work.. the less you get paid (i mean this literally, plenty of none physical work that bring in big coin). just a rant PS. This particular area's main economy runs off engineering/manufacter. So its a huge thing here.. and hardly "most of us are getting what we are worth".
DrP Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 'Unemployment' figures in this country are a joke anyway. What on earth is the point of a statistic when that statistic counts people as being employed even when they don't earn enough from that 'employment' to feed themselves and have to fall back to either a government payment or outright charity. How about giving us an 'earning enough to survive on' statistic instead of the current 'unemployment' one. How about giving us a 'working poor' statistic. Wouldn't look so rosy eh Mr Howard?!
Santa1503559644 Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 Oh yeah. But dont expect people to be paid in relation to effort expended. If everything was turned upside down, and the CEOs, pollies, lawyers, real estate agents, etc got paid far less than manual labourers, then... No-one would "invest" in expensive pieces of paper (aka "meal tickets") from Unis! Until relatively recently, bright people went to Uni for an education. Nowadays, everyone and their dog goes for the opportunity to make more money ... nothing to do with knowledge!
Aloysius Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 Dont you just love the outdated fallacies of the early industrial revolution!Wake up and smell the smoke... we're going to cane the last bit of life out of the planet as soon as possible on the altar of endless, ceaseless, "economic growth". BTW: A rhetorical question ... what have "The Economy" & Cancer got in common? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yep! the early Industrial Revolution, the time of the Luddites - do read about them, and hear the echoes in todays forums - the future will come in spite of highminded and sincere opposition. Wrong then, probably wrong now. Apocalyptic visions of the end of our planet then too - 300 years ago - with a life expectancy of 46 years, folks hungry, and folks being sent to Australia. John Galsworthy wrote a play back then, about a guy who refused to have kids because the world was going down hill in a basket. He was a really nice guy - but wrong. Get a little optimism guys, lighten up, LIFE IS VERY GOOD! - Depending on our point of view. ie it's our choice.
HoffY Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 'Unemployment' figures in this country are a joke anyway. What on earth is the point of a statistic when that statistic counts people as being employed even when they don't earn enough from that 'employment' to feed themselves and have to fall back to either a government payment or outright charity.How about giving us an 'earning enough to survive on' statistic instead of the current 'unemployment' one. How about giving us a 'working poor' statistic. Wouldn't look so rosy eh Mr Howard?! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> here here
HoffY Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 Oh yeah.But dont expect people to be paid in relation to effort expended. If everything was turned upside down, and the CEOs, pollies, lawyers, real estate agents, etc got paid far less than manual labourers, then... No-one would "invest" in expensive pieces of paper (aka "meal tickets") from Unis! Until relatively recently, bright people went to Uni for an education. Nowadays, everyone and their dog goes for the opportunity to make more money ... nothing to do with knowledge! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This one reminds me of sport. Whats teh world comeing to when you get 1.5mill for winning a game of golf etc while the rest of the country works there freckle off for 186$ a week... and has to get up early!
Santa1503559644 Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 Yep! the early Industrial Revolution, the time of the Luddites - do read about them, and hear the echoes in todays forums - the future will come in spite of highminded and sincere opposition. Wrong then, probably wrong now. Apocalyptic visions of the end of our planet then too - 300 years ago - with a life expectancy of 46 years, folks hungry, and folks being sent to Australia. John Galsworthy wrote a play back then, about a guy who refused to have kids because the world was going down hill in a basket. He was a really nice guy - but wrong. Get a little optimism guys, lighten up, LIFE IS VERY GOOD! - Depending on our point of view. ie it's our choice. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I suppose its easier for the blind but happy man to be optimistic as he strides toward the gallows, than the guy with 20:20 who rejected the blindfold!
Santa1503559644 Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 This one reminds me of sport. Whats teh world comeing to when you get 1.5mill for winning a game of golf etc while the rest of the country works there freckle off for 186$ a week... and has to get up early! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well paid sports stars make great future Liberal politicians...
Santa1503559644 Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 'Unemployment' figures in this country are a joke anyway. What on earth is the point of a statistic when that statistic counts people as being employed even when they don't earn enough from that 'employment' to feed themselves and have to fall back to either a government payment or outright charity.How about giving us an 'earning enough to survive on' statistic instead of the current 'unemployment' one. How about giving us a 'working poor' statistic. Wouldn't look so rosy eh Mr Howard?! here here <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Come on, give us a break! Next thing you'll want honest inflation figures! {Thats right, rather than excluding practically all sources of inflation from the figures apart from petrol prices, as is the current case!}
riley454 Posted November 10, 2005 Author Posted November 10, 2005 But dont expect people to be paid in relation to effort expended.Nowadays, everyone and their dog goes for the opportunity to make more money ... nothing to do with knowledge! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly! This week I am probably earning more than many because of the union benefits. Guess what? I have spent almost a full workday getting my union paperwork in order, spent 8 hours in the sheds because of rain and union meetings and its only Thursday! My Effort Expended: I left school at 16 yrs of age and have been earning a consistent income for the last 20 years(current income varies $60-120k) Studious Person Effort Expended(2 years high school extra, minimum 4 years at uni) Jobs available: Graduate Civil Engineer $38k That is why we have poor workplace skills. Lack of tradespeople. Why spend an extra 6 years studying, when you can earn more money as a labrador?
geoffcb1503559619 Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 Why spend an extra 6 years studying, when you can earn more money as a labrador? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Job satisfaction
riley454 Posted November 11, 2005 Author Posted November 11, 2005 Job satisfaction <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not many people can say this, but I actually enjoy the work I do! Like anyone I have good and bad days, but on the whole, I have Job satisfaction!
Aloysius Posted November 12, 2005 Posted November 12, 2005 Ok now we're getting wound up.....All I was trying to say was that removing some militant unions power does not have to come at the expense of all those other poor buggers in other industries already extremely 'general' conditions as you put it like your local checkout chick. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fair comment Nobby! I still don't know who will be worse off. I listened to a lady on ABC yesterday talking about the reforms - she works with folks who, due to their personal situations are not able to do regular 8 hr x 5 day work. She had a number of misgivings generally about the new proposed laws. However in her particular line of work she believed that the increased flexibilty that the proposed changes makes possible - not mandatory - she would be better able to fit folks into jobs that suit their situation eg single mother who doesn't want to be working when kids are not at school - after hour and holdays etc. It appears that the ever increasing number of females in the work force is a significant driver in these reforms. As a nation we have to do the best we can with our circumstances, this includes making it more possible for skilled females who want to contribute in the workforce to be able to do just that. There's a lot more behind these reforms than just the old union / bosses conflicts
RodN Posted November 12, 2005 Posted November 12, 2005 As a nation we have to do the best we can with our circumstances, this includes making it more possible for skilled females who want to contribute in the workforce to be able to do just that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah I agree and for the fair bosses who are reasonable it doesn't matter what IR laws are there because they'll always be fair and reasonable! I'm just a bit worried with what they'll be doing because of the unfair dismissal component of it, "come in today or you're sacked, but who's looking after the kids?" You know the ad's. I guess we'll jut have to see what happens if/when it comes in. I already had my say at the last election.
riley454 Posted November 12, 2005 Author Posted November 12, 2005 I still don't know who will be worse off.It appears that the ever increasing number of females in the work force is a significant driver in these reforms. As a nation we have to do the best we can with our circumstances, this includes making it more possible for skilled females who want to contribute in the workforce to be able to do just that. There's a lot more behind these reforms than just the old union / bosses conflicts <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Very true. Although I have seen few details of the changes (apart from the political or union spin) it would be nice if the flexibilty of the changes for good workers, with good employers was quoted. Yeah I agree and for the fair bosses who are reasonable it doesn't matter what IR laws are there because they'll always be fair and reasonable!I'm just a bit worried with what they'll be doing because of the unfair dismissal component of it, "come in today or you're sacked, but who's looking after the kids?" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As I've referred to(previous threads/posts), I have NEVER EVER EVER (in our current IR system, or that of 20 years ago)heard of any valuable employee being discharged from their duties because they knocked back 1 extra shift or took a day off sick. Employers, generally, don't sack people without reason! They want to build a competent, reliable workforce so they don't have to keep an eye on every day to day process. They want to enjoy the profits they are making from their business.
RodN Posted November 12, 2005 Posted November 12, 2005 As I've referred to(previous threads/posts), I have NEVER EVER EVER (in our current IR system, or that of 20 years ago)heard of any valuable employee being discharged from their duties because they knocked back 1 extra shift or took a day off sick. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ahh yes the general 'trust your boss' and 'its more flexible' approach which does not stand up to their business being in a competitive environment or any real world scenario. Just spare a thought for those poor buggers who will lose their: - public holiday pay, - long service leave, - penalty rates, - sick leave, - unfair dismissal rights, - the power to collectively bargain, - leave loading, ... and all of the other minimum conditions we've received from a system which we have enjoyed for over 100 years. Thankfully I will be a have rather than a have not in these changes but I can completely understand how the battlers are going to suffer from this and find it very saddening that we are going this way.
Aloysius Posted November 13, 2005 Posted November 13, 2005 Ahh yes the general 'trust your boss' and 'its more flexible' approach which does not stand up to their business being in a competitive environment or any real world scenario.Just spare a thought for those poor buggers who will lose their: - public holiday pay, - long service leave, - penalty rates, - sick leave, - unfair dismissal rights, - the power to collectively bargain, - leave loading, ... and all of the other minimum conditions we've received from a system which we have enjoyed for over 100 years. Thankfully I will be a have rather than a have not in these changes but I can completely understand how the battlers are going to suffer from this and find it very saddening that we are going this way. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes Nobby - it's always a matter of your own biases. I'm an optimist and see things that way, based on my experiences. Others have maybe not been as fortunate and see things from a less optimistic standpoint. I only ask that the less optimistic folks look at stuff from an open standpoint, and be hugely wary of the the " News Industry" which makes money from bad news or - their ability to portray most news as bad. The fact is - it's not!!!!!! Knotheaded weekend is just about over - Damn!
riley454 Posted November 13, 2005 Author Posted November 13, 2005 Knotheaded weekend is just about over - Damn! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Huh
Recommended Posts