• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: andyturbo

your rights at work

Simply because working and middle class Australia are apathetic towards the Unions and their role in industry does not make them any less relevant. People talk about how the MCG failing to fill was some sort of indicator of the irrelevance of unionism.

WRONG.

I think it is testament more to the well-protected workplaces that the majority of Australians have, up until recently, been accustomed to. Workplaces, i might add, that have been so rigorously protected as a result of the very same Union movement. As a consequence of these hard fought for, and up until now, enshrined rights, perhaps unions have been less relevant.

However, given this Government's new reforms and their effects on the rights of workers (as opposed to the tangible benefits it may very well have for employers), i can think of nothing more relevant than employees having union membership (well, i guess dependent on what sector individuals are currently employed in).
 
Last edited:
Bent Mk2 said:
The day everyone was supposed to go to the MCG? It happened to tie in perfectly with a RDO, long weekend and 'family picnic day', no wonder no one showed up, they weren't even interested when a 5 day weekend was available.

Speak for yourself, I was there. :D Nice to know people are still thinking of this - we can only hope the momentum carries until the end of the year....
 
For your sake I hope it doesn't, at this rate it'll be dead and buried. ;)

Seriously, how hard can it be to back up all these claims? Surely they're based on truth and real world experience? Not just the Union 101 handbook?
 
downunder83 said:
Im not on the electoral roll, i dont have to vote:p But i'd prefer someone who wasn't controlled by union bludgers... Man you guys are being conned so hardcore with this scare tactics- i dont know anyone that has been negatively affected by the new laws.... its all about keeping the unions in conrtol thats it.... lets just hope union membership continues to fall!

Come on this is bluelight we are supposed to be open minded... how about you study the pros and cons of the new system instead of reading union pamphlets.. its really quite easy to see how much better the new system is. Look at both sides of the argument before you fall victim to propaganda. I am non political and don't vote i look at things from both sides.

You really kinda shot yourself in the foot dude... you don't vote? Why do you give a shit then?

You also really don't know what you're talking about? I know that it's not black and white, and yes, i know that unions aren't always kosher, but to make a blanket statement that all unionists are "bludgers" is fucked.

BentMk2: I know that the AVO is being shafted with AWA's... a couple of hundred workers, as are medicare employees, so i daresay that's slightly more than a handful. I also know of a bluelighter who works for an organisation where they only get 1 warning for being late before being fired, they've had their penalties and overtime taken away, and the organisation isn't small... so, yeah, it's more than a few people dude. :\ (i have info on this at work, i'll find it and quote it tomorrow)
 
Bent mk2 ...

You obviously don't know any young Mum's or Dad's that have been effected by these laws. It's really sad you know. People taking maternity time off that work in small companies, then come back to no job...

How fucking fair is that? Mum's and Dad's with no jobs, all because they took time off, that they were entitled to without question...

FUCK YOU man...

The day everyone was supposed to go to the MCG? It happened to tie in perfectly with a RDO, long weekend and 'family picnic day', no wonder no one showed up, they weren't even interested when a 5 day weekend was available.

You know why??.. Cause they don't get enough time to spend with there family, cause they are now being bent over backwards by there bosses in fear of losing there fucking job.

It hasn't happened. There was supposed to be a massive rush by employers to take full use of the new laws. There was no rush to fire and rehire for less.

Your joking me on this one yeah??...
 
have info on this at work, i'll find it and quote it tomorrow

I'd appreciate it if you can. All I've been able to find (and trust me I've looked) is political grandstanding on both sides. Google IR reforms and the first 10 links are union based, the next 10 are employer based.

As I've said, I've yet to see or hear about real world, real scale issues. You say the AVO is being shafted...but how? What is the real world result? Not what the unions are saying will happen. What is actually happening?

Who is worse off. How are the really worse off? How many? One or two slack employees or rafts of workers?
 
Bent Mk2 said:
As I've said, I've yet to see or hear about real world, real scale issues.

What are you? Some private school educated, trust fund kid?. Get your head out of the fucking sand man.. and stop stiring shit, cause thats all your doing.
 
deeCee...don't know how many times I have to say it, or how many different ways I need to ask it...but PROVE it.

Show me a real case of a mother who took time off and lost her job because she had a child. You do actually realise the new laws give up to 52 weeks leave, and employers have to give them back their job? Or are you just reading union 'facts' as opposed to real facts.
 
I have had 2 friends in this situation you dick head..


and no, they don't "have" to give your job back.

edit: btw, I'm not pro-union..
 
2 people, 3 people. That's five. You're only 995 short of a thousand. Which is still way short of the thousands that the unions claim will be effected.

But in all seriousness, what situation? They lost their job because their took maternity leave? That's bullshit, and its illegal. As a bloke I can take maternity leave under the rules (but they call it paternity leave).

Tell them to call 1300 363 264 to get some real world information.

Or give me some facts (instead of such original insults).
 
and how the hell do you want me to "PROVE" it??.. you want to give me your number, so they can call you and tell you they have been fucked over???.. You fucking TOOL!

edit: one of them was a bloke
 
Bent Mk2 said:
2 people, 3 people. That's five. You're only 995 short of a thousand. Which is still way short of the thousands that the unions claim will be effected.

Well thats 2 people who know of 5 people directly effected, in a small internet community.. you can take that to a large scale by numbers.. and there's your thousand's you narrow minded fool
 
No need to call. An example would suffice. Admittedly with a tad more detail than "I have had 2 friends in this situation you dick head".

PS ... yes they do have to have their job back if they want it

When returning to work from parental leave an employee is entitled to return to the position they held before taking leave or to a new position if they have been promoted or have agreed to accept a new position.

I could go on, but perhaps you should do some reading...www.workchoices.gov.au
 
That says when returning from parental leave.. It doesn't state that you can't be given the flick while on parental leave.
 
WorkChoices and parental leave

Minimum entitlements

The Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard (the Standard) provides for a maximum of 52 weeks of unpaid parental leave, shared between both parents at the time of the birth of a child, or the adoption of a child under five years of age. Parental leave can be taken as maternity, paternity or adoption leave.

Parental leave entitlements in awards will be preserved. Where an employee’s entitlement for parental leave under an award is more generous than the Standard, the more generous conditions will apply to those still covered by awards (both current and new employees).

Workplace agreements made after the commencement of WorkChoices must, at all times, provide for parental leave entitlements that are equal to or more favourable than entitlements provided for under the Standard.

The parental leave provisions in the Standard are a minimum entitlement. Employers and employees can negotiate more favourable leave provisions in workplace agreements.

You don't get given approval for leave and then get fired halfway through.

Either their boss is a crook and doing something illegal or you're not being told the truth.
 
Bent Mk2 said:
2 people, 3 people. That's five. You're only 995 short of a thousand. Which is still way short of the thousands that the unions claim will be effected.

Is 20,000 public servants losing thier jobs enough for you? That is in NSW alone by the way.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/economy/debnams-figures-dont-add-up/2007/02/27/1172338609782.html

By the way Professor Bob Walker is not related to the unions at all.

Edit: This is at a state level. But it does show what the unions are fighting to stop.
 
Couldnt be assed looking it up but living in Canberra i remember public service cut people all the time like that?
Personally i rarely hire out of PS as it breeds appalling work ethic (not that they are bad people!!)

Extremely limited point of view and maybe i shouldnt go there but hey, why not its not like the arguments are getting better:
In my experience the employees Ive worked with who cry out for the system to save them are shit at what they do and externalise the reasons.
'The system sucks'
'Its unfair'
'The government/unions should protect me'

At the end of the day you have something to sell that nobody wants and as much as i detest capitalism that is the way it works and you should get used to it.

If you are good at what you do you will always have a job.
 
not by magic, by demand

(non-public service) businesses that pay peoples salary's get paid top dollar by the quality of their service/product not by complaining to the government
 
Top