This week marks the one-year anniversary of 'WorkChoices' - the Howard Government's radical rewrite of Australia's industrial relations (IR) laws. After twelve months, we want to know what you think about the new laws. Please take a minute to vote in our snap poll here and post a comment about the new laws.
More information
ACTU fact-sheet: IR laws 1 year on
download
ACTU full report: IR laws 1 year on
download
The Community and Public Sector Union is an active, inclusive and innovative union. Membership is open to employees in the public sector, telecommunications, employment services, broadcasting, aviation, science and research.
By joining you help make workplaces and communities fairer. Together we: provide a voice for all workers; support and promote a strong, independent public sector and make a difference.
To find out more, visit www.cpsu.org.au call 1300 137 636 or email members@cpsu.org.au
99 comments:
It's taking us back to chimney sweep days.
I definitely vote no NO NO. After 33 years with the same employer my husband was told at his appraisal in the morning what a great job he had done for the last year and what a valued employee he was. Within an hour and a half he was told that he was no longer required as his position was being made redundant. In all his years with his employer he was told he could not join a union because he was a member of staff. Because of Mr Kennett's goodness, he received 52 weeks redundancy (maximum) was taxed at the highest level on his long service leave and accrued annual leave and lost 2800 hours sick leave. Please explain to me where the fairness is. That is just a statement, I know you cant answer me.
Although our workplace has not yet been greatly affected I believe there are other place not so fortunate. It will be only a matter of time before the IR laws begin to creep into every work place unless they are stopped. It will be like a cancer spreading slowly until it is too late to get rid of it.
We are currently negotiating a new agency agreement and I feel very uncertain as to our future. With the potential for restricted or no union involvement, I feel we will not have the power negotiate a good agreement.
I don't think that the new laws are fair or equitable. I have genuine concerns that the new laws will be used to further erode had won rights for workers. I have fears that now that the laws are in place that both sides of the government will continue to erode rights of the workforce now that the laws are in place. My concern is that the Labour party (if it wins government), will only through out some of the laws and not all of them. Once on the easy path, it is easy to stay there on differing levels.
While the Howard Govt may be happy about wages and employment under WorkChoices, workplace conditions have been eroded significantly; this can't always be quantified, but almost always has a negative impact.
With the AWA, teamwork suffers.
Brigitte S
It seems that rights have been eroded for the people that need them most.
These laws are not encouraging people to feel secure with their job, pay or conditions. Broad agreements make for a better environment for everyone.
Christine R
As far as I have observed the workchoices has eroded workers rights and the benefits unions and workers have fought so hard for over many years.
I guess I haven't had direct experience of effects of Workchoices yet, however, I have seen it in operation in the private sector and I am appalled at how little protection young people have.
We hear about people being disadvantaged by these new laws every day and with a son (16) now old enough to source part-time work after school I no longer feel that he would be treated fairly by employers. If the industrial relations laws remain the life that my father fought for during WWII will no longer be a right but something they too will have to fight for to be treated fairly.
It's not better and I feel there are a lot of people who remain ignorant of the impact of these laws.
Our Customs Certified Agreement ends soon. I am a bit concerned that there would not be enough declarations to enable the CPSU to bargain on our behalf. Some think that you have to be a member to sign the declaration (Some Customs Officers are reluctant to part with a few dollars a week to become members would you believe)
Bernadette D
No I do not believe the work place is fairer. And the worst part the changes are occurring chip by chip with one little person at a time.
It appears as if employers are picking staff one by one. And just depending on the individual if they are treated poorly, they either resign or becomes resigned to their fate.
I disagree with Mr Howard IR laws as this may impact my work balance with family issues.
Concern about restrictions on taking leave and the government wanting to reduc leave entitlements with reduced pay.
I am concern as I work part time due to family comittments, the not knowing whether I am able to continue to work part time. Causing stress and tension with family members.
Our workforce is becoming like america's where people have to work for 3 dollars an hour and if howard and costello think that this is a livable wage,they should apply for a job at muffin break where they can work non stop for $12.00 an hour and receive no luch break or tea break.
more flexibility with the new system and previously some unions did promote very restrictive work practices. These conditions etc were only available to some workers in some sectors. However, under the new legislation redress through the courts MUST disadvantage many workers without resources to fight for their own rights. The idea that workers are freed to get the best deal for themselves sounds like a good idea but will simply not work for many people in sectors without clout. This might include the Community sector etc.
Thanks for the chance to provide opinion on work choices.
IR laws - negative
Overall seems to be taking more entitlements than giving.
Entitlements gained over time by our parents, grand parents etc, now being sold off for a quick dollar to a deluded generation who aspire for a better life now, at the cost of any future generations.
IR laws - positive
A chance to experience first hand a Dickens novel.
An issue that clearly separates and identifies both major parties to the electorate.
Reminds us to keep hold of enterprise bargaining at all costs.
As bush says - Its about the have's and the have mores'.
Lets try and only adopt good policy from other countries, not bad policies.
It really makes me feel as a country, we are a dumb bunch of rednecks and don't deserve to live here in the first place.
work choices = more choices for unscrupulous employers to cut corners, ignore basic human rights and increase rail baron style profiteering.
Yes, the new laws are simpler because they give more power to employers and managers to do the wrong thing. They argue that the Act gives them the power to move people, make their life hell, sack them, and to push them to resign if everything else fails. No, the new laws are not fairer. Quite frankly, they do not know what the word means if they can argue that they are fairer. The new laws give more power to corrupt manager/greedy employer, especially those who have no conscious and there is nothing they wouldn’t do, to misconstrue Acts/Regulations for their benefit. As for more balanced – it is ludicrous – how can the new laws be balanced when almost everything goes. As a citizen of Australia and a Public Servant for almost 27 years, I am quite disappointed that we have ended up where we are because someone has lost the meaning of what is simple, fair and balanced. First, we had the New Public Service Act and then now the Industrial Relations Act
I don't believe Australian Workplaces are fairer since Workchoices. Whilst it has not personally affected me yet I am concerned what might happen with our next EBA which is up for negotiation very soon. When I hear of companies that unfairly treat employees using Workchoices as an excuse I refuse to give them my custom eg Spotlight.
I really don't want all the razz mattazz I want my Union to just do its job. If you need me to do something I am happy to do it but snap polls what for?
I don't agree with the IR laws in any form.
Anyone doing a good job for their employee deserves to feel
confident and secure in knowing that there isn't a chance that out of the blue one day,
they will get a call, or show up to work only to find that they have been fired/laid off for
no apparent reason.
These laws only encourage employers to abuse and take advantage of employees.
This puts more stress and pressure on the lower income earners and it perpetuate
the socioeconomical disaster that we are in now.
Stress is the biggest killer in our world today, and all these laws are pure confirmation of that.
Unions have a definite place on our society today.
Quite frankly I think the fuss about work choices has been greatly over done. It has had little impact on the APS so far as I can see. The same goes for AWAs. I am on an AWA and and happy to be so. The Union did not consult me before coming out against them.
My advice would be that the Union should stop focussing on unjustified interventions in national politics and should get on with trying to make itself more relevant to the membership on everyday issues, taking a more positive stance and less "anti everything" than is presently the case
Yours
Colin W - (union member since 1969)
I definately don't agree with any of the work place agreement laws... Who is looking after the employees rights?..Buisness's are mostly taken care of by the government...Buisness's make their own rules and get away with it....
I've heard stories about employees who have been working for a company for 20 years and have been sacked and re-employed so they get a lower pay and loose their benefits
Of couse the employee is going to accept because they may not have any other option.....That is all they know.. This could happen to any of us......
This is sad for the average joe...
Thanks for hearing my view...
Issue not discussed but should be looked at
Forcing down wages reduces employer super contribution and further limits an employees ability to make super contribution. This reduction in retirement savings will lead to a greater burden on Government age pension which will be collected through increase tax burden on wrokers and business. Short term gains for business now could lead to greate tax burden on business at a later date.
While the Federal Government would have us believe that Work Choices did not play a role in the NSW elections, for me personally it is the No. 1 reason
I wouldn't consider voting for any Liberal Government. While the Work Choices impact across the population is hard to define after 12 months, (some people actually
feel they are better off after their initial AWA) , I believe the real impacts will begin to be felt some 2 or 3 years down the track. That is when a greater proportion of the workforce will have been forced onto AWAs and some of the initial AWAs will have to be renegotiated. This will be the next opportunity for the Government to chip
away at our working conditions.
Considering some of the discussions I have had with other staff members, I do believe there is a great complacency among many people in the current climate that the working conditions we have now will remain the same. The best way to convince them that this will not be the case is show them the possibilities of a future with draconian industrial laws.
The government say they are helping families bit they are destroying them by not having any family day left ie Sunday, due to their work choices.
Thanks Tanya
We need to have a push for more members to join unions, we need to be stronger! We need to be more united especially in the coming years.
Robert S
These laws are a joke, my wife gets one weekend off every 7 weeks.
Previously she would have received compensation for this (penalty rates for weekend work), but now she gets nothing, and there is nothing she can do about it.
My wife who works in the hospitality sector has been affected by the changes which resulted in her hours been totally rearranged. Her previous conditions were set to work around the kids being at school, or me being at home to look after the kids. After the IR changes she no longer had set hours (was virtually 'on-call'). This resulted in her leaving the position.
Workplace employment conditions have been eroded and there is no protection for the young or the vulnerable and remuneration has been reduced significantly with people working longer and harder for less money and no work life balance to attend to family responsibilities.
Very disappointing, all will be revealed by the Australian public on election day.
The principle of removing employment restrictions from the marketplace has some merit, however the process as it is now applied is poorly targeted, oppressive and will in years to come be seen as creating a lower class of employee, consisting of those with less marketable skills, lack of job mobility or those with any employment barrier. For example, school leavers, those in remote areas, those with training in one area or less, the long term unemployed, single parents, those with an incapacity. All these people will be in a situation where the employer has a distinct advantage in negotiating an agreement.
The current laws are used as a bludgeon where a new employee has two choices, accept the AWA as presented to them, or look elsewhere for employment. Those in the group I described above will be likely to take sub standard employment contracts.
I am in agreement that small employers do need to be able to dismiss staff without unreasonable justification requirements, thus encouraging them to employ staff when times are good. My objection to 'workchoices' is that I would define a small employer as one with 20 or less employees, not 100.
My ideal system would allow the small (20 or less employees) employer the flexibility to hire and fire but larger employers would be required to provide a much more detailled reason for terminating ongoing employment.
Any employer that decides on the AWA line, should be required to offer in any AWA as a minimum, all conditions currently offered under the enterprise negotiated agreement or applicable award. Where an AWA negotiates away any of those conditions, it should be required to specify for each condition what the compensation is that applies. The employee should be able to accept or decline the offered compensation for any or all conditions. If an AWA was presented as the employee with the choice, overtime rates when required or $5,000 per year, to a maximimum of XX number of hours on top of normal worked then there is no confusion and the employee has an informed choice.
If the situation as it is under the current workchoices is allowed to stand, then working longer hours, having standard hours outside the normal workday, receiving no penalty rates, etc.. will become the norm, thus much harder to reject as an employee because many others will accept the conditions.
In the longer term, has anyone analysed what the impact on credit ratings and applications for home loans etc will be where a larger number of people have been made career mobile (due to workchoices increasing job mobility). From the lenders point of view, the job security will not be there, surely increasing the risk of people defaulting on loans. Will those on AWA's be less able to successfully apply for loans ?
In closing, as I have stated to friends in discussions, the election this year is a perfect opportunity to stand as an independant for the senate. There are MANY liberal voters who are against workchoices, nuclear power, Iraq, etc.. but those voters will have long held objections to voting for the opposition. An independant who stands on a stated position on these issues will probably have a significant chance for a protest vote.
The current federal opposition is making the same mistake it has made for the last 10 years, that is opposing the government on issues without offering an alternative. For example, instead of spending 2 billion dollars on a nuclear power plant, what would be the cost and benefit of insulating every house in Australia or providing solar panels to every house in Australia ? I have no idea on the answer, but the opposition should be able to say they have investigated this alternative and here are the results. Make voters believe that they are not a party of negatives, but instead are a party which investigates alternatives.
On workchoices, the opposition needs to clearly state what parts of the legislation they are likely to keep, and what will be repealled. not just a blanket statement that the program will be removed.
Having worked in the private sector for most of my working life, I do believe that aspects of the reforms are necessary to enable small busi.
However, being the mother of two children currently in apprenticships, I do have concerns about the reforms ability to protect the hard won awards that protect them from being exploited.
Private negotiation, for anyone not skilled in this area, is something that needs to be monitored to ensure that basic standards of employment are upheld.
I believe they encourage exploitation by employers which will cause a ever increasing gap between the rich and the poor.
generally UNFAIR......
HI
I am voting no. Recent news that female real wages have fallen by 1.8% is an indication of the direction that the new IR laws promote.
I also have seen the impact on the young and inexperienced in the workforce. Yes, they are in starter jobs but the total disregard for their rights to have any fair 'work-life balance' is shown in the lack of conditions in their 'voluntary' AWAs.
These IR laws undermine the Australian ideals of a fair go for all and caring for the weaker members of the community.
Choice really only applies to those in the workplace with skills that are in high demand /or specialty areas.
Most people employed in processing ( whether in offices or in factories) do not have the same level of "specialty" which would give them bargaining power.
Often people in lower paying jobs do not have the education/language skills/confidence needed to negotiate a wage agreement…this is where Unions help.
In an Organization employing a lot of staff performing the same duties it is not likely that individuals would have a say in negotiating an individual contract….. In other words it would be one contract fits all.
No stability in contracts instead of permanent employment for young ones
I think John Howard's Work Choices was a disastrous move for ALL workers and hopefully if the Opposition gets in at the next Federal elections, this will be abolished.
I believe it has affected the normal workers but maybe not contractors, not sure.
I would love to see Mr Howard and the rest on an AWA’s under the ‘work choice under the IR laws’ where all he has is a wage with tax deducted and no benefits that he and ALL politicians, CEO’s are enjoying.
(My pipe dream)
Lesley
No the new laws are not fair including legislation about journey to and from work which is part of the compensation laws.
In the end it all goes back to WorkChoices which has and is the catalyst for every other legislation affecting the workers.
Regards
Amanda
Conditions and entitlements are being removed from our agreement because they are "prescriptive" and put in guidelines which cannot be enforced.
Hi
No I do not believe the work place is fairer. And the worst part the changes are occurring chip by chip with one little person at a time.
It appears as if employers are picking staff one by one. And just depending on the individual if they are treated poorly, they either resign or becomes resigned to their fate.
The noose has just started to tighten. Workers compensation first sick leave next.
We hear about people being disadvantaged by these new laws every day and with a son (16) now old enough to source part-time work after school I no longer feel that he would be treated fairly by employers. If the industrial relations laws remain the life that my father fought for during WWII will no longer be a right but something they too will have to fight for to be treated fairly.
I guess I haven't had direct experience of effects of Workchoices yet, however, I have seen it in operation in the private sector and I am appalled at how little protection young people have.
Simpler? No! (Even a collective agreement such as we have ends up a massive document under Work Choices.)
Fairer? No way! Well, it's fairer if you're a boss, and you believe that slavery is a reasonable business practice, but otherwise no.
BRING ON THE FEDERAL ELECTION, AND WHAT I HOPE WILL BE A MASSIVE KICK IN THE PANTS FOR THE HOWARD GOVERNMENT.
While not everyone has lost pay or conditions (though a lot have) I think the main negative impact of these changes has been the additional stress that people now feel due to the uncertainty that these IR laws have created. We don't know what we will lose next.
NO workplaces are not fairer or more balanced!!!!!
The new Workchoice legislation has not effected me directly but I keep hearing negative stories and feedback about how it has effected other people, especially those that are not Union members.
Less pay, worse conditions have resulted.
I am voting NO - I believe we will be worse off in the future as is in evidence with the film industry that was in the media last night and various others that have been talked about.
Workplaces have now been stripped of entitlements such as award rates, penalties, shift allowances, the ability to question and defend wrongful dismissal/dismissal on spurios grounds etc. Employers have far too much power over workers, their is no equality between employees and management.
The original industrial laws were based on a worker not having to loose their dignity in keeping a job. Thats what the Higgins doctrine was all about. He was right then & still right now. The sight of a grovelling worker needing to keep their job will not make Australia or Australians strong but weaker. Dignity cannot be fair or balanced. You either have it or you dont. Under the current laws, you dont.
I do not think they are fairer and I am personally experiencing the effects of these in a workplace of under 100 people.
How can WorkChoices be fairer if you are employed under duress (ie "take it or leave it")? My primary concern is that the general public servant doesn't think it affects their conditions... A point of note to this is that the Gen Ys have never experienced a fight for rights,(like the strikes/fights in the 80s), it has been a given for them and as a consequence I personally find you cannot rally them.
It is a fact of life that for no apparent reason an employer may take a dislike to an employee. These laws have paved the way for that employer to sack anyone they do not like the look of, may have a disability, or work related injury, with no real reason and no burden to prove a genuine complaint or reason why the person was let go. I believe most employers are reasonably fair, you will always have the person who does not want to pay the correct rate, overtime, penalty rates etc, the new IR legislation has opened the door for those who want to rort the system.
Younger people & people with disabilities are unfairly disadvantaged. They are vunerable to unfair wages & work conditions. These groups generally can't afford to fight/argue with employers.
I honestly can't see how they impact on me personally. I will have a better idea after the new Agency Agreement is negotiated. I feel the new laws leave it open for employers to set the conditions how they wish and so leaves few options for those who are just entering the job market, the young and those who may have other challenges including disability and a whole raft of other things.
'WorkChoices' was touted as providing an opportunity for the development of individual agreements tailored to suit the specific needs of both parties. In my experience, at my place of work and for my son's part-time work, it is very much a 'take it or leave it' document. I can see that this happens for very practical reasons. If you are an employer, the overhead of conducting and managing individual AWAs that are truly the result of negotiation and amendment would be extremely burdensome. The savings from AWAs must therefore come from not having to negotiate at all as would be the case for a collective bargaining arrangement where the workers, by speaking with one voice, can effect the eventual outcome. Other savings are also found by reducing entitlements. As far as I can see, AWAs just allow employers to set the terms without having to spend time bargaining and the worker's only choice is to work or not work - there is no 'individual' aspect to the current arrangement at all. Perhaps this is something the union could consider further.
WorkChoices should be named NoChoices as it gives all the power to the employer and no backup for employees. As collective bargaining is eroded people who are not extrovert in nature are more likely to be the losers at work under AWAs. Employers are expecting staff to take on their work and the work of other staff to reduce employee numbers meanwhile wanting staff to reduce taking sick leave. The choices employees have is to put up with this or leave to work elsewhere with much of the same conditions...
What a disgraceful situation where we workers are now so afraid of bosses that even safety will be compromised as we will not rock the boat. It reminds me of when my parents were at work and were too afraid to take a sick day off in case they lost their jobs. We have now gone backward in a big way because the government can think of no other way to protect this country from competition, other than blame the worker and use IR as a tool to make big business even richer. Furthermore, how can the average person bargain with their boss one on one when the big companies have an army of specialist lawyers who have already shaped the contract to suit the business, and the company has an almost endless supply of capital to fight any discrepancy. So in fact it's the lowly worker against a whole conglomeration. The scales are skewed totally to the employer by sheer power. When is the Labor party going to make the word union an acceptable word rather than the government using it in a negative concept?
There is no evidence given which links the new laws with any measurable benefits and plenty of anecdotal and statistical information that suggests negative results. The Governemnt has even stopped collecting statistics which would shed light on the use of AWAs.
The balance has gone and the laws are weighted against the employee. I hope there is a resounding slap in the Liberals' face at the next election when the majority of Australians who these laws have "buggered" vote against them.
What's fairer or more balanced about reduction in penalty rates, overtime, annual leave loading, etc, etc?? John Howard & Joe Hockey should be ashamed of themselves.
The Howard Government claimed ‘WorkChoices’ would make workplace relations 'simpler' 'fairer' and more 'balanced'
This statement is fictional and offensive to the Australian Workers its another blatant lie from the Howard Government who seem to think that the Australian public will buy anything they spin us. My ferverent hope is that Australian voters will send a strong message to the government at the next election that we are not prepared to sacrifice the wages and conditions that every previous generation of australian worker has fought so hard to gain.
What's fair about the employer holding all the cards and calling all the shots ?
It just makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, as per Liberal Party doctrine. They believe like their buddies on Channel Nine that you can fool everybody all of the time. The intellectuals amongst us know better.
I think they are very unfair as my wage is low now without them taking away penalties etc. It is hard to survive now without these new laws. Besides it gives bosses to much power to treat people unfairly if they don’t like you.No way little Johnny.
Does turning up to work one day only to be told that your employment has been terminated without valid reason seem fair?
That is what happened to my husband just before Christmas. He was forced to hand over his company car, laptop computer, mobile phone and documents there and then without any warning. There was a cab waiting outside and he wasnt even allowed to say good bye to any of his co workers. His boss turned from being a nice guy to someone very cold and calous. All in the name of benefiting the company.
We endured 4 long months of having one average wage and a mortgage to the tune of $300,000. My husband was severly depressed and I had to keep us going even though at times I felt like collapsing in a heap.
We are putting off having kids until we are in a better financial position. That could be years away. Nobody's jobs are safe anymore. This country wants to encourage growth of the population yet there is no incentive, a $4000 hand out at the time of the birth of your child is not going to help you pay the bills and put food on the table whilst they are growing up. We need job security!
I work alongside staff on the new "fairer" AWA's. They do the same work, have the same pressures and totally different work conditions. This now spreading through the public service at an alarming rate.
We have a choice in our shift start and finish times , length of shift and length of lunch break.
The AWA staff have no say in their shift times either, start or finish times or length of shift. It is all imposed. They can be required to work shifts of any length from 5 - 10 hours, often with several 10 hour shifts in a row.
They can be given any length of lunch break that the computerised system decides, with no regard to human considerations but just to suit our call load. Shift changes can only be made in very limited circumstances.
Fair ?
This has created a two class system, with work colleagues side by side, doing the same work, but under different conditions of service. The Federal government portrays itself as an "Employer of Choice" and on the web page publishes details of the Agency Agreements, but no details of the AWA's that new staff have to sign.
Are they ashamed of the conditions they impose on new staff who have no idea when they sign these agreements that this is not the norm?
It is of course "simpler" - put up and shut up - do as you are told or don't get the job , but a "fairer" system, to whom ?
I believe that these laws only benefit those who don't need it, whilst attacking the most defenceless. So many features of these laws are solely aimed at taking away workers' conditions- the cited instances (in the media and elsewhere) of workers being forced to accept swingeing cuts in pay and conditions are legion. And just imagine- some of the H R Nicholls society- Johnny Rotten's mates that push these laws- reckon they don't go far enough!
Perhaps someone should tell them that if we are paid the same wages as poor workers in the 3rd world, we won't be able to pay inflated prices for the goods they are flogging!
I don't see any laws restricting the "rights" of CEOs and other high ranking company officials to award themselves bonuses (for no actual business
improvement/enhancement) that amount to a huge portion of their original income (which is largely non-taxable).
We're going back to the bad old days when workers had no rights; unions will become both more popular and sadly more necessary than they have been since the 70's. And I'm afraid it will get worse before it gets better because Labor is not the worker's advocate that it was back then. Thank god I'm close to retirement!
WorkChoices has made a stressed out, time poor nation even more stressed out and time poor.
I do think people have become a little complacent about WorkChoices, especially here at my workplace. Until it comes to negotiating a new agreement and then the realisation will sink in. Hopefully Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard will ramp up the inadequacies (as they seem to be doing especially after the NSW election result) of these new laws leading up to the coming election.
I take heart at the recent State Elections that Labour came in & I'm sure alot of those votes were in regard to IR Laws "John's little baby" agenda - this would not have occurred if voters weren't worried about WorkChoices & the unfairness of it all - I hope this will flow through Federally for Kevin Rudd.
I think the new laws add a little more balance (in the employer's favour) to the employer-employer relationship. I don't have a high opinion of workers. Being human beings they'll take the opportunity to rort wherever it presents.
Quality of life and the right to choose working non standard working hours has been taken away. Public holidays should be just that, a holiday for everyone, unless they willingly choose to work and are compensated by extra wages for doing this.
I believe that working conditions are open to abuse by employers under the IR laws and those who don't think so have not figured out their situation further ahead like when applying for their nextr job.
It is ironic that the new legislation is called work choices when it is the very intention of the new laws to take choices away from workers. It is unfair and discriminatory. This is part of the age old debate about Capital versus Labour. With a change of governmant we may see the pendulum swing back more towards workers. It seems that with our current economic prosperity no everyone can share in the spoils of the resources boom. It is certainly churlish at a time when profits are extreme, CEO packages are obscene that these people now want to take away conditions such as penalty loadings. It is not just the money, it is insulting. Throughout the 1980's workers contributed in a very real way to the boom times through the accord and supporting a Labor government that introduced many of the economic reforms that have contributed to our current national prosperity. The current government has forgotten or refuses to acknowledge this.
Keep up the campaign. I fear that left to their own devices conservatives in business will push for more and more advantage. This is most unfortunate and very short sighted as their long term profit levels would be guarenteed to a greater extent by treating people fairly and in keeping with our national interest.
Good Luck with the campaign
I don't believe the Work Choices are fair, especially to the lower skilled workers. I can't see how they can negotiate any fair individual contarct with their employer. The Govt keeps pointing to the unemployment figures to try to justify the implementation. It deliberately ignores what the economists have been telling us all along that hiring a worker depends solely on the profitabilty of a company, not the IR laws. Unemployment is low because the world economy is growing, especially China and India, the 2 countries with a high demand for our resources. Western Australia economy is still booming because of the demand for its exports, not due to the new laws.
The small percentage of highly skilled workers will always be able to negotiate due to their demand. Its the ordinary workers, who have little negotiation power, that will suffer most under the new laws
I get the impression that staff across the whole of the APS are suffering side effects from the "bully boy" mentality that accompanied these changes.
It takes a variety of forms from bullying, intimidation & threats to refusing to allow part-time work, discriminating against older staff, refusing to train people and treating staff like chattels.
In CSA we cannot recruit staff, keep them, or even get them to come to work every day because of the high level of bullying & the resulting stress and dysfunctionality.
This agenda is set by the same people who are responsible for the Work Chaos legislation.
I don't have any strong opinion either in favour or against. I know some people in my organisation who are benefitting from the new rules. I am not suffering because of them. You should have permitted a ""no change"" button - I would have pushed it.
I would prefer that the CPSU concentrate on serving its members, not the public at large. Workchoices is a federal political issue that has not impacted negatively on Defence employees, to my knowledge.
I voted NO because I believe that as an employee or as a worker, there's lots of changes in working conditions that has been affected. There's no stability in jobs, anytime employers can just terminate workers, the salaries do not compensate with the high cost of living. Workers are hired on a contractual basis and there's no security that you can become a permanent worker. There's no more discussion that happens between employers and employees. Employees cannot have their say with in the company or else they'll loose their jobs. Therefore, all I can say is, there is no fairness and no balance in working places since the IR Laws were implemented.
Moreover, I don’t think we have even begun to see the negative effects of the new laws. Many people are still on “pre-agreement conditions” and won’t be subject to changes until after the next federal election. This is very clever politics also.
I think the laws are terrible - I now feel very insecure about my job. For the first time in a long time I will not be votiing for John Howard and his Government this year.
Its about making life more difficult for the average worker, and cutting costs and obligations for employers. The Howard Gov are morally bankrupt, hopefully it is the beginning of the end for them,
Whilst at this stage the public sector has been less affected so far the stories I have heard from friends and family tell me that the only people who would find this new system meets the stated goals would be employers; who no longer have to worry about 'complex' negotiations with staff - they simply work out what they want for their business; put it to current staff and start looking for replacements for anyone who isn't happy.
Great for business! Lousy for the people actually putting in the work.
Keep up the fight and bring on the election :-)
I just wanted to point out to Adrian that fighting workchoices IS the CPSU serving their members - if industrial relations laws aren't core union business I don't know what is.
Just because Adrian doesn't personally feel effected by this doesn't mean CPSU members are immune.
My sister was a victim of "Work Choices" she was sacked by her employer just after the laws came into being. They also sacked an interstate colleague. She is a supporting parent with a special needs child. It took her 3 months to find another job and Centrelink payments only just covered her rent - she had to live off her credit card.
I strongly feel that the Howard Government, in its WorkChoices legislation, has indulged in its usual ideologically driven behaviour, with its attitude that the use of semantics, half-truths and spin will get them through. I believe them to have the philosophy that small business is next to God, that employees are scum, but a necessary evil if the business is to grow beyond a family business, and that unions are an unnecessary evil, next to Satan himself.
John Howard is of course a master of political chicanery, who knows exactly how to play the electorate and the press. The one major benefit encapsulated in their changes is that WorkChoices(Choices for the employer) has so undermined the position of employees in the workplace that it has kept a downward pressure on wage claims and therefore inflation in these booming times. The scariest scenario for me is -come-the-downturn, when I fear that there will be rampant exploitation, leading to massive dislocation and blood on the floor.
I can only hope that there will be a change of government and a winding back of most of the worst provisions in the current legislation before the worst is upon us. As far as I am concerned, it is the major issue for the forthcoming election.
It's obvious to any impartial observer workers will & must be worse off when employers hold all the trump cards. what about this Easter? How many new workers will not only not get Easter off but will have to work for no extra pay. disgraceful
The new laws I think are designed to improve productivity. The ability to negotiate an individual contract is more important to me than having the demands of the union forced on me. For example under the union system everybody should be paid the same rate of pay. But why should that be? Why should a bloke who does the bare minimum received the same pay as the worker who consistnetly exceeds the minimum benchmark. Why shouldn't that person be allowed to be paid at a higher rate in recognition of his/her output. Under the union system there is no incentive for employee's to perfrom which is couterproductive.
The current campaige against workchoices is not unions showing interest in their members. It is about unions wanting to regain the control of the Australian Work Force. The action is a self serving one and if the unions are successful then as John Howard as said the country will be going backwards.
No the new IR laws are not fair employers can dismiss employees too easily or put employees in a position where they can be sacked ie) lower salary accept or leave .Plus how can the Howard government remove and alter workers rights which have been obtained through arbitration and concilliation with employers employees unions and the arbitration comission.
I have read several of the comments of others and had to have a bit of a chuckle. One person says that she now feels insecure in her job. Another says that all the power has gone to the employer who can do what he wants.
It seems that people are not considering the negative effect being a bad employer will have on one's business. Treat your staff bad and you will loose them. The new laws have not created that problem, bad employers have been around for years.
It is simply not logical to work to get rid of expierienced staff just because there has been a change to the laws. On the other hand it is a great benefit to hard working staff that a bludger or trouble maker can now be terminated without all the hassles that existed prior to the changes. The bottom line is that most business owners accept that their staff are the most important assett they have.
Dear Stephen
I am sick of the way the Union is blocked from having access to their members, eg accessing the workplace with permission only by management, and
e-mail links can never be accessed as they have been blocked. The Howard
governmnent has discouraged Union membership from the beginning so that their radical new Reforms don't face any opposition.
The unemployment figures may look good but many of our children now can only obtain casual employment which results in no security and low morale, how can they possibly ever get ahead, it is not their choice that they continue to live with parents, the parents in turn have no chance of saving towards their retirement - GREAT situation - I DON'T THINK SO.
In past years we have traded off our working conditions due to collective Work Agreements and it just keeps on getting worse.
Recreation Leave loadings, travelling allowances, Sick Leave entitlements to
name a few, now it seems Penalty Rates are to be targetted?
NO, I am not happy with the way the Government keeps hammering the working
conditions of the ordinary worker.
I have noticed that any anti union messages are not being published. What's the matter, does the truth hurt? Several comments made recently pointing out that union's are responsible for a lot of the issues being blamed on workchoices were not published. Presumably withheld by the Blogg author....
Dear "anonymous"
Thanks for your post. Sorry to dissapoint you but we have not been censoring posts. Unless they are offensive. Or crazy. Or really, really dull.
As you can see from a quick read of other topics on our blog, we are happy to post a range of views. It just seems that on the issue of WorkChoices, most people seem to agree that the new laws are a dud.
PS I'm curious about why you think there have been anti-union messages sent but not posted
Please feel free to continue to post your views.
Dermot (CPSU Communications)
Post a Comment