Will removing work choices = paycuts?

[mighty_tiger_79]

the dead wood of society working for minimum wage which doesnt reflect cost of living expenses

mind you the DEADWOOD helped johnny with his unemployment levels being so low

[bulldogproud]

The IR system that the former Howard Government presided over greatly reduced the rights of workers. There were only four minimum conditions that AWA's had to meet: 4 weeks annual leave (two of which could be cashed out); 10 days personal leave; long service leave; 12 months unpaid parental leave for one partner. All other conditions were left to be negotiated between the employer and the employee. This made it very hard for most employees as the employer pretty much has the upper hand in negotiations. It is very hard for an employee to tell an employer the conditions under which they will work. As such, rest breaks, overtime payments, shift loadings, penalty rates, public holiday pay and incentive-based bonuses and payments were being cancelled in many AWA's. Admittedly, the Government did bow to public pressure to put in a fairness test in May 2007 for workers on incomes of less than $75,000. However, when put to the test, many AWA's failed this test but were not changed.
The new IR policy will see a return to fairness for workers. AWA's will be scrapped as quickly as they can (at the end of the effective life of each one: the effective life is in almost all cases three years from the time of signing), the minimum conditions of workers will be improved (many of those rights outlined as cancelled in my previous paragraph will be reinstated), unfair dismissal laws will be reinstated and the annual minimum wage case will be fairer to employees.
Under the Howard Government the percentage of the 'annual income cake' that went to corporate profits rose from 22% to an all-time high of 28% whilst the share of the cake for workers went from 55% down to 53%. The way to make money under the previous government was not to work but to be a shareholder.
Cheers

[mick]

The way to make money under the previous government was not to work but to be a shareholder.
Cheers

I've found the best way to become a shareholder is to work. Superannuation funds invest strongly in shares, so I would say almost all workers are shareholders

[bulldogproud]

True to a degree, but you are at the mercy of the Superannuation Fund managers. Is it fair that whilst Australia's national income cake (GDP) is rising strongly, the share that workers receive is falling?
Cheers

[bulldogproud]

Mick, yes I will enjoy the rewards of that superannuation money - in forty years!!!
Cheers

[Punk Rooster]

Face facts- some people were better off, some worse off under Work Choices Legislation.

I would suggest that the majority of those worse off, were the dead wood of society- the one you & your colleagues wonder how someone so incompetent can keep their job?

Objectivity and credibility of myself questioned in another thread then I read this tripe The dead wood of society?

Well I managed to make my point without deriding the nation's leader with petty insults for a start....

The dead wood I'm talking about are those people (who in the past) were so incompetent at their job, yet could not be dismissed because the company would be sued. These are people who would roll up to work, put in a token effort, or just plain hopless at what they do, & expect similar rewards as others.

Let me guess Redden Whites- your one of the people I'm describing?

[bulldogproud]

However, Punk, those people would only be able to keep their job if they could prove that they were in fact not 'deadwood'. At least you had a fair system where workers could not be sacked simply because they wore the wrong colour underpants! If they were not performing at their job, they were rightfully dismissed. Under Workchoices there was very little security for any worker and they could be dismissed for any reason (unless they were able to prove that it was for a discriminatory reason under the various Discrimination Acts).
Cheers

[bulldogproud]

Face facts- some people were better off, some worse off under Work Choices Legislation.

I would suggest that the majority of those worse off, were the dead wood of society- the one you & your colleagues wonder how someone so incompetent can keep their job?

Objectivity and credibility of myself questioned in another thread then I read this tripe The dead wood of society?

Well I managed to make my point without deriding the nation's leader with petty insults for a start....

The dead wood I'm talking about are those people (who in the past) were so incompetent at their job, yet could not be dismissed because the company would be sued. These are people who would roll up to work, put in a token effort, or just plain hopless at what they do, & expect similar rewards as others.
Let me guess Redden Whites- your one of the people I'm describing?

Punk, are you describing the North Adelaide Football Club on Grand Final Day?

[Punk Rooster]

)

However, Punk, those people would only be able to keep their job if they could prove that they were in fact not 'deadwood'. At least you had a fair system where workers could not be sacked simply because they wore the wrong colour underpants! If they were not performing at their job, they were rightfully dismissed. Under Workchoices there was very little security for any worker and they could be dismissed for any reason (unless they were able to prove that it was for a discriminatory reason under the various Discrimination Acts).
Cheers

BDP, we've both provided extreme points here.
I think we could all agree that somewhere in the middle would be best for everyone (dead wood included ).

[bulldogproud]

True, Punk. I just wish that we had a society that looked at individuals as people first, economic resources second. Currently I think we are looked at more for the economic resource we can provide. There is much more to life than economics and materialism. Let people live, 'work to live, not live to work'.

[bulldogproud]

Btw, Punk, I do know someone who was sacked for his dress taste!

[Punk Rooster]

True, Punk. I just wish that we had a society that looked at individuals as people first, economic resources second. Currently I think we are looked at more for the economic resource we can provide. There is much more to life than economics and materialism. Let people live, 'work to live, not live to work'.

"I AM NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE"- Falling Down

[bulldogproud]

I make a poor excuse for being an Accountant/Economist, don't I??
I blame it on the Josephite nuns who converted me to socialism!!