SA Footy

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/07/2619414.htm

Work Choices turned an election. $20m+ spent by Australian unions to oust the Libs.

Labor come to power and establish a "Fair Pay Commission" with great fanfare. Unions celebrated the new name for an old process. This year, they award no increase.

Gillard and Burrow must be terribly embarrassed but union noise has hardly reached any great decibels. Funny how the unions can be so quiet following such a big financial investment and a result which clearly demonstrates that 1.3m workers on minimum wages get next to no service from the unions themselves - they are only interested in squeezing money out of the big employers, and treat their own staff (in many cases) in an appalling fashion.

I think you will fine that the commission is the one established by Howard and the one under Rudd commences after this decision as stated in your referenced article.

Yes, you're right about the Commission - I got my vernacular mixed up.
Regardless of who established it (ie appointed the members), the panellists decision should be free of political influence though.
Really, my point was that the unions would have screamed like there was no tomorrow if the Libs had been in power - even if they had made submissions for a modest increase just as the Rudd people did. Also, the irony with Work Choices is that each agreement had to be ticked off so that, on balance, an employee was no worse off. However, the big fear campaign startled the populus - particularly those in the category of the unrepresented - and swept Labor in to power.

Agree workchoices was a major influence on the outcome of 2007 , half propaganda , half truth.

Agree independent bodies should not be pressured by governments,unions or associations

Have read the guidelines to Fair Work Australia, significant changes to unfair dismissal ( but companies still have their get out of gaol free card, "downsizing position redundant" ) Right of entry for unions similar to previous legislation , 24 hour written notice , specifying the reason of entry. Only difference is the affiliation of the employees work position with a particular union is much broader.

I think the legislation will be a more equitable approach to industrial relations than workchoices. Whilst not going back to the inflexible system prior to workchoices.

Squawk wrote:Really, my point was that the unions would have screamed like there was no tomorrow if the Libs had been in power - even if they had made submissions for a modest increase just as the Rudd people did. Also, the irony with Work Choices is that each agreement had to be ticked off so that, on balance, an employee was no worse off. However, the big fear campaign startled the populus - particularly those in the category of the unrepresented - and swept Labor in to power.

Go read George Orwells book "Animal Farm", its always a fairly easy trasition for the Pigs to move into the Farmhouse....

Squawk wrote:Also, the irony with Work Choices is that each agreement had to be ticked off so that, on balance, an employee was no worse off. However, the big fear campaign startled the populus - particularly those in the category of the unrepresented - and swept Labor in to power.

Can you explain what you mean here, i hope you are not referring to the no disadvantage test that was introduced under workchoices. There were more loopholes there than even imaginable and it wasn't a real method of ensuring workers were no worse off than their previous agreement.

I love hearing the Right not only defend but still try and talk up WorkChoices. Howard's "Fair Pay" Commission will soon be history.

I'm not talking it up Gozu. My question is - if there was a requirement to only approve individual agreements that meant an employee was, on balance, no worse off, are others saying that in practice, that requirement was defied?

And what would your solutions be - that every organisation was "not for profit" or 10% profit only?

In my experience, unions are only interested in working with employees in large businesses. They feel that it is there that they can achieve outcomes that will "flow on" to small businesses. Not so. They are just lazy. They have a poor record as employers themselves. Most of the "bad" employers are small business owners and operators who lack the knowledge of business management and good practice industrial relations, and are keen to maximise the $$$ in their own pockets. Large employers offer much more for their staff and yet, just like the movie Oliver, the unions keep coming back for "more please". In some cases, the unions cant even do that adequately because their staff are useless are untrained themselves.

We've got the Union's to thank for the eight hour day, equal pay for women and Aboriginals and their campaigns against conscription. This piece from last month just popped into my head when I read your post:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/06/15/why ... ry-lesson/

Squawk wrote:I'm not talking it up Gozu. My question is - if there was a requirement to only approve individual agreements that meant an employee was, on balance, no worse off, are others saying that in practice, that requirement was defied?

And what would your solutions be - that every organisation was "not for profit" or 10% profit only?

In my experience, unions are only interested in working with employees in large businesses. They feel that it is there that they can achieve outcomes that will "flow on" to small businesses. Not so. They are just lazy. They have a poor record as employers themselves. Most of the "bad" employers are small business owners and operators who lack the knowledge of business management and good practice industrial relations, and are keen to maximise the $$$ in their own pockets. Large employers offer much more for their staff and yet, just like the movie Oliver, the unions keep coming back for "more please". In some cases, the unions cant even do that adequately because their staff are useless are untrained themselves.

Your experiences are not that great i suggest. There are plenty of large businesses that are sh!t employers. San Remo is one of the worst that i know of. They treat people like scum and run the place in a terrible manner, but the owner has his nice photos on the wall and the charities he donates too and people who aren't there or don't see the management style of some of these companies wouldn't understand.

But you sit back and label unions lazy while you enjoy your 8 hour day, your overtime and your rdo's.

Gozu wrote:We've got the Union's to thank for the eight hour day, equal pay for women and Aboriginals and their campaigns against conscription. This piece from last month just popped into my head when I read your post:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/06/15/why ... ry-lesson/

you forgot the white Australia policy

wycbloods wrote:Your experiences are not that great i suggest. There are plenty of large businesses that are sh!t employers. San Remo is one of the worst that i know of. But you sit back and label unions lazy while you enjoy your 8 hour day, your overtime and your rdo's.

You'd be surprised - have worked with many unions.

I think it's great that we have an 8hr day (but we dont need a public holiday for it), overtime, rdos etc, women who can vote and so on. Unfortunately, no one in this household works an 8 hr day, nor gets any allowances whatsoever or RDOs. If the unions were dinkum, everyone would be capped at 8hrs a day.

Actually, approximately 40hrs week of unpaid "overtime" is done in this household. But the union has never pursued an interpretation/definition of what "reasonable overtime" constitutes. They aren't interested.

I think everyone is realistic about where the economy is at and the Unions understand that high pay increases are simply not achievable at the moment. They'll come out with egg on their faces because the spare profits simply aren't there right now. They know when businesses are doing well and when they are hurting. They will save the big battles for better economic times. Of course they will then claim all the credit when the pay rises in better times would, in most cases, have been passed on to workers anyway.

In the industry the company I work for is in it was straight market forces pushing pay rates well above what Unions were securing in union dominated industries.

Many ASX listed companies are freezing salaries at the moment. No point a Union or an independent body demanding pay rises at, say, double the rate of inflation.

For example, the Union knocked back pay rises offered by the Govt in the SA Teacher's dispute that most employees would have no hope of getting today. I accept it's not their fault that a global recession kicked in right in the middle of their pay negotiations. I just mention it to put into context the economic situation we face today versus 18 months ago. That's why the fair pay commission has acted in the way it has I assume.

Squawk wrote:Actually, approximately 40hrs week of unpaid "overtime" is done in this household. But the union has never pursued an interpretation/definition of what "reasonable overtime" constitutes. They aren't interested.

What is reasonable in one business is very different to what could be considered reasonable in another business. Are you a union member squawk? You can't expect to get represented if you aint a member, hell Howard fined Unions for representing non members in a time of Industrial Action.