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

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

your rights at work

Do I think that's fair?

and i get paid bloody well for what i do
Click to expand...

Yep, I sure do! ;)

So what's everyone's take on Rudd's new 'Fair Work Australia' plan? Gillard's main selling point last night seemed to be that people are too dumb to find the IR commission "on the net or in the phone book".
 
See, now you're just being obtuse.

You think, that just because i get paid well NOW, i should never ever ever get another payrise, even though i work my ARSE off, just because someone else in another department, that has NOTHING to do with what i do, doesn't work as hard?

You think that i should be happy with what i'm given now and for the next 30 years, with no payrise... based on performance and/or inflation?


...yep... obtuse (or high).
 
Last edited:
You do know the inflation figures were released the other day, and they're good. So good the market was shocked and now there's a very good chance interest rates wont rise this year, even when Costello announces a whole raft of vote buying tax cuts in the budget?

Also, what happens to people in departments that constantly don't make KPIs?
 
Bent Mk2 said:
You do know the inflation figures were released the other day, and they're good. So good the market was shocked and now there's a very good chance interest rates wont rise this year, even when Costello announces a whole raft of vote buying tax cuts in the budget?
Click to expand...

see bold. What happens next year, and the year after that?

Also, what happens to people in departments that constantly don't make KPIs?
Click to expand...

In the past, they were performanced managed, and then warned, etc. Nowadays, i have no idea as i've not seen any of the current AWAs. Regardless, it's not that simple as one group constantly working under par. We have about 15 business line, with dozens of departments... if one group per year don't perform or perform just under par, then we don't get a pay-rise.

Also, thank god that inflation figures are good and interest rates were not going to rise, mortgages are killers, and i rechecked the figures and our payrise, is 1.5% this year... that may be 1 mortgage payment less i'd have to worry about.
 
1.5% shit, samadhi, that's fucked.
I could imagine bonuses being company wide (as ours are) but payrises? that is ridiculous.

i got 5.5% this year and that is by exceeding all expectations.

but then i know people who look at a bonus in the 20-30% range per year!
 
My understanding of the subtext of PS is that the role is given money not the individual. The concept of KPI is a cultural rallying point, the compass for decision making if you will, not employee incentive

As with most large organizations with a low rate of personal investment the system operates on mountains of process and lots of redundancy. This means that idiocy is mitigated and talent is stunted. The machine is slow, stupid and unstoppable

So if you want a payrise you apply for a better role

imo, none of this has anything to do with unions or work place rights
 
samadhi said:
We just got a nationwide email sent to us yesterday, stating that we were no longer covered if we are injured on our way to or from work, or on any lunch break. :\

I actually never thought we were covered to/from work, but on our lunch break? Why the fuck else would be be on a lunch break - we're at work!
Click to expand...

For the same reasoning as your lunch break comment, is why you were covered on the way to and from work. If you're on your way to work it's technically not your time anymore, it's your employers. Say you have an accident on your way to work. If you weren't going to work, you wouldn't have had the accident.

A girl (wonder when I'll ever start to find the word woman, in regards to females appealing, it still sounds too grown up, ponders) I work with sprained her ankle walking home from work and was covered by workcover.

It sucks that you've now lost those rights. Let's hope labor wins the next election and you may see them reinstated.
 
If I fall over at home whilst thinking about work, am I covered? What if I'm taking a sickie and fall over at the pub, technically I'm being paid therefore I'm working, therefore I should be covered by Workcover.

That's half the problem with this world, no one is prepared to take responsibility for their actions. You get injured because your work screwed up then absofarkinglutely you should be covered, but if its a case of walking along somewhere, where your work has no control over you whatsoever why the hell should they fork out. How about you watch where you're walking??
 
If you're on your way to or from work it's hardly your time. It's time that you have no choice but to be dedicating to work. In my mind not only should you be covered, but all travel time to and from work should be paid for at normal wages.
 
And its that kinda thinking that means we'll never agree (probably on anything). You keep expecting everyone else to pay for your mistakes, and I'll pay attention to where I'm walking!
 
Taken from www.smh.com.au: PM retreats: safety net for battlers


Phillip Coorey Chief Political Correspondent
May 4, 2007
Latest related coverage






JOHN HOWARD will today acknowledge public concern over his industrial relations laws by introducing a "battlers' clause" designed to prevent people on low to middle incomes from being stripped of work conditions for nothing in return.

In the first significant change to the controversial laws, workers on up to $75,000 will not be allowed to be stripped of protected award conditions such as penalty rates or overtime without receiving anything in return.

The battlers' clause or fairness test will be monitored and enforced by the Office of the Employment Advocate, which will be renamed the Workplace Authority.

The Office of Workplace Services, which enforces compliance under Work Choices, will also have its name changed to the Workplace Ombudsman.

The Prime Minister, who in the past has ruled out significant change to his rules, will acknowledge today they have the potential to be electorally damaging.

"There is an uneasiness in the community that it might become the norm for people to lose their penalty rates for nothing in return, and we want to stop that," he said. "This puts us in the middle ground of the industrial relations debate."

The fairness clause will apply to those earning up to $75,000 and who are on either Australian workplace agreements or collective agreements.

Under Work Choices, employers only need to include five basic conditions when offering a workplace agreement - minimum working hours, a minimum rate of pay, parental leave, annual leave and sick leave. Workers seeking other conditions such as penalty rates had to negotiate for them with no guarantee they would be granted.

Mr Howard said the battlers' clause would not mandate penalty rates or other conditions such as overtime or shift loadings, but they could not be taken away without something given in return. This could include a higher rate of base pay, better working hours, or even parking in the city. "It has to be something reasonable in exchange," he said. "That's a fair return."

Mr Howard also said that it would be acceptable if a business was struggling and a worker willingly took the job with the five minimum conditions knowing this, and not expecting penalty rates or some other trade-off.

Mr Howard's promise stops short of bringing back a mandated no-disadvantage test, as Labor is advocating, but is a recognition that people are being stripped of protected conditions and receiving nothing in return without any recourse to complain.

"It's a strengthening of the safety net, but it doesn't affect the fundamentals of the system," he said. But it will make workplace agreements more politically defensible for the Government just at a time when Labor is pledging to scrap them altogether.

Labor is under pressure from mining and business to retain workplace agreements. Yesterday the mining sector said it would accept workplace agreements underpinned by Labor's 10-point safety net. There is also pressure within Labor to placate business by keeping workplace agreements with a restored safety net.

Mr Howard's move is a significant about-face on one of the central elements of Work Choices that has generated anxiety among employees. He has been hinting recently the Government's campaign to sell the law had been unsuccessful, and had been urging big business to fund campaigns in support of it.

The Government spent $44 million last year promoting Work Choices before it was introduced in March.









A shame about employees that have had no workchoice but to sign an AWA under the workchoice system to keep/want the job,and have been screwed.


So John Howard and his government make changes to 'Workchoices' in the lead up to an election.

Funny,that I thought Workchoices was suppose to be great8) .

Good to see the government admit that Workchoices is unfair to many workers,and that under Workchoices didn't want many workers to be treated fairly. A shame the only reason they care NOW,and have done it is for there OWN SELF INTEREST to hope to be re-elected.

I hope most of the public are aware enough to see this change for what it really is,and vote this :p government out.

With this governments track record,they are NOT to be trusted.If they get back in,I'm sure they would be go back to Workchoices in it's original form 8o ,or worse :X .

The government that will "Say and do anything to stay in power.That do NOT care about the people".
 
Last edited:
OMG so many noobs here being fooled by Union propaganda....... read up on the facts and realise that the new system is a lot better for all of us... Unions suxor!
 
Wacky - not that i agree with the whole AWA thing, but i think that every government does things to get a better public image before each election not just liberals...im fairly sure labor/greens etc would be doing the same thing (i.e - changing policies that were sticking firm too, in order to win more votes)
 
kryalkastleE said:
Wacky - not that i agree with the whole AWA thing, but i think that every government does things to get a better public image before each election not just liberals...im fairly sure labor/greens etc would be doing the same thing (i.e - changing policies that were sticking firm too, in order to win more votes)
Click to expand...

I know other political parties may do it.But, that does NOT make it right, and it does NOT excuse this current Liberal government,that does it to such a huge level eg: In this case,they spent MILLIONS of our tax dollars saying how great ALL of WORKCHOICES is (LIEING!!!!!! - Which I knew anyway.),and then backflip to keep there jobs.I expect a backflip if the public are foolish enough to elect them again - Backflip to the original WORKCHOICES or worse.

This government has NO MORALS and have a history of lieing egs: NEVER EVER GST,Children overboard,Iraq war to Workchoices.They are JUST self-serving,who will "say and do anything to stay in power".

This government CAN NOT BE TRUSTED!!!!!!!!!!
 
downunder83 said:
OMG so many noobs
Click to expand...

Funny that,nice joining date,ha,ha,ha................

downunder83 said:
here being fooled by Union propaganda....... read up on the facts and realise that the new system is a lot better for all of us... Unions suxor!
Click to expand...

You need to take your own advice,and stop being fooled by government propaganda.

You means the full facts on AWA's signed since WORKCHOICES come in, that the government didn't want released because it made them and WORKCHOICES look bad,cause it is.

Or the fact the government has backflipped and changed sections of WORKCHOICES eg: introducing a "fairness test" - How fair it will be, is still to be seen.........

I guess,the government didn't mind the "unfairness" of WORKCHOICES
until there own jobs were/are on the line.
 
They don't do anything and they're evil, they do what people want an they're backflipping and evil.

And yet whilst Labor's bagging the Libs for changing their policy, saying the have no idea, Dudd's happily changing his policy because its terrible and no one thinks its any good!
 
Great, then we'd all be out of a job, but at least we'd be legally allowed to smoke bongs and shoot up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top