The Industrial Relations Thread

[DIEHARD]

Of course the workplace has been heading in this direction, because everything is geared towards profit.

This at the moment, is the calm before the storm. There are only a small percentage of AWAs. Employers are waiting for the Howard government to get back in, that will be the green light and its ready, set, go for work force cost slashing to maximise profits.

The government has enabled business to be able to do this. They have given them the tool and trust me, businesses are going to use it.

I am not going to depend on the good graces of bosses or directors!

And I worked at Coles, two of their stores infact. And they were together the single worst employment experience of my life. It doesn't puzzle me at all why that company is so far up **** creek it isn't funny.

[DIEHARD]

Government broke its own workplace laws

THE Howard Government broke its own workplace laws when it ordered public sector managers to deny workers access to leave to take part in a national protest against the new industrial relations legislation, the Federal Court has found.

The court also found that top managers in the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, who are supposed to be impartial public servants, tried to protect the political interests of the Government.

Handing down her decision yesterday, Justice Catherine Branson also criticised the Government for violating the official "values" of the Australian Public Service Act, the first of which insists that the bureaucracy remains "apolitical".

The office of the federal Minister for Workplace Relations, Joe Hockey, refused to comment on the scathing ruling. A spokesman for the department also declined to comment, saying only that lawyers would consider an appeal.

Justice Branson found that the department had broken the very law it was supposed to uphold - the Workplace Relations Act - by denying staff in other government departments the right to freedom of association.

According to evidence presented during the case, on November 9, 2005, two top departmental officials, Michael Maynard and Tulip Chaudhury, advised all Federal Government agencies to deny leave to staff if they wanted to use it to attend the protest scheduled for November 15.

The Community and Public Sector Union, which covers federal employees, had explicitly advised its members not to take sick leave or walk off the job but to use their own holiday leave or flexitime if they wanted to attend the protest.

One department official, Jeremy O'Sullivan, sought a legal opinion on the Maynard-Chaudhury advice and also consulted the office of then Minister for Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews. The department feared political embarrassment for the Government if it tried to enforce a ban on its own staff.

The department then backed away from the Maynard-Chaudhury advice but did not stop other government departments from denying leave.

Justice Branson also found that, based on the department's advice, two other departments - the Australian Customs Service and the Department of Education Science and Training - had breached the terms of their certified agreement with employees.

CPSU national secretary Stephen Jones, who began the court action in 2006, said the decision upheld the human rights of government employees but highlighted the political interference in the public service.

http://www.smh.com.au

[Ryan]

Kevids Rudds 'Fair Go' smokescreen for the new IR laws seems quite similar to Beazleys attempt on the GST and it is destined for the same result. Beazley screamed black and blue how the GST was unfair, unAustralian, blah blah blah. Howard copped all sorts of critisim in the press then as he is now, but guess what? - Seven years later, Beazley is long gone, Howard is still in command and GST revenue alone averages $40B a year. That $40B\y has covered for major upgrades for our defence force among other things and not to mention the $96B debt that was left by the last two Labour governments.

I'd like to know why people think the new IR laws are bad\unfair? Give specific reasons why Rudds policy is better than Howards, why Rudds policy is fair but Howards isn't. How will the new IR laws affect you if they will at all? Give an example.....

Alot of people seem to be carrying on like parrots, just repeating everything Rudd says without even thinking twice about it.

[Ryan]

Howard's IR laws 'helping work-life balance'
source
August 23, 2007


BUSINESSES are using John Howard's workplace laws to strike a better balance between work and family life, with a dramatic increase in time off allowed so employees can look after sick children or elderly relatives.

Almost 40 per cent of employers surveyed in the most detailed study since the Howard Government introduced Work Choices last year say they have increased the number of "personal carer days" available.

The number of sick days allowed to employees has also increased, with 27 per cent providing more paid leave to help their staff recover from personal illness.

A survey by Deakin University in Melbourne for the Australian Human Resources Institute is surprise good news for the Prime Minister, after the Coalition has suffered a public relations battering over union and Labor claims that its laws are unfair and bad for family life.

The Deakin University survey also provides an early indication of less union involvement in the workplace since the Government's laws took effect in March last year.

According to 1000 human resources managers who responded, more than 26 per cent reported an increase in "direct communication with employees", and more than 25 per cent reported a rise in negotiations on pay and conditions with "individual employees".

Over the same period, about 12 per cent confirmed notable decreases in union visits to work sites, union involvement in settling grievances and the number of industrial disputes.

Less union activity could reflect tough legal curbs contained in Work Choices on union access to worksites and on the right to strike.

The results appear in keeping with the Government's preference for excluding "third parties" from negotiations and favouring direct employer-employee relationships.

But the survey is not all positive for the Government: many managers complain that the new laws have created too much red tape and confusion.

More than 55 per cent reported an increased need to seek legal advice, and 40 per cent said Work Choices had made employment arrangements more complicated.

The survey results suggest many businesses are waiting for the outcome of this year's federal election before embracing Work Choices, unsure that the laws will stay if Labor wins and keeps its promise to scrap them.

Human resources managers reported "no change" in significant numbers on whether or not they had taken up Work Choices: as many as 80 per cent confirmed no change to penalty rates, overtime, hours worked, absenteeism and industrial disputes.

Only six respondents had used an authorised secret ballot provided under the Howard Government's laws as a precondition for legal strikes.

The Government's abolition of unfair dismissal laws in most workplaces -- by eliminating the right to claim unfair termination in businesses with fewer than 100employees -- also has not significantly affected employer behaviour.

More than 82 per cent of respondents confirmed no change on unfair dismissal claims, while 87per cent said the new 100-employee threshold on unfair dismissal laws had made no difference to decisions on hiring more staff.
Productivity improvements since the introduction of Work Choices also appear modest, with just 12 per cent reporting an increase.

And while 70 per cent reported no change in workplace morale, more than 17 per cent did report a decline in morale since Work Choices was introduced.

Despite measures introduced to improve personal carers' leave, HR managers are not optimistic that operating under Work Choices would improve the "work-family balance" within their organisation over the next three years.

Only 18.9 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that the work-family balance would improve.

The Government's decision to introduce a "fairness test" in May, reimposing guarantees on conditions such as penalty rates and overtime, attracted criticism.

HR managers were divided into two camps: those disappointed because the Government had made a "backward step" on its reforms; and those who believed the test was unfair because it was not retrospective.

Respondents were also critical of the Government's "rebranding" of its laws with the fairness test run by the renamed Workplace Authority.

A series of quotes from detailed written answers said the fairness test had added complexity and compliance costs.

The survey is significant not just because of its large sample and 65 detailed questions: the respondents were hands-on HR managers, three-quarters of whom deal with Work Choices every day.

AHRI national president Peter Wilson will release the survey today in Canberra. The Australian was among those who helped compile the questions.

[C-Whiz]

Beazley screamed black and blue how the GST was unfair, unAustralian, blah blah blah. Howard copped all sorts of critisim in the press then as he is now, but guess what? - Seven years later, Beazley is long gone, Howard is still in command and GST revenue alone averages $40B a year.

Yeah, wasn't Howard the "never, ever" guy when it came to GST? Good to know he's a man of his word! And gee, imagine throwing an extra 10% on everything and suddenly having more mony coming in! Economic genius!

So, when Howard says" Trust me, these IR laws are fair, and nothing is going to change", just remember, he was "never, ever" going to introduce the GST. Maybe we could just refer to it as "Workchoices Overboard"?

[C-Whiz]

Howard's IR laws 'helping work-life balance'
source
August 23, 2007
According to 1000 human resources managers who responded

Well, that would be a completely unbiased, open and honest report then, wouldn't it! :duh:

[Ryan]

Well, that would be a completely unbiased, open and honest report then, wouldn't it! :duh:

As good as any other poll goin around

[Ryan]

Yeah, wasn't Howard the "never, ever" guy when it came to GST? Good to know he's a man of his word! And gee, imagine throwing an extra 10% on everything and suddenly having more mony coming in! Economic genius!

So, when Howard says" Trust me, these IR laws are fair, and nothing is going to change", just remember, he was "never, ever" going to introduce the GST. Maybe we could just refer to it as "Workchoices Overboard"?

Australia was "never ever" gonna come out of debt without the GST, the past two Labour governments and the almost potential 3rd(Beazely) didn't have the balls or sense to make the call. John Howard did and Australia is now better off for it.

Thats the difference between a real leader who makes policies that will benefit the country, and a parrot who tries to scrap up uneducated votes

[Ryan]

Alot of people seem to be carrying on like parrots, just repeating everything Rudd says without even thinking twice about it.

[Steelers]

Alot of people seem to be carrying on like parrots, just repeating everything Rudd says without even thinking twice about it.

People were saying that these laws were unfair long before Rudd became the leader of the Labor party. Remember the tens of thousands of people marching all across the country when Howard first announced the laws?

[Ryan]

.......Remember the tens of thousands of people marching all across the country when Howard first announced the laws?

Yeah, half of them wouldn't have known what they were marching for, anything to get out of a days work. None of them got paid for it either, they should have been working!

[DIEHARD]

Watchdog 'hiding' AWA details

JUST days after promising to be transparent in releasing information about the Howard Government's wage agreements, the head of its workplace watchdog has been accused of hiding key information that could show workers are worse off.

The Victorian Government is angered that Workplace Authority director Barbara Bennett has rejected requests for access to Australian Workplace Agreements on the basis that it would breach the "spirit" of the law.

Victorian Industrial Relations Minister Rob Hulls has received a complaint from his own state workplace watchdog, Anthony Lawrence, about Ms Bennett's obstruction over AWAs, the Howard Government's individual employment contracts.

In a letter to Mr Hulls, Mr Lawrence says Ms Bennett's position is not consistent with Work Choices laws, which "prohibit identification of the parties" but do not place restrictions on the disclosure of content. "It appears to me that it would therefore be possible for Ms Bennett to provide me with copies of the AWAs I seek, with the names of the parties masked," writes Mr Lawrence, the Workplace Rights Advocate.

On Wednesday, Ms Bennett said her Workplace Authority had a "commitment to being transparent" in publishing data about how her agency was progressing in applying the Government's "fairness test" on wage agreements.

The fairness test requires that workers on AWAs and both union and non-union collective agreements earning less than $75,000 must have their wage deals checked against a list of protected award conditions to ensure they are not worse off.

In a report released on Wednesday, Ms Bennett confirmed that one in seven agreements had been rejected by the authority since the test began in May. But she also revealed a huge backlog of 110,000 agreements that were still to be checked.

According to Ms Bennett, about 1070 agreements have been rejected.

But her agency has not revealed a breakdown of figures to show the proportion of AWAs rejected compared with collective agreements.

Nor has Ms Bennett followed the example of her predecessor Peter McIlwain in May last year by revealing what conditions such as penalty rates, overtime, allowances, holiday pay rates and rest breaks have been traded off as part of workplace negotiations.

Also unclear is the status of 44,000 agreements on which the Workplace Authority has requested "further information" from employers.

The Victorian Government and unions claim that the 44,000 figure is likely to include a high number of agreements that would also be rejected on the basis that they would fail the fairness test.

A spokeswoman for Ms Bennett was unavailable yesterday.

But she told The Australian on Thursday that the 44,000 requiring further information related to issues such as what type of work was performed by employees, and was not an indication of rejection. She confirmed that most agreements rejected by the Workplace Authority were AWAs, not collective agreements.

In a reply letter to the Victorian Workplace Rights Advocate last month, Ms Bennett said she was committed to operating in an "open and transparent manner" and had released an array of information.

But she said she needed the consent of both parties to an agreement before releasing the information.

http://www.news.com.au

[DIEHARD]

Remember the tens of thousands of people marching all across the country when Howard first announced the laws?

I was one of the thousands in Brisbane.

I hope they organise many more rallies in the lead up to the election!

[Capital_Shark]

European countries are the only ones who know how to march in protest and actually be noticed. I laugh at the tens of thousands of people who block of a street for an hour or two peacefully marching against a government decision, because its not gonna change a damn thing. People marched against the war in Iraq, how did that turn out? People marched against the GST, that did 10% of bugger all. People marched against WorkChoices, hows that doing?

If you want to get more out of your protest march than a flat battery in your pedometer, take a leaf out of the Europeans book and go absolutely ape sh!t crazy in the streets. That'll make people stand up and take notice, and probably do something from fear of more riots. I know if I was in Howard's position trying to bring in WorkChoices or whatever a few hundred thousand people having a peaceful stroll through the city wouldn't sway me one bit.

Is there a law against inciting violence or does that only apply to radical Muslim clerics?

[travop]

yea my works puttin me on a awa.......well they call it a collective agreement......dunno if thats the same thing