I saw another report about Andrew Cruickshank who was unafirly terminated from Priceline and his position re-filled at lower pay.
He said he can't afford a lawyer to contest his case. Pretty damn sad isn't it. This is Howard's IR future, you need a lawyer to contest an unfair dismissal/treatment but just who can afford one?
Here is the proof of the partisan crap being put out by the mining industry and the Howard government. These are the government's own figures:
Quoted Text
Recent ABS data (6306, Feb 2007) underlines that Australian mining does NOT rely on AWAs -- just 31% of workers in metal ore mines, and only 16% of the mining industry’s workforce are on AWAs. Mining relies more on common law contracts (as provided for in ALP policy) rather than on AWAs. About 55% of metal ore miners are on common law contracts.
The ABS data also shows:
Unionised coal miners earn an average of $46.40 per hour. Largely non-union metal ore miners earn $35.20 per hour. Coal miners earn an average of 32% more.
Maher also cites figures on productivity growth. Since 1996, productivity growth has been negative in gold mining in WA, and average annual productivity growth in the largely collectivised coal industry has been 2.87%, while over the same period it’s been 0.33% in the largely de-unionised WA coal industry.
Yet here was the head of the mining industry on radio this afternoon saying they cannot compromise on anything Labor do because the whole industry would collapse if anything other than Howard's AWA's were put in place.
Here are some other ABS facts that shoot complete holes in Howard's IR credentials:
5-8% of the Australian workforce are on AWAs. Of that 80% are in WA (resources and resource support industries) with the remaining 20% mostly being in Canberra.
31% of the Australian workforce are on Common Law Aggreements, which in many cases are more flexible and actually require less paper work and regulation than AWAs.
Around 58% of the workforce are on Awards of one form or another including non-Union implemented awards.
Before Howard introduced AWAs productivity averaged 2.5%, peaking at 3.2% under Keating during the end of his government.
Since AWA's were introduced productivity dropped to 2.3% and since WorkChoices it's at a low of 1.2% and still declining.
Howard is delivering less productivity, not better as was his promise. Then again his policies have nothing to do with productivity, but everything to do with driving down wages and conditions for Australian workers to a very low common denominator so his friends like the head of BHP who hoed into Rudd yesterday (as a favour to Howard) can make record profits and thus wages for themselves.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
MP dumped for union boss warns of backlash By Nick Ralston May 04, 2007 03:58pm
THE federal MP being dumped to make way for ACTU secretary Greg Combet has warned of a voter backlash against Labor in her Hunter Valley seat.
Kelly Hoare, who has held the electorate of Charlton since 1998, said she first learned of Mr Combet's firm decision to run as a candidate in her seat when he phoned her at 7pm (AEST) last night.
Nice to know the jobs of working Australian's are safe under Labor. Combet insists he will be able to balance his dual roles as the secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and a Labor candidate between now and the federal election, so he'll be both campaigning and working Kevin's strings at the same time
"The Daily Telegraph has just about run out of adjectives to capture the incompetence of these Macquarie St state-stranglers. For now, we'll limit it to three: deceitful, callous and irresponsible." - Editorial, Wednesday November 12, 2008
Notice the flood of government ads lately that you an I are paying hundreds of millions of dollars for. It never ceases to fail, when Howard in the 1996 election campaign stated categorically he would stop the rorting of tax payer funded ads for political advertising, yet has increased it many fold to make what Keating spent look like petty cash.
Every time Howard is in trouble out come the ads and every election year they sky rocket. Now he is going to spend $49 million of our taxes on selling his IR law backflip, when for the last 18 months he has been saying noone is worse off and it was illegal to lose conditions without compensation. All lies yet again.
The sooner this man is kicked out of office the better. All pollies are liars, but Howard takes it to a whole new professionalism of deceit and misdirection. For that alone he will go down in history as the most dishonest PM we have ever had. He was deceptive as treasurer under Fraser lying every time he opened his mouth, and he has just gotten worse as PM now.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
friend of mine has just signed one of the new awa and its not that bad
his base rate has increased by $7 an hour, there is a flat overtime rate he receives wage insurance in case he gets sick paid by company and his meal allowance is $20 per shift as opposed to others not on the awa who only get $10 it works out he is about $280 better off in a standard 40hr week he negotiated these terms with his employer and both sides are happy with the outcome
granted this is only one person but maybe australian workers should look at both sides before condeming these laws
They only benefit a very narrow professional demographic of the workforce, mainly those who have unique skills that are in big demand. Ordinary workers are being well and truly ripped off. It is telling that Howard bought in AWA's in 1996 yet less than 8% of the workforce are on them, and they are almost exclusively being used by the mining industry in Western Australia. It is also telling that workplaces with AWAs have less productivity than those on Common Law agreements or Awards.
Oh and by the way, that you know what's in his AWA means that he has done something illegal. An AWA is a private contract between the employer and the employee, and disclosure to anyone of an individual's AWA contents by the employee or employer carries very high penalties.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Yes it is the underpinning of AWAs and the only way they can work.
If, as felicity009 stated, her friend negotiated a base rate increase of $7 per hour and a $20 meal allowance per shift, but the next person negotiating for their AWA was more workplace savvy or going with the bosses daughter, and negotiated $10 per hour and a $30 meal allowance, then felicity009's friend found out that person is getting more than him for the same or a lessor job, then he would be upset and most likely be unhappy at work for the term of his contract, which can be up to 5 years now. Once you sign on that's it, you are stuck with the conditions you negotiated, for the term of the AWA, and increasingly employers are making them 5 years with no wage increase in the agreement. Another thing that is happening with shorter term AWAs (this happened to my brother-in-law with McCafferty's); the first AWA is generous, offering improved wages and conditions, but once having given up awards and signed on the next AWA is a take-it-or-leave-it with reduced wages and/or conditions.
So one of the most important rules in WorkChoices, underpinned by very heavy penalties, is that an individual's terms and conditions cannot be revealed to anyone but the employer (or their employment representative, i.e. HR or agency) and the employee. The heaviest fines I believe are for an employee revealing the contents of their AWA to another employee within the same company or industry, especially one doing the same or a similar job.
Think about it, AWAs could never work and be truly individual contracts if each person knew the wages and conditions everyone else was getting in their AWAs. The system would collapse as resentment would set in by those who were getting less because they didn't have the gift of the gab or because of nepotism/family friend/favours etc.
That is why Common Law agreements and Awards are for the most part successful and always have been, delivering much better productivity. Everyone is on a level playing field and those with better skills and who work harder can still get extras through bonuses and favours. These are not perfect of course, and nepotism and rorting still occurs but at least it's from the perspective of everyone on the same playing field. Remember that the current great economic outcome has much to do with Australians becoming the hardest working people in the OECD (and probably the world) with the least time off and unpaid overtime in the OECD with record low workplace disputation, all on the back of Common Law agreements and Awards.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
As well as providing for required content, the Act provides that workplace agreements should not contain content that is specified as “prohibited content” under the Regulations. As the duty is on the employer to lodge workplace agreements with the Employment Advocate, it is the employer who is specifically prohibited from lodging workplace agreements that contain prohibited content: s357. In order to balance the obligations imposed on the employer, an employee (and their bargaining agent) is prohibited from seeking to include a term in a workplace agreement that contains prohibited content: s365. Under the Regulations, the following constitutes prohibited content: [1]
* deductions from pay for trade union membership or dues by either direct or indirect debit; * trade union leave or paid leave to attend trade union meetings; * provisions for the process for renegotiation of a workplace agreement; * clauses mandating that an employee or employer group be represented in the dispute settlement procedure unless the organisation is the representative of the employer’s or employee’s choice; * right of entry provisions; * clauses that aim to restrict the engagement of independent contractors and labour hire workers and any requirements relating to the conditions of their engagement; * the foregoing of annual leave credited to an employee; and * clauses requiring the employer to give information about employees to a trade union.
As well as the above listed matters, the Regulations prescribe the following as prohibited content:
* terms that encourage or discourage union membership; * terms allowing for industrial action; * terms dealing with disclosure of details of a workplace agreement; * terms providing for remedies for unfair dismissal; * objectionable provisions; * terms that directly or indirectly restrict the offering, negotiating, or entering into of an AWA; * terms that are discriminatory; and * terms that concern matters that do not pertain to the employment relationship.
Then I can across this from the Universities of Adelaide and Melbourne which are putting all their employees on AWAs.
Quoted Text
7. Are Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) secret documents?
No. The OEA will not approve an AWA which prohibits or restricts disclosure of details of the AWA by either party to another person.
This is reinforced in their info pack to employees signing onto AWAs, they are not allowed to be restricted from disclosing details of an AWA to anyone. So I think I originally got a bum steer and the opposite is the case with AWAs, they are open slather and in fact it is against the law to keep them secret and not disclose their contents.
So you should be able to go up to any employer and ask to see the AWAs of their workers so as to negotiate a better deal than what everyone else is getting, if I read it right.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
friend of mine has just signed one of the new awa and its not that bad
What profession is your friend?
Obviously there will be cases where people are better off under an AWA as they've negotiated well. But what about the cases where negotiation is not possible? As in the case of Telstra. AWA's have essentially swung the pendulum completely in favour of the employer. Where under workplace bargaining agreements the majority of staff fight for better conditions and all come under the same agreement, under an AWA many if not most staff are forced onto similar contracs with lesser conditions and no security.
We should always consider what could happen when the economy is bad when looking at working conditions, because that's when you're most likely to lose your job, have trouble getting a new one, and struggle to meet financial committments such as mortgages and bills. Under AWA's, employers have the right to sack people for very dubious reasons.
Also this notion of the "unsackable employee" in small business is somewhat of a furphy. Under the existing legislation an employee couldn't take an employer to court for ridiculous reasons and a "future viability" test was considered for the business if costs/compensation were going to be awarded against them.
I hope people don't fall for Howard's new "fairness test" rejig of the IR laws, they are so vague and he'll just repeal them after the election.
Quoted Text
Australians should be told the truth on AWAs The Age, May 4, 2007
The IR debate is not grounded in fact. It's obvious why not, writes Josh Bornstein.
JOSHUA Frydenberg's attempt to justify Federal Government industrial relations policy on Australian Workplace Agreements as consistent with Menzies' concepts of economic freedom and individual choice (Opinion, 29/4) is yet another illustration of the woeful standard of the industrial relations debate.
The tragedy of the debate is that it is deliberately skewed in favour of facile sloganeering, advertising and public relations strategy at the expense of the facts. At the same time as the Government is spending many millions of dollars to advertise and promote WorkChoices (and is now calling on big business to follow suit), it has taken unprecedented steps to prevent crucial data about employment conditions under the laws from seeing the light of day.
It was not long ago that data concerning employment conditions was readily available to the public. The Government has such information available to it at all times. Why can't the public have ready access to information comparing the terms of collective agreements and individual agreements under WorkChoices? Surely this information could only raise the level of the debate and allow the public to reach informed conclusions.
When it was revealed that the first batch of AWAs under WorkChoices slashed many established employment conditions including penalties, leave loadings and overtime and that all of the AWAs eliminated at least one "protected award condition", the Government acted swiftly and banned the further release of information. It continues to resist demands that the information be released. Would Robert Menzies have approved of such behaviour?
Frydenberg's rhetoric concerning AWAs and "individual choice" is intellectually bankrupt.
In practice, individual contracts such as AWAs are an efficient mechanism for employers to avoid workplace bargaining and eliminate unwanted award conditions. These pro forma contracts are drafted by employers' lawyers and presented to workers on a "take it or leave it" basis and, in most cases, duly signed by the employee. There is, with few exceptions, no negotiation.
Take Telstra, one of Australia's largest employers.
Nine thousand of its staff are on AWAs. According to Frydenberg's analysis, each AWA should be individually tailored to reflect the employee's circumstances. And yet, the fact is that all 9000 AWAs at Telstra are exactly the same. It is a pro forma document.
The sort of "negotiations" that all too often occur with AWAs was highlighted by the recent case of Lorissa Stevens, a young NSW coalminer. Stevens had the temerity to say "no" to an AWA before being told that she was sacked and would never work in the industry again.
My firm has recently assisted her to obtain a confidential settlement.
Incidentally, the AWA offered to Stevens contained a term that allowed her employer to deduct $200 in wages if she gave less than 12 hours' notice of sickness. A term that, at the time, was perfectly legal.
The unusual thing about this case was that Stevens spoke up. Unfortunately, many other workers are too scared to do so — for perfectly understandable reasons.
The Menzies liberal tradition has, in fact, been betrayed by WorkChoices. The complete negation of choice or a right to bargain is antithetical to the Menzies tradition of liberalism.
The reality of AWAs under WorkChoices is a throwback to the 19th-century doctrine of freedom of contract, one discredited long ago by the recognition that employees rarely have equal bargaining power with an employer.
Frydenberg's concern about Kevin Rudd's proposal to abolish AWAs completely ignores how limited an influence AWAs have on the economy.
Despite the enormous efforts by the Government to encourage the take-up of these contracts, AWAs cover only 4 per cent of the workforce. Although the booming West Australian mining sector has a higher proportion of AWAs than other industry sectors, AWAs still cover only a minority of its workforce. The rhetoric of militant mining sector employers in recent days looks decidedly ill when one remembers that a majority of the mining sector workforce is covered by common law contracts.
Even if AWAs were, contrary to Rudd's policy, abolished overnight, the industry would continue to boom and work productively. The mining boom is driven by record demand and prices.
The industrial relations debate should be determined on its merits, with all relevant information available to the public. If the events of the past week are anything to go by, we have a very long way to go to raise the standard.
Josh Bornstein is a workplace relations lawyer with Maurice Blackburn Cashman. He advises a wide range of trade unions and others in the labour market.
I'm really enjoying the lack of conversation from the I love Rudd movement here about how these evil, evil AWA's that are so shocking for all have been put into play within the millionaire Mrs Rudd's own company. Can smell the ALP's cr@p from miles away
Has Kev run onto the 6:30 Report or any of his other "regular TV spots" to talk himself out of this one, or has he just ducked again?
"The Daily Telegraph has just about run out of adjectives to capture the incompetence of these Macquarie St state-stranglers. For now, we'll limit it to three: deceitful, callous and irresponsible." - Editorial, Wednesday November 12, 2008
Why should there be discussion? There were no AWAs. They were common law contracts according to news reports. Also it's her company not his; she's not an extension of him and she's fixed the problem. Mr Rudd has spoken at some length about it on the 7.30 Report.
Given Rudd's running around screaming that his party being elected will mean a "fair go for all" you'd think his own wife might be putting that into practice for her own employees.
"The Daily Telegraph has just about run out of adjectives to capture the incompetence of these Macquarie St state-stranglers. For now, we'll limit it to three: deceitful, callous and irresponsible." - Editorial, Wednesday November 12, 2008
Oh please aquamonkey stop trying to draw the short straw. The whole thing has been fully and honestly explained (which is a thousand times more than lying Howard would ever do), even Howard himself said he could not put aspersions on Therese Rein.
In fact most commentators, including many conservative ones, are saying that Kevin handled the whole thing correctly and very well. Notice how the extreme right wing commentators like Bolt and Ackerman are mostly very quiet on it, as are most of the right wing blogs I visit.
So stop attempting to make a mountain of nothing and think of Therese who because of an honest mistake (one that is made by many businesses, sometimes because of the mountain of complicated paperwork created by Howard's IR laws), has to come back from important overseas business early and may have to lose her $170 million dollar multinational business.
Still hasn't stopped some at The Auschtralian in trying to make out as though Therese Rein is the biggest crook on the planet and deliberately tried to rip of her workers (and there really aren't all that many in Australia) for 45c an hour.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Logged
you'd think his own wife might be putting that into practice for her own employees.