your rights at work

[Bent Mk2]

Clearly the Rights at Work scare campaign is working

Figures released yesterday revealed 125,000 workers had walked away from the union movement in 12 months despite a multi-million-dollar campaign to recruit members as part of its assault on Work Choices.

Trade union membership now represents only 15.5 per cent of private-sector workers, down from 16.7 per cent in mid-2005.

The number of male union members has dropped below one million for the first time, with total membership now 1.8 million.

Now I thought these new IR laws were supposed to be a big call to action for Unions? The sky is falling, workers are getting screwed, so lets all band together and get the message across that the Howard's evil empire must be stopped? March on mass in the streets, shout our message from the rooftops??

So what's happened?

Can't wait to hear the excuses fly...

 

[downunder83]

If any of you bongheads on here had any idea about politics you would realize that the unions latest campaign is all about maintaining relevance. Basically union rates have fallen from 50% to about 20 % of the workforce... THANKGOD and they really need members! The whole current agenda is about trying to fool stupid people into joining.....

Hmm remember "fill the g"? It looks very similar to when hitler filled stadiums with supporters for speeches... Come on guys grow up and ignore union propaganda!

 

[UnSquare]

Writes At Ate at Three

^
I know 'Phill The G',
his shit is good,
he gives refunds,
even on BL accounts.

Dial 1800-Bongontig.

He's twice as sic(sic.) as Andrew G.

Peeps shoulds be lookin' at "THE" 's.
Harbour.

 

[Samadhi]

But does his hair move? Andrew G's doesn't.

 

[Aishas Star]

Going back a few pages..
I was all for the new IR laws a few weeks ago, I figured if people werent doing their job correctly then the shouldnt have one.. This was until my partner was sacked for no reason. The company tried to say he was taking other people sales, but when asked to show proof there was nothing to support them. But they didnt need anything. My partner was the highest grossing sales person they had ever had, He just didnt like to go to the pub every afternoon with everyone else. The boss didnt like this. They are a business with under 100 employees, they can do what ever they like.
To me this is totally unjust. My partner was in there every day working his arse off and for what? He had just been promoted to sales manager, so there was nothing wrong with his performance. His boss just didnt like him.
To make matters worse he's in Australia on a sponsorship VISA and needs to find another sponsorship in 4 weeks or hes out of the country.

..Fucked up..

 

[Bent Mk2]

That's fucked. But what protection would he have had under the previous laws? They're basically accusing him of theft. They could have booted him before the new laws.

 

[chopped_chimp]

But why would you WANT to work for someone that didn't want you there in the first place???

These laws seem to make things a lot more logical for me. If you work hard and fit it well with the team then you will get rewarded accordingly. If you don't work hard or don't fit in with the team or company direction then they can give you the flick. If you think you are worth more then you ask for it. If you aren't being given what you expect to be given then you can leave, simple!

I'm sorry to hear about your husband, however I understand first hand what it is like working in a team with someone that doesn't belong. Sometimes it's the best thing for the company to lose one employee for the benifit of others.

It's also possible that you're not getting the complete truth from your partner.

 

[L2R]

^you've got to be kidding, right? You have the gall to presume that the information you receive from government propaganda is more reliable than what Aisha Star's FUCKING LIFE PARTNER tells her?

Take your brain out the wash, son, i think it's bleached enough.

That's fucked. But what protection would he have had under the previous laws? They're basically accusing him of theft. They could have booted him before the new laws.

Previously he would've been able to sue for unlawful dismissal. Without evidence of any theft the company would have lost and the manager possibly dismissed (which actually happened at my workplace a few years ago (before workchoices)).


Workchoices allows employers to undercut their employees on their entitlements. This government created these laws in fear that these business' will go overseas and thus affecting our economy.

Essentially this is negotiating with terrorists.

 

[Aishas Star]

^you've got to be kidding, right? You have the gall to presume that the information you receive from government propaganda is more reliable than what Aisha Star's FUCKING LIFE PARTNER tells her?

Take your brain out the wash, son, i think it's bleached enough.




Previously he would've been able to sue for unlawful dismissal. Without evidence of any theft the company would have lost and the manager possibly dismissed (which actually happened at my workplace a few years ago (before workchoices)).


Workchoices allows employers to undercut their employees on their entitlements. This government created these laws in fear that these business' will go overseas and thus affecting our economy.

Essentially this is negotiating with terrorists.

Thank you.

chopped_chimp: I know what my partner tells me is right, I have no reason to doubt him.
I pity you, your current partner, if you have one and any future ones that will have to suffer someone the love not trusting them.

Unfortunately he DID have to work for this particular company, we just moved house and have more debts then I'd like to discuss. Quitting a job then having to find one that sponsors people is VERY hard, let alone the fact we have no money to be pay rent.
He worked for the company beacuse the money was good and it was very casual (shorts and t-shirts). I dont think that just cause he doesnt like going to the pub every afternoon that he should get the sack for it. He is there to work, so he did. I dont come to work to socialise, I come to make money for the people who pay me to. No one had a gripe with him, he just didnt like to get pissed every afternoon. He liked to come home and be with his family. There was no proof he did take anyones sales, the manager could not provide ANYTHING. Under the old laws, even if he was taking sales he would have to be given the mandatory 3 warnings with proof, before he could be sacked.

 

[chopped_chimp]

L2R, no I'm not kidding. What do you mean by government propaganda? The guys boss sacked him, not the government. I don't know where you're going with that.

Look, all I'm saying is that your partner got sacked for "taking other peoples sales". Coming from a sales background I have seen plenty of incidences where there are grey areas in determining who gets the commission from certain sales.

Example, a sales lead might come in while the correct Account Manager is out so another manager spends two hours writing up the business. Depending on what you're selling or the systems you use, then once the order is written up there might be no way of giving the sale to the correct manager. This might happen on multiple occasions and the evidence that it's someone else's sale could be very hard to find.

Taking someones sales does not generally mean that they have physically grabbed the money and pocketed it.

You say he was the top grossing salesman. In my experience the top achieveing guys are very good at what they do and are also the ones most likely to bend rules and work in these grey areas. I'm not saying this is illegal or has grounds to be sacked by, but I am saying that it's entirely possible that he did bend the rules.

The fact of the matter is that he was sacked because they didn't want him there. As an employer I feel it is neccasary to be able to run you business the best way you see fit. As an employee, if my boss doesn't want me there, I don't want to be there!

Your partner is obviously very good at what he does. I'm sure finding a new job will not be too difficult at all.

 

[Aishas Star]

No its not fair when hes doing his job and everyone else comes back from lunch drunk as a skunk, or doesnt come back at all and they are fine to stay, but give the guy who does all the work a hard time. Just cause the manager doesnt like him doesnt mean that the hard working employee should be the one up shit creek. As I said he needs a employer that is aloud to take on sponsorship. Not all business are able to, and it costs money for them to take him on.
Taking sales in his the company wasnt like what your saying, I cant really explain it because I dont know all the in's and out's, but I know the basics. But I already said that nothing was taken, the boss knows that, my partner knows that. What the point I'm trying to get at is under the new laws, what ever the circumstance he was able to be sacked for no reason, whether he took the sale or not. Before it wasnt like that.

 

[ValeTudo]

As an employer and reluctant liberal i think leave it to the business to clearly outline requirements & expectations of employees and dismiss those who can't meet them.

Small businesses don't have luxurie of paying money to staff who can't fit in to small team. My line of work for example require close inter personal communication and group dynamics, and while a potential team member might be good at what he does, if he doesn't fit well & gain trust quickly, why should be obligated to keep him?

cause a few union gangsters say so? i think not

 

[stephaniesomewhere]

because they make money for the company?
If I was a boss I would rather that they did a good job for my company than that they got along with everyone really well. Teamwork is important but it isn't the be all of a workplace, it is a lubricant that allows people from often quite disparate backgrounds to get along in order to work productively together with the ultimate aim of making profits for the business. However if people can do their work without this lubricant and achieve the goals of the company (making money) then I don't see why they should be expected to join in the "lubricating" as well.

 

[L2R]

L2R, no I'm not kidding. What do you mean by government propaganda? The guys boss sacked him, not the government. I don't know where you're going with that.

You seem to believe that people aren't being given the short end of the stick due to these so called "work choices" changes which IS government propaganda that you're swallowing. So much so, you rely on this information more than you trust Aisha Star's partner giving her the truth.

Now that is just ridiculous.

As an employer and reluctant liberal i think leave it to the business to clearly outline requirements & expectations of employees and dismiss those who can't meet them.

Small businesses don't have luxurie of paying money to staff who can't fit in to small team. My line of work for example require close inter personal communication and group dynamics, and while a potential team member might be good at what he does, if he doesn't fit well & gain trust quickly, why should be obligated to keep him?

cause a few union gangsters say so? i think not

sacking someone for not "fitting in" is discrimination. plain and simple.

 

[college_dropout]

^Can you please define what you mean by "fitting in"? It can be discrimination in some circumstances, in other circumstances it's not.

 

[Wacky]

Firstly,no one should be surprised by these industrial relation changes.John Howard has always wanted to do something like this.It's only been possible NOW because the silly majority gave the federal government control of the Senate.

Clearly the Rights at Work scare campaign is working



Now I thought these new IR laws were supposed to be a big call to action for Unions? The sky is falling, workers are getting screwed, so lets all band together and get the message across that the Howard's evil empire must be stopped? March on mass in the streets, shout our message from the rooftops??

So what's happened?

If you understood industrial relations,and work choices, you would realise that the federal government has introduced changes that weakens unions power to represent workers.Thus,in many workplaces it has been made pointless to join a union(people even opting out of the union.)

Check out these changes under workchoices(Taken from the federal governments official web site on the changes: www.workchoices.gov.au Check out the site.On such changes on how this government has basically made it illegal for workers to strike - Something that they partially did when the government introduced AWA agreements in 1996.Also,have the "no disadvantage test" NOW scrapped.Before you could NOT be worse off on an AWA,NOW this is NOT always the case.) that effects unions ability to represent workers:-

Union right of entry

Under WorkChoices, unions can enter certain workplaces to investigate a suspected breach of the Workplace Relations Act or to hold discussions with employees.

Unions may only enter a workplace to investigate a breach of an award or collective agreement if a member of the union is carrying out work at the premises and the suspected breach affects a union member.

If all employees are on AWAs or there is a collective agreement to which the union is not a party, a union does not have a right of entry under the Workplace Relations Act for discussion purposes.

Union officials must have a permit from the Australian Industrial Registrar to enter a workplace. The Registrar can only issue a permit if satisfied that the union official is a fit and proper person.


The Australian Industrial Registrar is a body appointed by the federal government(Anti-union government),and NOT independent.It is so subjective, what is a fit and proper person.I don't trust a fair ruling from a body connected to this federal government.



If union membership is down because people are happy with work choices,why is work choices still so unpopular with the masses???

Workchoices (In most cases should be called Employer Choices) is about destroying unions, giving more power to employers,thus higher profits at the expensive of most workers(Many workers losing weekend benefits,being offered less pay than they got on an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement with no other option to accept it,etc,etc.....).If you are a highly skilled worker with bargaining power you should benefit (You where ok before these changes anyway),but if you lack the skills and bargaining power you will and are being screwed.

For the people that are so anti-union,think why unions came about in the first place? Workers didn't get benefits like sick pay,holiday pay,etc,etc......... out of the goodness of employers hearts.They were won by people banding together to form unions.


Also,what is happening about the overblown obscene salaries that the top end of town are getting????? Especially,for the CEO of companies that are NOT going so great????? Aren't these bosses overblown salaries having a negative effect on the governments beloved economy.Or is it different rules for different people

Finally,this is the federal government that can NOT be handled with the truth on issues egs: Children overboard,Iraq's weapons off mass destruction,Mr Core & Non-Core Promises.This government certainly can't be trusted on industrial relations,especially with John howard NOW asking business (The core group that benefits from these laws.) to donate money for a new ad blitz, to try again, to con the public on Work Choices.

 

[ValeTudo]

sacking someone for not "fitting in" is discrimination. plain and simple.

Mate there's a big difference between fitting in socially (as you describe) and having a strong relationship / team dynamic (as i describe) - in my occupation if team member can't cooperate and maintain close interpersonal bond, they assume the risk of a hollowpoint through the brain which is a liability that won't be taken on by any of my companies under any circumstance

here's a few tips if you're scared of being fired:

* DONT BE A FUCKING SOOK
* DONT BE LAZY
* DONT BE INCOMPETENT

and you will have nothing to fear from the new IR laws

now that's plain and simple.

If you lack the skills and bargaining power you will and are being screwed.

Whose fault is it you have no skills?

Goto school, goto TAFE, goto University, join the Military and learn a trade, do an apprenticeship, get work experience!

There is no excuse whatsoever for any Australian to be unskilled. If you have no skills, you have only yourself to blame and don't dare play the poverty card because poverty do not exist in Australia, lack of education do not exist in Australia, only LAZY people & communists have anything to fear from WorkChoices

 

[Samadhi]

they assume the risk of a hollowpoint through the brain which is a liability

That's a pretty big liability right there. I have perhaps an inkling of what you do (even though you've never said so [that i've read on here]) and if it's what i'm thinking, i have 2 x friends who have similar careers overseas, and i can say, that if you're not a team player in that kind of environment, then you're are most definitely a liability, and when being a productive member of a team who fits in means the difference between life and a hollowpoint through the brain, whether you're complying with discrimination laws is probably not the most you have to worry about...

 

[L2R]

Mate there's a big difference between fitting in socially (as you describe) and having a strong relationship / team dynamic (as i describe) - in my occupation if team member can't cooperate and maintain close interpersonal bond, they assume the risk of a hollowpoint through the brain which is a liability that won't be taken on by any of my companies under any circumstance

here's a few tips if you're scared of being fired:

* DONT BE A FUCKING SOOK
* DONT BE LAZY
* DONT BE INCOMPETENT

and you will have nothing to fear from the new IR laws

now that's plain and simple.

Not true. See Aisha Star's boyfriend. The most productive and apparantly professional member of his team, and he gets shafted with no means of justice. Sacking someone when they meet or exceed their performance indicators, is discrimination no matter how much you wish it not so.

I have no fear of losing my job as i work in a company with thousands of emplyees. I still have the right to dispute an unfair dismissal if that were the case. How long this right remains will be seen, but as for my other rights, well, anything above award and the enterprise agreement that i am EXTREMELY LUCKY to have are being stripped away one at a time through quiet policy change.

No matter who you are, even if you cannot be unfairly fired like me, there is still much that can be taken from you due directly from workchoices.

Not to mention the bullying tactics that are not only allowed but encouraged by such laws.


I don't presume to know or care about what business you are in. These issues are blanketed onto all industries, and the negative effects infinitely far outweigh any positive ones.

 

[ValeTudo]

With respect it's just as likely Aisha Stars boyfriend sucks at his job. He may not, but some chick posting on the internet about how great her partner is and how unfair the world has become bears about as much weight as my left testicle at a breast cancer convention ~

the negative effects infinitely far outweigh any positive

Getting fired is worse than unnecessary death?