your rights at work

[stephaniesomewhere]

I asked the guys at the Woolies bottleshop what they got when they worked Sundays. The ones who were workng before AWA's got all the penalty rates and stuff as before. The new staff didn't get that, just the standard rate. I notice now that the majority of staff on shift at what used to be the times that got the penaltys are the new staff.
The same applies to all the peple I know round here that used to get penalty rates working in restaurants and the service industries. They don't get them since they were some of the first staff to be affected. It explains why the restaurants around tend to employ a lot of foriegn students...we even had some telling us they were getting fourty five dollars a shift (that is for a whole nights work, at least six to twelve) . And one of them had worked till five in the morning recently after the surf carnival here.
There are some other Indonesian people that I have met that have been bought in under "specialist " visas to do with being able to cook that are working in Italian restaurants washing dishes. Think the same business dude runs a popular drinking venue in the city because the last time I saw them they were going to change to work there.
Seems to me that a lot of the small business people around when given the chance will gladly exploit people for cheap labour in order to line their pockets. These people they are exploiting don't complain. They are here for a short time and take it or are from countries where these incomes are deemed good. That is exploitation, especially when the people running these businesses would have to pay a lot more to have Australian people working for them and if they don't they can't fill the jobs because people can get better paid work without much drama at the moment. If I don't complain for them who does? If the economy turns then that might change and they will have people lining up for their jobs however do you really want to live in a society where this is allowed to happen and is deemed "necessary" by those running businesses? Wasn't necessary before so why has it become so now? Profit margins?

 

[silvia saint]

Show me these 'thousands' of people being shafted and I might consider signing it.

Over the last year there's been a handful (at best) of reports in the media...surely with such a hot topic if there were really that many people adversely effected it'd be front page news every day.

Maybe the sky really hasn't fallen in.

media? the pro howard media?

 

[lostpunk5545]

Professor Peetz’s report, entitled “Brave New WorkChoices: What is the story so far,” establishes what is at stake for working people. Using data from a range of sources, including the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and private surveys, his research demonstrates that wages and working conditions have declined since WorkChoices began last March. It also makes clear that WorkChoices has not led to a growth in jobs.

Peetz uses the results of an ABS average weekly earnings survey, showing that, in the six months to August 2006, “average weekly ordinary-time earnings (AWOTE) for full-time adult employees, in real terms, fell by 1.1 percent”. Average weekly total earnings (AWTE) fell by a similar amount. Another statistical indicator, the labour price index, “showed a real decline of 0.6 percent in hourly earnings excluding bonuses in the six months to September quarter 2006.”

The research demonstrates that low-paid workers in industries such as retailing and hospitality have been hit hardest. “In the two quarters since WorkChoices took effect, hourly earnings growth in these industries (at 1.0 percent and 0.7 percent respectively) were 47 percent and 61 percent lower than the all-industry average. On average since 1997 hourly earnings growth in these two industries has been 17 to 19 percent lower than earnings growth across all industries.”

Wages for women workers were particularly badly affected. “Nominal AWOTE for females in the private sector rose by only 0.5 percent in the six months to August 2006, compared to 1.3 percent for males”. In real terms, female AWOTE in the private sector fell by 2.0 percent in six months to August 2006.

Peetz concludes: “In short, WorkChoices has been associated with a decline in average real wages” and has “led to real wage declines in retail and hospitality, probably as a result of the loss of penalty rates in those industries”. The legislation allows employers to exclude longstanding entitlements such as penalty rates from new work agreements, both collective and individual.

Under green-fields “agreements” (EGAs), Peetz explains, employers have “unilateral instruments [for] setting pay and conditions, determined solely by management of an organisation before it establishes a new ‘project’ or ‘undertaking’.” He cites the case of United Petroleum petrol stations in Tasmania. After buying out the operation, the new owner declared it to be a “new undertaking,” allowing him to impose an EGA covering pay and conditions for existing employees. Through the abolition of penalty rates and other conditions, weekly pay was cut by up to $190.

The report notes “a widening inequality between the owners of capital and labour”. In March 2006, the wages share of national income reached a 35-year low and the profit share reached an all-time high. In the subsequent six months under WorkChoices, the profit share climbed even higher—a further 0.5 percentage points to reach 27.5 percent in September 2006. This was 30 percent higher than its average level over the past 35 years. A raft of working conditions and entitlements were eliminated from hundreds of new work agreements. Drawing on data from a sampling of new individual contracts (AWAs) registered with the government’s own Office of the Employment Advocate, the research found that in May 2006 all AWAs removed at least one previously “protected” award condition, while 16 percent excluded all “protected” award conditions.

The rate at which overtime pay entitlements were removed from agreements doubled, “from a quarter of AWAs in 2002-03 to over half of AWAs in 2006”. At the same time, “over three fifths of AWAs abolish penalty rates altogether”. The majority of such agreements “abolish or reduce meal breaks and public holiday payments... [and] shiftwork loadings,” while “large numbers abolish allowances and other conditions”.

The report slams the government’s claim that WorkChoices would deliver substantial employment growth “through the partial abolition of unfair dismissal laws” and the introduction of “flexibility”. Peetz compares employment growth under WorkChoices with employment growth after the unfair dismissal laws were introduced in March 1994.

During the eight months from March to November 2006, employment grew by 241,300 or 2.38 percent, in seasonally adjusted terms. But during the comparable eight months after the unfair dismissal laws began in 1994, employment grew by 256,400 or 3.25 percent. In trend terms, employment growth of 2.39 percent under WorkChoices was notably weaker than the 3.43 percent growth after the unfair dismissal laws were introduced.

Peetz argues: “The implication is not that the unfair dismissal laws were more effective job creators than the law that abolished them; rather, the implication is that the strong growth of employment in 2006 is unrelated to the abolition of the unfair dismissal laws, and instead reflects other factors. In short, the recent employment growth, while strong, appears to owe more to underlying demand in the economy—driven in no small part by the resources boom—than to the introduction of WorkChoices.”

Source

Can't argue with the data now can we Bent MK?

 

[m4dd0g]

Yes, i agree - its fucked if low skilled people get exploited.
Its almost like the gvmt wants to introduce tipping like in the states where a good proportion of the population lives on gratuities.
(i cant stand the mandatory tipping)

 

[Bent Mk2]

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

Sure. If they actually lost their jobs perhaps.

An accounting academic says NSW Opposition Leader Peter Debnam has hugely overestimated savings from his proposal to sack 20,000 public servants.

Given he lost the election over the weekend I think he'll struggle to carry out his proposal.

Can't argue with the data now can we Bent MK?

Certainly not when its written by the completely impartial David Peetz for an activist news source.

I asked the guys at the Woolies bottleshop

Hospitality penalty rates were dropped years ago. Probably a decade ago - I know because I was working in hospitality at the time.

 

[Benefit]

I'm sure you're all aware of the IR law reform a year ago and their effect on employees.
Please sign up at www.rightsatwork.com.au to join the campagn to get your right at work back.

Hmm... don't you spend all day at work jerking off on bluelight? Yeah... keep fighting the good fight brotha.

I don't really know shit about these labor laws but I'd just like to point out that when people try to masquerade anecdotal nonsense as fact it's a dead give-away that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

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

This is total gibberish and you should be ashamed of yourself. You're probably some blue-collar economic cellar dweller with no marketable skills to offer. Maddog is quite right. If you are good at what you do you will always have a job. Quit whining you big baby and be glad robots aren't doing your job yet.

 

[ayjay]

Look - the world isn't going to cave in overnight because of @#&$^% work choices - but it is part of a gradual ongoing attack on workers' rights. To be honest - the rot started back in the 80s with Labor's "Accord". Now the Libs are kicking in with their version.

The change is gradual, so you don't notice big changes - but if you take the long view wage earners are a lot worse off now compared to 20 years ago.

And that's fucked

 

[Bent Mk2]

20 years ago was 1987. Interest rates were up around 16+% and Black Monday saw the sharemarket collapse around the world, which definitelty contributed to the worldwide recession, including the recession Australia suffered around 199-1991 from memory.

Don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure most wage earners are a fair bit better off these days.

 

[stephaniesomewhere]

Hospitality penalty rates were dropped years ago. Probably a decade ago - I know because I was working in hospitality at the time.

yeh I know that however I think it has something to do with the size of the workplace as in the number of employees they had as then they had to negotiate with everyone as a group and therefore employers like this still had to keep the penalties in place as as a group people were able to negotiate to keep them. However after the introduction of awa's I think this requirement to negotiate with everyone as a group, when a big company, has been dropped. They didn't take any of the pay away from those that were already employed by them however they didn't offer it to new employees. Given the high turnover of staff in such areas combined with rostering them on at times when they would have to pay penalties they come out with more profit.
Yes that is the aim of business, to get more profit, however I tend to think that they probably make enough anyhow for the shareholders and it wouldn't hurt them to pay their staff a bit more.

 

[Bent Mk2]

Given the high turnover of staff in such areas

Some could argue that by paying more they would perhaps stop such turn over. But anyone who's ever worked or managed in hospitality would disagree. Given the cost of training, etc companies will naturally try and invest as little as possible in staff when they know full well they aren't going to be there for long.

Trust me when I say its nothing new, and if staff have been getting penalty rates, etc then they're bloody lucky, the new IR laws have nothing to do with it.

 

[stephaniesomewhere]

20 years ago was 1987. Interest rates were up around 16+% and Black Monday saw the sharemarket collapse around the world, which definitelty contributed to the worldwide recession, including the recession Australia suffered around 199-1991 from memory.

Don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure most wage earners are a fair bit better off these days.

I worked as a cleaner in the city then and not only did I earn more an hour then than the people I know doing it now I also had much better shift times. a couple of hours in the evening as opposed to a couple of hours in the morning or large blocks of hours from midnight on.
No one is arguing that the economy isn't stronger now than it used to be. The point I think is that there are people in our society who are vulnerable to being exploited by others and the protections for those people have been eroded away by awa's. If you are a skilled labourer you should be fine but unskilled labour (so long as you're not on a mine) or apprentices and such are vulnerable to having their pay not grow.
My company is an international one and with the introduction of awa's wanted to not give a cost of living increase however we were lucky and the Australian bosses went in and fought for it for their staff. How long this will continue I don't know, change of boss and that's out the window.

 

[downunder83]

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.

Dude what the hell are you talking about? this has nothing to do with your rights at work. Gee no wonder you fall for propaganda so easily

unions suck !

Get with it guys support a system that creates jobs not one that discourages employment... throw out your crappy union propaganda and look at the facts

 

[Bent Mk2]

Australian bosses went in and fought for it for their staff.

Um, these would be the same 'Australian bosses' who were going to screw the average worker over with the new law then? 8)

You're arguing our point. It makes a hell of a lot more sense for a business to have happy workers. Whether they're toilet cleaners or brain surgeons, it costs business less to look after people and keep them on board.

Bad bosses have been around since the ages. Nothing is going to change that, and given the amount of media coverage this issue gets, its making it harder for them. One step out of line and Alan Jones goes knocking on their door.

FFS Even the union can't find people adversely effected, the people 'staring' in their ad were lying!

 

[Samadhi]

Dude what the hell are you talking about? this has nothing to do with your rights at work. Gee no wonder you fall for propaganda so easily

unions suck !

Get with it guys support a system that creates jobs not one that discourages employment... throw out your crappy union propaganda and look at the facts

For someone who doesn't care enough to vote, you're certianly flapping your trap alot.

 

[yossarian_is_sane!]

"I asked the guys at the Woolies bottleshop"

"Hospitality penalty rates were dropped years ago. Probably a decade ago - I know because I was working in hospitality at the time."

I wouldn't use this as an example given that persons in a comparable environment (liquorland - being owned by coles group) receive rather large penalty rates for sundays & public holidays. They're employed on an EBA. If these guys at woolies are on awa's and have no penalty rates...

One cannot deny that these laws provide massive opportunities to screw over the unskilled. Combine this with the federal government's lack of spending on tertiary or skill education (although this is getting better)...

While, at the moment, there are only isolated examples of these laws being used to fuck people over, the evidence certainly is there that they can and are being used to do so. We can argue over the extent of this until the state liberal governments win an election (hohoho...). What I believe you CANNOT use as evidence is the current unemployment rate or number of jobs being created. It is fairly well accepted that this country is, at the moment, in the midst of a very strong economy and labor market. What do you think will happen when we have a downturn in both? That is when the real horror stories will emerge.

On a side note, my main problem with these laws is the use of the corporations clause in the constitution to effect them. Given the high court is currently full of complete numpties who have accepted this view (and wouldn't use a constitutional implication if it robbed their dead mothers...grrrr.)... I say welcome to the end of federalism as we know it. The only consolation being that a labor government would be empowered in the same manner, although I like my current federal/state divide.

 

[stephaniesomewhere]

Um, these would be the same 'Australian bosses' who were going to screw the average worker over with the new law then? 8)

You're arguing our point. It makes a hell of a lot more sense for a business to have happy workers. Whether they're toilet cleaners or brain surgeons, it costs business less to look after people and keep them on board.

Bad bosses have been around since the ages. Nothing is going to change that, and given the amount of media coverage this issue gets, its making it harder for them. One step out of line and Alan Jones goes knocking on their door.

FFS Even the union can't find people adversely effected, the people 'staring' in their ad were lying!

Not all bosses do go against what the "parent" company wants as if their jobs are beholden to the profit margins they might too see this as an easy way to get those margins up therefore ensure their job and profits. I am lucky but there are plenty of bosses in the same industry here who don't do the right thing. The awards and the unions as far as I can see were really interested in helping people to stand their ground and deal with the bad situations when they happened.
I don't think many of the talkshow people are genuinely interested in making sure that things are fair and equitable as their major driving force is ratings which equals profits/infotainment. Funny that!
People don't necessarily get screwed over straight away a law changes either. Some do for sure and that makes for good headlines but it is only going to be slowly over a period of time that you will see the true economic impact that these workplace changes will have on the average wage earner.

 

[stephaniesomewhere]

"I asked the guys at the Woolies bottleshop"

"Hospitality penalty rates were dropped years ago. Probably a decade ago - I know because I was working in hospitality at the time."

I wouldn't use this as an example given that persons in a comparable environment (liquorland - being owned by coles group) receive rather large penalty rates for sundays & public holidays. They're employed on an EBA. If these guys at woolies are on awa's and have no penalty rates...

One cannot deny that these laws provide massive opportunities to screw over the unskilled. Combine this with the federal government's lack of spending on tertiary or skill education (although this is getting better)...

While, at the moment, there are only isolated examples of these laws being used to fuck people over, the evidence certainly is there that they can and are being used to do so. We can argue over the extent of this until the state liberal governments win an election (hohoho...). What I believe you CANNOT use as evidence is the current unemployment rate or number of jobs being created. It is fairly well accepted that this country is, at the moment, in the midst of a very strong economy and labor market. What do you think will happen when we have a downturn in both? That is when the real horror stories will emerge.
.

The situation at woolies is very recent and I think if someone worked for Coles or such they would have to see this as the way things are going to go in the future.

In terms of unemployment figures you can't believe them...so many people who receive unemployment benefits do not appear in those figures so they really aren't represntative of how many people are actually getting some form of government assistance.

 

[L2R]

oh. nice to see some good debate in this thread. kudos everyone.

Hmm... don't you spend all day at work jerking off on bluelight? Yeah... keep fighting the good fight brotha.

I don't really know shit about these labor laws but I'd just like to point out that when people try to masquerade anecdotal nonsense as fact it's a dead give-away that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

fyi
no i don't spend all day at work jerking off to bluelight. i have been doing my job long enough (5th year) and well enough to afford time to destress on this wonderful site. Hey, i might be up for promotion :D

 

[rm2x]

http://www.charteredaccountants.com.au/charter/charter_archive/2005/may_2005/A117520329

 

[stephaniesomewhere]

http://www.charteredaccountants.com.au/charter/charter_archive/2005/may_2005/A117520329

:D
so now why do have ths image of you with glases reading that !!
8(