This should set Pass A Frozo right off! [Archive]

Torres

29th Apr 2008, 08:15

The Labour Government abolished WorkChoices and AWA's in one of their first post Election legislation.

But did they?

Today I have an Individual Transitional Employment Agreement (ITEA) - it is my old WorkChoices AWA with a new name and new coversheet only.

What politicians say they will do in their pre Election rhetoric, and what they actually do when they achieve Government, are two totally different things!

The Prime Minister had no more intention of abolishing AWAs, than he had handing industrial relations back to the Unions by retaining the Award system.

Those that believe the Labour Government will bring in an employee Utopia are living in a dream world.

RedTBar

29th Apr 2008, 08:38

Without wanting this to evolve into yet another sour grapes session from Liberal supporters....

Didn't Joe Hockey say "We got it wrong with Work Choices" on election night and again after the fateful night......

Get with the program guy's...the election is over...time to move on...:cool:

Keg

29th Apr 2008, 09:11

Didn't Joe Hockey say "We got it wrong with Work Choices" on election night and again after the fateful night......

What they got wrong mainly was the marketing of it. You can't argue or deny that even the Labor party agrees that flexibility between employer and employee is a good thing. The two big thing the Lib's got wrong (and they did get it wrong) was not ensuring the fairness test straight up and ensuring that people properly understood what they were trying to achieve and why they were trying to achieve it.

I have heard that certain members of the labor party actually supported, to some extent, work choices!!

They obviously did given that what they're proposing isn't that far away from what workchoices was! There are a couple of tweaks- and possibly not bad ones to have- but by and large it's workchoices.

So what you mean is that after an election no-one is permitted to say anything critical of the new government?

Ironically, it was Labor supporters who cried loudly into the night that dissent was being stifled against the Coalition government and yet every time someone shines a torch on the Labor government coalition supporters are told '..you lost...move on...'. Again, the straight faced hypocrisy is laughable. Still, I've come to expect that from Labor and their supporters.

Don't get me wrong, Labor deserved to win. They played 'politics' beautifully and ran a very clever and cunning campaign- against the bloke they themselves labeled 'clever and tricky'. I just find it hypocritical to talk down an economy and the nation screaming 'the sky is falling' and then prance off overseas on a junket and talk about how good we're going and how well we're placed to ride out these economic times. In the mean time they're still trying to hammer the government on their economic history whilst riding the advantage of mega surpluses whilst cutting spending to the core- an impact felt a lot wider than you may realise with young people in real danger in some areas due to the immediate cut backs that were implimented. What have we got from this government in the mean time? All talk, no action, a call to further increase our nanny state and calls for bigger government.

The Coalition wasn't perfect by any means but I don't think that Labor is going to advance the nation in the way that most voters expected them to. :=

Capt Wally

29th Apr 2008, 09:49

......................................The Coalition wasn't perfect by any means but I don't think that Labor is going to advance the nation in the way that most voters expected them to. :=

'Keg' i think yr above statement couldn't be more truer:ok:, time will tell obviously but I believe & this is just a personal opinion that the voting public has been 'hoodwinked' by one very clever smiling Polly.

We can only hope that SICmd "Gee Gee" doesn't take the helm of this country if the "RUDDer' falls off the Ozzy ship!:bored:

CW

Jabawocky

29th Apr 2008, 10:32

PAF / Keg / Wally

:ok:

Gotta love it:D

its the same but different......................:rolleyes:

J

Taildragger67

29th Apr 2008, 11:11

Jaba,

Recently seen in S.E Asia - t-shirts with "SAME SAME" on the front and "... but different" on the back :ok:

Keg,

I fear Aus may have voted in Tony Blair - and so should not make the mistake the Poms have made in keeping him on past his use-by date. And then letting the incumbent into the cockpit :eek: :mad:.

That said, Johnny and friends had run out of ideas and were taking an ideological trip - and Mr & Mrs Mortgage in Doonside don't give a rat's about ideology. You stop thinking about how people pay their bills, you lose their support. So hopefully, the Libs will use this time as a chance for a bit of navel-gazing, install Malcolm before the next vote and return to power.

Every good government needs a good opposition to keep it on its toes, just like a sportsman will only produce his best when pushed by good opposition. Labor were unelectable in '98, '01 and '04 ("drover's dog", anyone?) and so didn't push the Libs onward and upward for the last few years; the Libs ossified and became arrogant. So the moment the ALP looked reasonably reasonable, they got up. It's not rocket science.

BTW at what point does taking a trip to meet major poilitical, trading and military partners become a 'junket'? Every PM has done it and I'd be worried if a new PM wasn't quickly off glad-handing the great and the good and pushing Australia. Just as airlines' bottom lines depend on business people preferring face-to-face over video-conference, so too is it not better that a nation's leader do similar?

ozbiggles

29th Apr 2008, 12:34

To give it an aviation theme too
How about the work done so by Labor into the RAAF, or more rightly the waste of time spent by raafies dealing with the wish to get some dirt on the previous government.
So far we have learnt
Yes, the JSF is the right aircraft for the future of the RAAF.
Yes, we do need to get out of the F111 business...and thats a quote from the CAF.
Yes, the Super Hornet is the right aircraft to bridge the fact the F111 is past its use by date and it won't last until the JSF is here in numbers.
And the best to last
From Mr Rudd before the election. WE WILL MAINTAIN THE DEFENCE BUDGET after the election, We WILL take 10 Billion dollars out of defence (but it won't affect the frontline BS!).
Now I guess that was a non core promise!

Keg

29th Apr 2008, 12:46

Yes. Another classic example of Labor being all hat, no cattle.

Green.Dog

29th Apr 2008, 12:58

What is it that the Russians have on offer?
Maybe we shoulda bought that instead

Sunfish

29th Apr 2008, 21:19

Some of you might like to read the article beforreopening your mouths. What's proposed seems like a sensible idea to me.

The purpose of such a clause is to enable an employer and an individual employee to agree on individual arrangements to meet the genuine individual needs of the employer and the employee. The commission is to ensure that the flexibility clause cannot be used to disadvantage the individual employee.”

Ms Gillard said today the clause needed to be simple and practical.

"An employer and employee need to be able to make an arrangement under the clause without seeking legal advice or sitting down to read 40 pages of `ifs' and `but fors',” she said.

"It needs to allow an employer and employee to make a genuine arrangement that suits them both but ensures that the employee retains the protection of the safety net.

What's not to like if we are talking genuine needs from both parties?

Torres

29th Apr 2008, 21:56

"What they got wrong mainly was the marketing of it. You can't argue or deny that even the Labor party agrees that flexibility between employer and employee is a good thing. The two big thing the Lib's got wrong (and they did get it wrong) was not ensuring the fairness test straight up and ensuring that people properly understood what they were trying to achieve and why they were trying to achieve it."

Well said Keg!!! Sums the situation up perfectly!! :ok:

Fliegenmong

29th Apr 2008, 23:05

What they should have done was released their (Libs) own findings into work choices :E, I can't help but wonder why they refused to?:rolleyes:

notmyC150v2

29th Apr 2008, 23:55

Ok folks here is a view from someone who represents employers in the Industrial Relations field.

WorkChoices was an unmitigated disaster. It was ill conceived, poorly considered and poorly implemented. The legislation was very poorly written and confusing.

Many of my clients hated the legislation because it made hiring staff so much more complicated and costly. The beaureacracy in Industrial Relations has exploded to idiotic levels that the original social democrats would have wet dreams about creating. The organisations created are not even attempting to assist employers in any way. The processes and procedures are hopelessly complicated and very technical in nature.

The Fairness Test introduced by Joe Hockey to "fix" the worst excesses of the legislation was also an illconsidered mess. Believe it or not it reduced flexibilities available in agreement making to levels that existed prior to the Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993 which was a Paul Keating initiative. Furthermore there was no consistency in how it was applied. I had one client who submitted a series of AWA's for the same position (high staff turnover in hospitality) and each one came back saying that a different rate of pay was needed to pass the test. This was the same position, same hours with the only change being the name on the Agreement. Absolute lunacy.

The two big thing the Lib's got wrong (and they did get it wrong) was not ensuring the fairness test straight up

Only one problem with this supposition and that is that the original aim of the legislation was to enable the removal of the very things the Fairness Test was subsequently designed to protect. I attended many briefings and meetings with Minister Andrews and senior staffers during this process and the repeated theme was that employees value different things differently and if they wanted to lose their weekend penalty rates in exchange for a non financial benefit then they should be able to agree to it.

Of course the flip side to that is that if the employer wants to remove a benefit and the employee is content to stay in the role then what is wrong with that. All of this was then completely denied later and at a lunch with Joe Hockey he actually said that no one realised that such a thing was possible. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Also please let's not confuse AWA's with WorkChoices. AWA's were introduced in 1996 in the original legislation passed in the first year of Howards Government. The ITEA's now in place must have an expiry date no later than mid December 2009. They cannot be replaced or amended after that date. Furthermore, employers who have not used AWA's prior to 1 December 2007 cannot use ITEA's at all.

Labour has always said that they would abolish AWA's because they were fundamentally opposed to anything other than collective bargaining. Hopefully before they draft the new legislation next year they rethink that view.

LewC

30th Apr 2008, 01:16

Eagle86/RedTBar. I don't know if the very wealthy wife of a very prominent,some might say the most prominent,member of the Federal Labor government is actually a member of the Labor Party but it was widely reported that she was more than happy to engage her employees on the dreaded AWA's.

Fliegenmong

30th Apr 2008, 01:52

NotmyC150v2 - thank you ;)

RedTBar

30th Apr 2008, 04:42

LewC,
Mate I really don't care what Kev's missus does just the same as I didn't care what Janette did either.There will always be employers who make the most of any regulation.It's the gov that i am interested in.
At the same time anything that is widely reported has to be taken with a grain of salt.
I find it funny though with some here that are having a go at Labour for wanting a system that is flexible.The doomsdayers were telling us that if Kev won the socialists would rule the country and it would be another GW type gov.Now that they are doing the opposite they still can't win.
This is just another chance for the Lib supporters here to have another cheap unaimed shot.
PAF,No probs mate for having a go or being critical of the gov but just be critical about something that deserves it not just because your side didn't win.

404 Titan

30th Apr 2008, 05:29

RedTBar

I think it is more a point that Rudd promised one thing in the election campaign regarding “Work Choices” but once in power is doing the complete opposite. If it wasn’t because of his stance on “Work Choices” he probably wouldn’t be in power today.

RedTBar

30th Apr 2008, 06:10

I'd like to know what examples you have of (Rudd) but once in power is doing the complete opposite..

ozbiggles

30th Apr 2008, 11:12

RedTbar
Post 14 of this thread, last line for an example.
Got a few things that have cropped up tot that were never discussed before the election. But as there not aviation I wont bring them up here,

Sunfish

30th Apr 2008, 20:55

PAF, maybe they will take the axe to the grey sponge....and then post you there.:}

Liked the canteen (wouldn't call it a mess) though.

RedTBar

30th Apr 2008, 21:17

I think it is more a point that Rudd promised one thing in the election campaign regarding “Work Choices” but once in power is doing the complete opposite
I'd like to know what examples you have of (Rudd
Post 14 of this thread, last line for an example.
Ahh guys there is nothing in post #14 about the Work Choices legislation.

As far as politicians changing or altering promises goes.Would you rather a gov that sticks to what they say no matter what the circumstances or a gov that is flexible and is not intrenched in dogma.

The information before and after the election would have been vastly different.The Rudd gov would have had a lot more information available after.Since the election the price of fuel has skyrocketed as has the interest rates situation and inflation figures.

Do you think for a moment that the Howard gov did not know the real figures but offered millions in sweeteners to try and win the election?

This from a gov that supposedly prided itself in fiscal responsibility!!!

Just because the Rudd gov wanted to confirm that they were getting the right aircraft instead of just trusting the previous gov shows a level of professionalism that I for one like.

If the Libs got in after Labour had been in for years do you think they would not do the same?

Guy's this is yet another sour grapes session about your team losing.

404 Titan

30th Apr 2008, 22:11

RedTBar
Ahh guys there is nothing in post #14 about the Work Choices legislation.
I suggest you read Torres’s post #5. My wife is also on one of these since signing a new contract. It is word for word the same as here AWA except for the cover sheet.
As far as politicians changing or altering promises goes.Would you rather a gov that sticks to what they say no matter what the circumstances or a gov that is flexible and is not intrenched in dogma.
It’s one thing being flexible and it is another thing lying to the electorate. Rudd and Gillard knew exactly the consequences of dismantling “Work Choices” but continued to lie to a gullible electorate.
The information before and after the election would have been vastly different.The Rudd gov would have had a lot more information available after.Since the election the price of fuel has skyrocketed as has the interest rates situation and inflation figures.
And you actually thought they were going to fall? Bwhahahahahahaha. For the record oppositions do have access to government departments and generally hire companies like “Access Economics” to advise them on policy.
Do you think for a moment that the Howard gov did not know the real figures but offered millions in sweeteners to try and win the election?
Every government since Federation has tried bribing the electorate during an election campaign. Oppositions do it too. In this case Labor did it with “Work Choices”.
This from a gov that supposedly prided itself in fiscal responsibility!!!
Well we will see how good Labor is in a few years. If history is any indication though I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Guy's this is yet another sour grapes session about your team losing.
Personally I think the Coalition deserved to loose but it wasn’t for the reasons you state here. My perception of politics goes a little deeper than personal gratification.

RedTBar

30th Apr 2008, 22:33

Well we will see how good Labor is in a few years. If history is any indication though I wouldn’t hold your breath.
This is what this thread is all about and it is exactly about sour grapes!
My wife is also on one of these since signing a new contract. It is word for word the same as here AWA except for the cover sheet.
404 Titan,I suggest you read this posted by notmyC150v2
Also please let's not confuse AWA's with WorkChoices. AWA's were introduced in 1996 in the original legislation passed in the first year of Howards Government. The ITEA's now in place must have an expiry date no later than mid December 2009. They cannot be replaced or amended after that date. Furthermore, employers who have not used AWA's prior to 1 December 2007 cannot use ITEA's at all.
404 Titan,never let the truth get in the way of your feelngs.
Rudd and Gillard knew exactly the consequences of dismantling “Work Choices” but continued to lie to a gullible electorate.
So in essence you are saying that you want to keep Work Choices and that shows why you are anti labour.

Rudd went into the election saying he would get rid of Work Choices and now you are complaining.

This has nothing to do with aviation and all about the failure of some to accept that the Libs lost.The Rudd gov has been in for not even 6 months and the opposition is about as viable and effective as an aircraft without any form of power or lift.
Australian need an effective and alternative gov in the form of an opposition so if you want something to complain about something start with the opposition!

404 Titan

30th Apr 2008, 23:18

RedTBar
404 Titan,I suggest you read this posted by notmyC150v2
Again you have selectively picked something said to argue your flawed point. If you had also quoted the following paragraph you would note the Labor Party’s true belief and intentions with AWA’s along with “Work Choices”.
Labour has always said that they would abolish AWA's because they were fundamentally opposed to anything other than collective bargaining. Hopefully before they draft the new legislation next year they rethink that view.
My wife’s ITEA she recently negotiated with her employer has given her a 40% pay rise which is 60% above the award. And you want her to go back to collective bargaining? If Labor pushes this line they will be out at the next election just as the Coalition was booted out because of “Work Choices”.
This has nothing to do with aviation and all about the failure of some to accept that the Libs lost.
That type of comment reminds me of some irritating little red headed freckly faced ten year old (no offence to red headed freckly faced ten year olds) who gloats that he won by sticking his thumbs in his ears and waving his fingers at you while at the same time poking his tongue out. Pretty arrogant if you ask me and usually results in tears for the perpetrator.

RedTBar

30th Apr 2008, 23:26

404 Titan,
As I said this has nothing to do with aviation but is instead all about your political views.
As a result I am not going to continue because this is not the forum for a political debate but do not misconstrue this as a form of gloating,arrogance or petulance on my part.
As far as anyone crying is concerned I think your having yourself on there pal.

lowerlobe

1st May 2008, 00:47

My wife’s ITEA she recently negotiated with her employer has given her a 40% pay rise which is 60% above the award. And you want her to go back to collective bargaining? If Labor pushes this line they will be out at the next election just as the Coalition was booted out because of “Work Choices”.

404 Titan.....I'm curious about your post.

If you really think that your wife's experience is indicative of the ability of the mainstream employee to gain a pay rise or even negotiate an employment agreement I suggest you are living in a fool's paradise.

Go up to the CEO of whatever airline you work for and attempt to negotiate a 40% pay rise with a resultant pay more than 60% higher than your other fellow pilots and see how successful you are.

That is unless you are happy to live permanently in the crew rest of your aircraft and forego other entitlements such as sick leave,holidays and staff travel not to mention the increase in hours they would expect.

Individual negotiations are fine in very few circumstances but for most of us collective bargaining is the only real way forward.

404 Titan

1st May 2008, 00:52

RedTBar
As I said this has nothing to do with aviation but is instead all about your political views.
With what has happened to my QF & DJ buddies over the last 10 years I thing this political discussion is very pertinent to aviation. I also think you need to reread my last paragraph from post #30
Personally I think the Coalition deserved to loose but it wasn’t for the reasons you state here. My perception of politics goes a little deeper than personal gratification.
As a result I am not going to continue because this is not the forum for a political debate but do not misconstrue this as a form of gloating,arrogance or petulance on my part.
The way you carry yourself here, gloating is the most obvious thing that comes to mind.

lowerlobe

1st May 2008, 01:02

Actually 404 Titan has given me a great idea.....

Let's bring back Work Choices and we can all get a 40% pay rise which is 60% higher than the award......far better than collective bargaining.

It worked for Titans wife so we are a shoe in...

I can't wait to see the look on Geoff Dixon's face when we all ask for a 40% pay rise.He only got a 27% pay rise this year so that means he should go for a 40% rise as well.

I'll call my bank manager now about that loan for a boat.....a very big boat with it's own helicopter and a 38' runabout as it's tinny.....

404 Titan

1st May 2008, 01:32

lowerlobe

Make no mistake, my pro stance on AWA’s doesn’t mean I’m against Collective Bargaining or Enterprise Agreements. They all have their place and we should all be allowed to choose what is best for us given our circumstances. In my wife’s case her skills are in extremely short supply hence she was in a position to negotiate hard. In the case of us, as airline pilots, Collective Bargaining is the best option as we are less likely to take our skills to a higher bidder because of the seniority system. I would dispute though that Individual negotiations are fine in only a very few circumstances. The evidence shows to the contrary that those on AWA’s are much better off than those simply on the award.:ok:

Angle of Attack

1st May 2008, 01:33

Go and ask the vast majority of workers in hospitality, unskilled factory jobs, etc how they faired with Workchoices, the vast majority were worse off, thats a fact, a few in the minority were better off, but overall it was the final nail in the coffin for the coalition. I think a lot of arguments here are as chaotic and tangled as the Workchoices legislation was! Lots of talk but not really saying anything! haha! :)

404 Titan

1st May 2008, 02:08

Angle of Attack

I never said I was for “Work Choices”. “Work Choices” and “AWA’s” are completely separate things. Infact it was Paul Keating that brought in the first incarnation of AWA’s, not John Howard. Those that have been in a position to negotiate AWA’s have generally done very well. There are some industries though that don’t lend themselves well to AWA’s. Ours is one of them.

lowerlobe

1st May 2008, 04:08

Posted by 404 Titan...I never said I was for “Work Choices”
It looks to me as though you are having an each way bet here 404.I would look at some of your previous posts if I were you...
Rudd and Gillard knew exactly the consequences of dismantling “Work Choices” but continued to lie to a gullible electorate.
my pro stance on AWA’s doesn’t mean I’m against Collective Bargaining or Enterprise Agreements.
My wife’s ITEA she recently negotiated with her employer has given her a 40% pay rise which is 60% above the award. And you want her to go back to collective bargaining?
So you want to retain Work Choices

You are not against collective bargaining which means you don't mind collective agreements......but not for your wife.

You are pro AWA's...but not for yourself or those others in how many industries?????

You must like the races because the trifecta seems to be your forte!

I think Tbar is right and this is more about you being a Liberal supporter than an argument about the merits of various industrial negotiations

404 Titan

1st May 2008, 07:54

lowerlobe

It’s called weighing up the pro’s and con’s of each system depending on the circumstances. If you don’t know the difference between AWA’s and Work Choices, I suggest you go and do a little research. I’m all for the worker deciding which way he or she wants to go, not being told by my employer (Work Choices) or the government how it will be. If you think that is having an each way bet then so be it. I would suggest though it is more a case of you being blinded by your own ideology.

As for me being a Liberal supporter. No, more a swinging voter and I didn’t vote Liberal at the last election.

lowerlobe

1st May 2008, 10:09

If you don’t know the difference between AWA’s and Work Choices,
404 Titan.....

After reading your post's I don't think that's it's me that's confused.

Chimbu chuckles

1st May 2008, 10:51

Geez lowerlobe.:=

AWA was merely a name given to individual contracts...a political 'label of the moment'. They have not gone away nor will they. Rudd et al will merely give them a new label.

'Workchoices' was a set of qualities that informed/defined/filled out the individual contract...not a form of individual contract in and of itself.

Certainly it could be argued that they were not implemented well and that the employers (or more accurately their consultants) were light years ahead of the pollies in working out how to abuse them to their own best advantage where they could.

'Where they could' is the operative phrase...where labour supply is constrained AWAs, with or without 'workchoices' clauses, benefit employees but that spectrum of the working population is relatively small. By far the greater % of the working demographic does not hold such power over their employment conditions and the benefits flow to the employer.

'Workchoices' was not, of itself, evil...what employer groups did with it was, in certain cases, not very nice but then the reason the big bucks are in the private sector not the govt sector is because the private sector are a **** site smarter than politicians.

On the one hand it could be suggested that Howard et al were naive in their belief (or at least espousal) of the 'workchoices' legislation but then again sit in any Mall food hall and watch the unending parade of late teen/early 20s tatooed bogans and the fat GFs with 4 kids under 5 and have a think about what their labour is really worth.

You think the musings of Gilliard et al will not lead to essentially the same outcome? Gilliard/Krudd are many things but 'smarter' than Howard/Costello is not one.

If you think an unskilled min wage worker will have any better bargaining power in the future than they had in the past you badly underestimate the intelligence and rat cunning of the industrial relations consultants that make a very nice living directing the efforts of sundry HR departments...they are so far ahead of any political IR reform legislation they are just out of sight.

Ideology will not trump human nature either....a mates wife is working in Queensland Education and the extremely left wing female union leadership there enforced the nastier aspects of workchoices with a zeal that was plain evil...you think those types of 'bosses' will have a sudden change of heart under Labor's version?

404 Titan

1st May 2008, 12:26

lowerlobe

Prior to the Coalition being returned to power in 1996, AWA’s were known as Individual Workplace Agreements. They were introduced by the Labor Party in the early 1990’s. By 1995 35% of workers in Australia were on Individual Workplace Agreements.

notmyC150v2

1st May 2008, 22:50

404 Titan said

Prior to the Coalition being returned to power in 1996, AWA’s were known as Individual Workplace Agreements. They were introduced by the Labor Party in the early 1990’s. By 1995 35% of workers in Australia were on Individual Workplace Agreements.

Ahh, that is a new one. Paul Keating's Government introduced Enterprise Flexibility Agreements (EFA's) which were negotiated between Employees and their Employer without union involvement. These were not individual agreements and nowhere near 35% of the population were covered by them. Closer to .35% in reality because this was just after the period of the Accord with its two tiered wage fixing system.

There were no individual agreements introduced until the Workplace Relations Act 1996. These Agreements were then copied in the State jurisdictions in Western Australia and Queensland.

Enterprise Bargaining Agreements were strongly supported by the Employer Asssociations and some Academics as a way of resolving our then recession and improving productivity. This was a hotly debated topic which was largely pushed and funded by Business Council of Australia. The Jounal of Industrial Relations in the period 94 and 95 had a facinating debate which started with an article called "Enterprise Based Bargaining: A Better Way Of Working (ever wonder where the phrase Enterprise Bargaining Agreement came from???). This article was rebutted by Dr David Peetz among others (and just for interest, he was the former Head of the Department of Industrial Relations and senior advisor to Keating. He also started the AWIRS surveys which were cancelled under Howards government).

There was no mention of individual agreements except in the Liberal Party policy documents prior to the '96 election.

It is a mistake to conjoin two very different concepts which are AWA's and WorkChoices. WorkChoices was about further marginalising the union movement and dismantling enterprise bargaining towards individual bargaining.

This follows John Howards oftstated views that the employment contract is no different to a commercial contract and should be governed in the same way. His ideal situation was to remove unions entirely, dismantle the AIRC and return to the common law of employment. WorkChoices was a step in this direction, a small but very important step.

And Chimbu, if your friends wife works for Education Queensland and they were using WorkChoices, then there are a few problems for the management there because they were never covered by it. WorkChoices could never operate in relation to public servants employed by a state government.

As for the worth of the labour of the folks you mentioned, their value is equal to the cost less profit the employer is able to squeeze out of them. Those folks you disparage could well be making a fortune for their employer in processes quite simple. It's my job to ensure that the majority of that profit resides with the employer. It is their representatives job to see that I can't do mine.

As for rat cunning :E:E:E

Fliegenmong

1st May 2008, 23:18

Yeah well again thank you 150

desmotronic

2nd May 2008, 00:47

Surplus value is a concept created by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy, where its ultimate source is claimed to be unpaid surplus labor performed by the worker for the capitalist, serving as a basis for capital accumulation.

The German equivalent word "Mehrwert" means simply value-added (an output measure), but in Marx's value theory, the extra or surplus-value has a specific meaning, namely the amount of the increase in the value of capital upon investment, i.e. the yield regardless of whether it takes the form of profit, interest or rent.

Marx himself regarded the reduction of profit, interest and rent income to surplus-value, and surplus value to surplus labour as one of his greatest theoretical achievements.

For Marx, the gigantic increase in wealth and population from the 19th century onwards was mainly due to the competitive striving to obtain maximum surplus-value from the employment of labor, resulting in an equally gigantic increase of productivity and capital resources. To the extent that increasingly the economic surplus is convertible into money and expressed in money, the amassment of wealth is possible on a larger and larger scale (see capital accumulation and surplus product).

Hope you are not a closet marxist 150. :}

roamingwolf

2nd May 2008, 01:06

WorkChoices was about further marginalising the union movement and dismantling enterprise bargaining towards individual bargaining.

This follows John Howards oftstated views that the employment contract is no different to a commercial contract and should be governed in the same way. His ideal situation was to remove unions entirely, dismantle the AIRC and return to the common law of employment. WorkChoices was a step in this direction, a small but very important step.
I reckon something that no one has pointed out is what Howard would have done if he was given another shot at the lodge.
I heard him say that there would be no more changes to work choice but I also heard him tell us there was no way there would be a gst and I reckon we all remember the kids overboard story.
I reckon if grinning 'he said I could be pm and play in the lodge' Costello and JH had got back in we would have seen changes to work choices that would have given employers wet dreams.
desmotronic,mate are you telling us that if you want collective bargaining you are a marxist?
404titan,mate I don;t know what your other half does but if mine could get 40% from her boss i'd be thinking more about fishing and less about going to work.I'd also be worried what she did to get that increase.:E
You gotta admit but if thats true then your wife is in a very small but lucky group.

Torres

2nd May 2008, 02:09

If any are under the delusion that the present Federal Government will return the Australian workforce and particularly airline pilots to the halycon days of Award and Union protectionism, think again.........

"Interestingly on the same day the President released his statement about the award modernisation priority industries and timetable, the Workplace Relations Minister, Julia Gillard gave a speech to the IIR Fair Work Australia Conference outlining the government’s view on award modernisation and how it will apply to Australian workers. She said:

For awards to be an effective safety-net, they need to be relevant to today’s workplace needs and able to accommodate the flexibility that businesses and their employees expect.
Our award modernisation process is not about trying to drag old awards kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Our goal will be to create new up-to-date awards, not simplify old awards around the edges.
It won’t be about one clause out, one clause in.
And it won’t be about preserving existing rules and structures for the sake of preserving them.
It will be about starting from scratch and rethinking a new, modern, relevant and decent minimum safety net for the industries or occupations covered by the award."

And.........
"....the Workplace Authority has now published a guide to agreement making and the application of the no-disadvantage test (NDT). The NDT applies to all agreements including collective agreements, Greenfield agreements and interim transitional employment agreements (ITEAs). The NDT replaces the fairness test which was introduced in July last year by the previous government. The key difference is that the NDT assesses an agreement as the whole package, that is the balance of terms and conditions from underpinning award or collective agreement – called the reference instrument. Whereas the fairness test only assessed agreements against the “protected award conditions”.

The president of the AIRC Justice G.M. Giudice recently released the draft list of nineteen priority industries for the award modernisation process and a proposed timetable for completion. With the exception of the rail industry, no form of transport, including air transport, is included in the priority list.

notmyC150v2

2nd May 2008, 02:09

desmotronic :E:p

Remember folks the true power resides not with the person who makes the choices, but with the person who provides the options to the person who makes the choices... and that's me. :cool:

roamingwolf

2nd May 2008, 02:29

Torres

2nd May 2008, 02:44

I guess that is only important to 23% - and diminishing - of the Australian work force?

In August 2003 there were 1,866,700 employees who were members of a trade union, a 2% increase from August 2002. However, the number of trade union members in 2003 was 26% lower than 15 years earlier. The trade union membership rate has also declined over the same period, from 42% in 1988 to 23% in 2003. The trend away from unionisation in Australia in recent decades has also been shared internationally by countries with similar economies to Australia's.

Trade Union Membership:
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/592d2f759d9d38a9ca256ec1000766f7/Body/0.FBA!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif

I guess the other 77% of Australian workers don't really care?

I think the Prime Minister made a very specific point of declaring he would "governing for all Australians" - not just for 23% of the Australian work force.

roamingwolf

2nd May 2008, 07:26

I guess that is only important to 23% - and diminishing - of the Australian work force?
Mate thats the beauty of living in a free country.In this country you can decide if you want to be in a union or not.
If Johnny had his way you would have no choice and that was why the joke was called Work Choice.
The other thing about diminishing union numbers might have something to do with johnny reducing the unions ability to operate wouldn't it?

At least with Kev if you want to be part of a collective bargaining group you could but not with 'no gst' johnny.if johnny had another shot at living in kirribili unions would be history.

I like your up to date figures and graph there torres.couldn't you do any better than 2003 numbers or didn't johnny let any other info out?
I forgot he was a little sus about journo's after getting caught with the kids overboard rubbish.

Point0Five

2nd May 2008, 14:45

I think the Prime Minister made a very specific point of declaring he would "governing for all Australians" - not just for 23% of the Australian work force.

Actually, I think that you'll find that the Prime Minister has made it quite clear that he's only governing for "working families". :E

rcoight

2nd May 2008, 15:24

Actually, I think that you'll find that the Prime Minister has made it quite clear that he's only governing for "working families".

:D

However, so far I don't think they've done any "governing" at all.

There's been an awfully large amount of hot air, meaningless symbolism, and related bollocks to keep the "Doctor's wives" who voted for them happy, but precious little actual governing.

The really sad part is it's all very well for the relatively wealthy lefties (such as those on this website) to pontificate about this or that, but the majority of gullible fools who voted them in thinking that their unskilled jobs will be safe will be the first to lose their houses, jobs, etc...

:confused:

lowerlobe

2nd May 2008, 22:56

Hmm.. strange argument.. It would seem the ALP's policies from 1988 onwards were more successful in reducing Union membership numbers than Coalition policies were.
PAF.....Interesting theory and I'd like you to provide the proof especially considering the actions and legislation of a John Howard!
Posted by PAF....Then people holding that opinion state that Unions / Collective Bargaining are good, despite the fact they destroy job opportunities for the young guys wanting jobs in the future.
This will make PAF choke but these facts are undeniable ...
If it wasn't for unions/collective bargaining we ....

Would still have people working 17 hours a day in the mines...
Would not have got paid holiday's......
Would not have got paid sick leave.....
Would not have a minimum wage.....
Would not have paid Long Service Leave.....etc.....

Yet PAF and others distort the truth with ludicrous statements such as....
In this fairy land we can pay all pilots $400,000 and all routes would still provide a return comparable to a similar investment by a company.
Since when has anyone who is happy with collective bargaining said that we all want $400,000.All I have seen is Howard apologists suggest that if we go on AWA's we will be so far better off that we will all get a 40% pay rise.....

Of course PAF's statement is just as absurd when you look at the remuneration figures that the corporate sector such as the banks and airlines for a start want to give themselves .......

However, the big difference is that they are negotiating with themselves so the outcome of these negotiations are a foregone conclusion.....
Originally Posted by RoamingWolf
a free country.
Posted by PAF.....Wrong. It's a Democratic country
No PAF it is you who is wrong and RW is right....

We do live in a democracy and in doings so we have freedoms that others could only dream of having...

Even other so called democracies in our area are democracies in name only.....and their population would love our freedoms..

We are free to have a beer at the local when we turn 18 and even in the land of the free you cannot do that until you are 21...

We are free to buy a block of land or a house providing you can come up with the money or loan...

We are free to travel domestically and internationally without need for permission...

We are free to join a union and have collective bargaining if we so wish.....BUT that is something that a previous PM would like to have removed.
RW is right and I hadn't thought of it before but the irony of the previous government was that it called it's industrial brainchild Work Choices...

and if they had their way your choices were substantially reduced...and PAF is right for the first time because that is not freedom...

Point0Five

4th May 2008, 00:33

Nice point about freedom lowerlobe.

I, for one, am glad that we're getting rid of nasty work choices legislation such as mandating secret ballots for industrial action :rolleyes:

lowerlobe

4th May 2008, 02:33

I'm glad you agree with the importance of personal freedoms PointOFive....

Here are some points that you might find interesting about secret ballots.....
Australia has previously had provisions allowing secret ballots at the federal level, but they have not been a compulsory precondition to industrial action.
Unfortunately the previous Governments idea of a secret ballot may not have been to protect any group in particular but instead intended to hinder a union from operating...This is published in 2006
The Australian Industrial Relations Commission has rejected two applications by unions to conduct secret ballots to authorise industrial action because it was not satisfied the unions had first genuinely attempted to reach agreement with the employer.
Under WorkChoices, there are certain conditions which must be met before the Commission can grant an application for a secret ballot. Specifically, the Commission has to be satisfied that the party applying for the secret ballot has genuinely tried to reach agreement with the other party. Further, the Commission has the discretion to refuse an application if it considers granting the application would be inconsistent with the Act's objectives relating to secret ballots.
So not only did Work Choices require mandatory secret ballots which were already in place prior to Work Choice legislation they also put conditions on IF you could hold a secret ballot....

TRUE Freedom and Democracy wouldn't you say PointOFive? :hmm:

Angle of Attack

7th May 2008, 13:18

I have no problem if you feel comfortable with tactics (that are unfortunately legal in this country) like this. However at least have the gumption to acknowledge that the money you extract above what you should be paid (in pure economic terms) not only comes out of the "companies pocket" but effects the possible job opportunities of others and the economic well being of the country.

The Old Chestnut! If we get paid more then it affects further employment growth or jobs for others! PAF you really are in form I'll give you that, but regardeless of rants in writing lets look at the facts!, well at least my facts!
I have been in 4 industrys and 4 unions, 3 times I went on strike and by jolly we shoved it up them! You may crap on in words but every time I went on strike,I received increased renumeration.. Regardless of what the economic book says baby we shut the company down they get desperate and that is a simple fact, and I am loving it, we can rant on to our hearts content, legal or non legal but the fact is if the workers stop EVERYTHING stops! That is the beauty! There is no argument against this! the workers hold the power always will and never will lose it! Oh yes!!! :ok:

ruprecht

7th May 2008, 13:54

PAF, I take it YOU'VE approached CAF with the offer of a pay cut to employ more RAAF personnel.:}

ruprecht.

I think I'm on to something. Bugger the pilot retention bonus, just open the posting system up to individual bidding.

Want that SQN QFI posting? Lots of guys going for it? Just offer to do it for less!:O

Want an overseas posting? Not as qualified as the other bloke? Do it for less!:)

Should make for interesting days in the crewroom.:ok:

Air Ace

7th May 2008, 21:08

Angle of Attack. What an appalling, selfish attitude! Thank God that is not our Australian national ethos. I suspect you would be first to complain about the resultant inflation and increases in interest rates?

Your theory was tested by the pilots nineteen years ago and was spectacularly unsuccessful.

lowerlobe

8th May 2008, 01:25

Posted by PAF...
The first 2:45 should be enough to make your blood boil - explains how unions have achieved nothing in the history of man kind.
Well since everyone else has known that most of the conditions enjoyed by everyone including yourself PAF have been achieved by unions it shows how inaccurate your post is.....
Your next line is a cracker....
Unionism is an exercise in selfishness.
Since when can collective bargaining for the group as a whole be selfish....as opposed of course to the actions of employers especially our corporate leaders who's mantra should be known as "Do as we say and not as we do"

However,the final example of your thinking PAF is this post from you in response to my assertion that we are free to have a beer when we are over 18 at the local pub.....
No you can't . Our Democracy says you can only do that if you are not intoxicated.
Now I know how much you are clutching at straws....PAF..You could not be more wrong.....

We are free to have a beer or any alcoholic drink......What we are not free to do is become intoxicated....and if you cannot understand the difference between enjoying a drink and getting drunk then the rest of your argument is as irrelevant...

ozbiggles

8th May 2008, 04:36

Paf
If I was still in I'd have to kindly ask you not to talk to the Pilot retention team anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It takes me back to being shafted to a ground job and paid less money just to rub it in!
How about everybody gets paid the way they are now and after say 10 years you get an allowance for remaining fully flexible or if you chose locational stability (as by that stage you probably have spouse and kids,spouse earning more than you these days) you don't get that allowance and less chance of promotion. Allowance paid at the end of the year you remain flexible to stop people taking the money, getting posted and then backing out.
If you offer people ground jobs/less money/lack of certainty they may just leave....I did and took my CQ/QFI/IRE with me. I didn't want to go and miss it like you woudn't believe but, Airforce made it plain to me my fun tickets were up. At my age I wasn't anywhere near ready to stop flying.
And wasn't that what individual contracts were meant to be about? Negotiating a better deal for yourself but in return the employer getting the best out of you? Sadly a lot of people in business took advantage of this and shafted the worker, hence the return of the unions and the return of Labor.
But I can see you heading up the retention program shortly!

Sunfish

8th May 2008, 04:58

Employers don't necessarily dislike unions, especially when they can corrupt the unions management, as has happened time and again.

Unions arose as a natural result of employers conspiring together to keep wages down.

There is no point in arguing with PAF since according to him, any form of increased remuneration of employees (except of course his good self) is a drain on the economy.

Tell me PAF, what did Henry Ford pay his workers and why?

Sunfish

8th May 2008, 20:02

PAF,

I don't need a twerp like you advising me to watch a 28 year old video of Milton Freidman spouting platitudes that were correct 28 years ago (and probably before you were born), but bear no relationship, and are totally irrelevant, to the industrial landscape we see today.

At the time Milty made that video, I was a member of a union (it was compulsory) and I was quite familiar with the antiquated, stupid and inefficient work practices that applied thanks to unions......

...I was also quite familiar with the conspiracy (of course it was legal then, and I was part of it) between all levels of TAA and Ansett Management that set airline fares and screwed the general public and that also kept workers wages screwed down for anyone who didn't have a strong and militant union behind them. (I was a member of APA - weak as piss compared to the ALAEA back then.)

So don't f***ing lecture me about Milton F***ing Friedman Sonny, that video was made the year before I started my MBA. The industrial relations landscape is completely different, the challenges are completely different and the players are completely different.

Collective bargaining does make sense unless you believe that all your workers are brain dead morons that do not have common issues, and the asymmetry of experience, specific industry knowledge and expertise possessed by employers can only be addressed by workers mirroring that capability through unions.

To put it another way PAF, go visit the United States and see the poor white trash and people living out of cardboard boxes and you will see what a Freidmanite wage fixing system gets you - poverty and starvation on $5.00 an hour.

lowerlobe

8th May 2008, 22:09

PAF...There was noting semantic about your post instead you are trying to dig yourself out of the hole which is ever increasing....

My post..."You are free to enjoy a beer at the local when you are 18"...

PAF's post...No you can't

Definition of irrelevant...
irrelevant
adjective
the argument in the posts made by Pass-A-Frozo were judged to be irrelevant, beside the point, immaterial, not pertinent, not germane, off the subject, unconnected, unrelated, peripheral, extraneous, inapposite, inapplicable; unimportant, inconsequential, insignificant, trivial; formal impertinent.

QED

ozbiggles

9th May 2008, 00:09

Guys,guys, please lets all have a civil disagreement!
Its called banter. ( I can't be bothered to look up a definition).

And please, please don't make the mistake of thinking Paf is young:}

Track Coastal

9th May 2008, 03:24

To put it another way PAF, go visit the United States and see the poor white trash and people living out of cardboard boxes and you will see what a Freidmanite wage fixing system gets you - poverty and starvation on $5.00 an hour.

Spot on. The minimum wage is the states (and Canada) is an eye opener:eek:. A socio-economic subculture (how far below the poverty line is gainful employment not gainful?)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S.A._minimum_wages

We are indeed a lucky country. Thank almighty (whoever or whatever he/she is) for our unions preventing that sort of system foisted on us.

But...Walmart is coming I hear, that should be interesting.:uhoh:
(http://www.walmartmovie.com/)

Mr. Hat

9th May 2008, 12:49

We should all count our blessings that we had 12 years of our beloved John Winston Howard.

"Working Australians have never been better off".

I miss him i really do. He really looked after us and left the country in a perfect state for the incoming government. Infact any problems from the day he left office onwards shall be purely the fault of the labour party.

Capt Wally

9th May 2008, 12:52

here here Mr hat, well said:D:D

CW:ok:

Mr. Hat

9th May 2008, 13:16

typo government worker, have some respect for the tax payer.

Mr. Hat

9th May 2008, 13:33

No problem with Government worker you are reading too much into it.

Never applied to SA.

Just a big fan of JWH and spelling police.

Mr. Hat

9th May 2008, 13:41

Looks like i got a rise out of you Froz. Not bad theres not much on TV.

But i really couldn't be bothered looking up your previous posts or picking at your spelling to validate my argument mate. Afterall its not even an argument just a bit of tongue and cheek sarcasm.

As for the CPL comment (5 years ago according to your diligent research) well it applied back then probably not the case now as its not a realistic investment for school leavers.

Congratulations you proved that times have changed or that I've chaged my opinion.

Mr. Hat

9th May 2008, 13:48

Not done with processing your opinion

Thats it - I'm too slow sorry okay. You got me. Not as clever as you.

SA - No never applied.

Mr. Hat

9th May 2008, 14:04

Fair Enough.

Look after yourself at the expense of everyone else

No this is JWH and Co.

If you search more you might find some examples of me helping others in the industry. Did it today. Haven't forgotten where i came from.

Mr. Hat

9th May 2008, 14:23

Okay so JWH had 12 years to get it right. Do you think he got it right?

I look at the chap serving me at Woolies earning minimum wage and think to myself how is this fellow going to go when it comes to having a family or trying to buy a house. I'm finding it challenging and I'm on more than double what he's on.

So 12 years later there are a lot more Porches and BMWs around but are things better for joe average?

Its a 2 class system - "the haves" and "have nots"

Mr. Hat

9th May 2008, 14:50

Okay I will but i think he might karate chop me when i show him what it costs.

Anyway my point was on his $550 a week things must be getting a bit thin for him in this era of booms and riches.

Chances are his rent has doubled in the last 4 years but his wage is about the same. Actually just about everything he spends his money on has just about doubled including the house he was intending to buy....

lowerlobe

11th May 2008, 07:56

I like PAF's line that unions are selfish....I think he should read this thread...
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=326235

I think PAF is right and unions shouldn't involve the public but instead should just vote themselves hefty pay rises just like the boards do...

rcoight

4th Jun 2008, 15:06

Okay I will but i think he might karate chop me when i show him what it costs.

So he can afford karate lessons but not an education...

Actually very good mate of mine is a Woolies manager, and let me assure you he earns well above average wage with car etc. included.
He works hard, but not bad for a yr. 10 education!

As far as I'm concerned KRudd and his cronies have shown in The Budget what a bunch of hypocritical jokes they are!
They painted themselves as "green" to get the young gullible fools vote for 'em, but how do you explain the change to "solar panel" legislation in a "green" way?
Go on, try it!
I, for one, was planning on installing them on my new house.
I have now cancelled my order.

And don't get me started on the health insurance business.
Yeah, great idea, let's plonk another 900,000 people onto the public health system!

Classic old '60's class warfare at its best...

Losers.

:D

Capt Wally

5th Jun 2008, 03:51

'rcoight' we are in agreement on this one mate:ok:
We nearly got rid of the countries biggest joke with a simple meat pie at the footy, damn so close!:} Who would want to eat a meat pie at the footy in the first place beats me !:bored: This current Govt will head this country in a backward direction I reckon, we are already seeing the "RUDDer' steering us in the wrong direction!:bored:

CW

RedTBar

5th Jun 2008, 05:01

The problem is you believe in what Rudd is pushing. Class warfare.

I don't doubt your sincerity. Both sides of politicals want what is best for Australia. They just disagree with how that should be done.

JWH and the like believe in the free market and freedom of choice. Rudd and the androgynous Gillard believe they know best and will settle it for you.

JWH believed in freedom of choice?
So that was what work choices was all about.Thats right, if you were an employer.
JWH wanted a fee market at the expense of Australians because of his mythological theory of a level playing field which like the Easter bunny is a piece of fiction.

All Pass-a-Frozo can come up with to show his political leanings is the term androgynous to describe a female labor politician.I wonder what how he would describe the Liberal female politicians then! Yeah they were glams weren't they?