just saw some more industrial relations crap on the news again. Im so sick of this, its just ridiculous what they are proposing to change, but now they are saying that they might get rid of payed holidays and meal breaks!

They have fancied it up by saying that if u give up your meal break you might get a pay rise or you might get to knock off earlier. I think its ridiculous and all of this industrial relations stuff that is happening atm is completly f***ing the workers over and this is just another step to us getting f***ed over even more. I dont think i could survive working a 8hr day without a break, its a bit much to ask to concerntrate and perform at your peak for 8hrs streak without a break.

is anyone else getting sick of what is happening at the moment?

Not really. I don't get paid holidays, and if I don't take lunch I get paid more or knock off earlier. So what's changing? Oh yeah everyone is being brought to my level. Why would I complain?

^^ lemme guess, your a casual right?

f*** that, how can they get away with that s***? I won't be giving up my lunch break and I certainly won't be losing my annual leave either.

IM not worried. my conditions cant change for the worse. Holiday pay sick super penatly ratess

im assuming idol is a casual worker? you get paid extra for your desposibility. so imagine doing your work, except for less $. and 5 days a week.

Gregory, planning on working in the same job for the rest of your life?

last edited by WhiteWolf at 17:55:41 27/Jul/05

If you voted Liberal you must be delighted with these new laws right?

as oppsoed to voting labour and allowing gay marriages and apologising to the coons

*ZING*

im going to vote the opposite of sancho for lyfe

Hes got you there, What do you call lots of aboriginals rolling down a hill?.....an abalanche

I get a certain number of paid days off and can knock off early if I don't have my breaks too

sc00bs, if ur dumb enough to believe the s*** being spun by the unions and the labor party then yay for you.

as an employer i can assure you that there not many employers out there are looking at reducing their workers' entitlements. in fact everyday, i am finding ways i can afford to INCREASE my workers entitlements, because i want to retain my skilled workers and not lose them.

don't believe everything you hear or read. try and become informed and make your own educated assessment of the proposed legislation, when it is announed.

yes, that's right the bill hasn't even been released yet.

sometimes i get frustrated by the poisonous fear mongering unions generate. like johhny said, the unions and labor preached unemployment and poverty when the workplace relations act 1996 was introduced and instead real wages increased by 14% v. 1% over 13 years of labor.

This is pure and simple fear-mongering.

i am finding ways i can afford to INCREASE my workers entitlements, because i want to retain my skilled workers and not lose them.

so your saying its compleatly up to the employer? i don't like that idea.

Apart from the fact that you need to buy a shift key infi, you can't talk for all employers, they come in all shapes and sizes with all different views on life and morality.


For example... where I work overtime is expected and unpaid (officially I believe it would all be paid overtime ... yeah right), in theory we get time in lieu, but the time you get off (if any) is never the same as the extra time you spend. I have seen a woman get 3 back dated warnings and fired becuase she announced she was pregnant (and no she wasn't a dud, completely the opposite infact, she was so good that one of our suppliers was there the day she got fired and hired her on the spot). And they strung along the whole team of cleaners for 9 months telling them their new contracts were coming only to fire them 2 weeks before christmas and replace them with external contractors.

In fact they carefully kept me off awards when I started, which meant I skipped a payrise and didn't move up any rungs, how was I to know any better. If it hadn't been for a girl in the pay office who noticed the anomoly pointed it out to me and told me to go see a union rep I wouldn't have got the same pay rise everyone else got, and everytime there was a pay rise I would have had to go fight for it individually.

And this is all under the old rules.

But then you're an employer, your main concern is the bottom line of your business (as it should be) and these changes all improve that, so of course you are for them (infact by saying you are for them, you are proving that for the average Joe this changes are bad news). None of these measures are going to magically create jobs, for most of people its going to lead to less pay or worse conditions becuase with out a union if an employee says if you don't give me this I am going to walk, the employer can go whatever see ya later... next! Your only hope is that you are very valuable (special skill sets, genius, high demand, high risk) otherwise welcome to minimum wages.

Before too much longer I rekon tips will become an expectation for all service related things becuase the poor buggers in the service industries will be on the minimum federal award rate.

f*** all of you that get payed meal breaks and holidays.

They should focus on how f***ing bad apprenticeships are. When I did a cheffing apprenticeship I got payed $5.5 an hour (Award) to do as much work as a qualified chef (maybe barely less but only becuase you arent really skilled enough to work the hardest sections, however, same hours and same amounts of prep) and if you were lucky enough to get a break it sure as s*** wouldnt be payed. Holidays were pathetic too.

I dont know how you could pay rent and get food on that wage. I lived with parents becuase $200 a week without some government support is bulls***. Its slave labor. Whoever set the current award is a prick, labor or liberal.

Before too much longer I rekon tips will become an expectation for all service related things becuase the poor buggers in the service industries will be on the minimum federal award rate.

God Bless America Australia, the 51st state

f*** all of you that get payed meal breaks and holidays.

no, no, no, f*** you.

just because you don't like the current conditions that you're under, doesn't mean that others should lose out on their entitlements.

u knew exactly what u signed up for when u became an apprentice chef, and if u didn't, you're a f***ing idiot. now i'm not saying that your conditions are fair, they're not, but that doesn't mean that others should be brought down to your level, your level should be raised to that of others

as an employer i can assure you that there not many employers out there are looking at reducing their workers' entitlements

Imo, while this may be the case in the current economic climate (as a result of significant shortages of labour), it won't be until we hit another recession that the full implications of this legislation will become apparent. In the current conditions, the shortage of labour provides some balance of powers to the employment relationship. Employees will go elsewhere if the employer tries to screw them over and in most cases, awareness of this and the need to retain labour keeps this in check.

Should we see a downturn in the economy, unemployment will rise and once again the power will switch to the employer. Whilst the impact of this will be much less dramatic on skilled labour, it will be unskilled labour, retail, hospitality etc where employees will suffer.

Even scrupulous employers will be drawn into this scenario. For example, in the contract cleaning industry, competitors compete almost solely on price. If an unscrupulous employer enters the market and engages their workforce on substantially reduced rates (and correspondingly a lower price), they will take business from the current operators. In order to compete, their competitors will have no choice but to similarly reduce wages. So on and so forth...

If people can't see the potential for this to occur, they're naive. I work as a workplace relations consultant with an employer association and provide industrial relations advice to a large client base. This line of thought is very common amongst employers with whom i speak.

Despite this, i do support some of the proposed changes, and disagree with the Unions on a number of the issues they have raised. The current system is a nightmare to navigate and the introduction of a fair national system is something which i would support. Similarly, the Unfair Dismissal legislation and the format in which it's enforced, is unworkable in its current state and needs to be amended (although not in the manner the liberals are attempting) to provide more equitable outcomes to both parties.

Still, this whole scenario has certainly brought Industrial Relations back into the national spotlight and will have done wonders for driving up union memberships. I attended an IR briefing by the Federal IR Minister on this new legislation eariler this week and there was a large crowd of BLF, CFMEU and CEPU members protesting outside as we entered the building. There certainly hasn't been this level of union activity for some time.

victory to the ETU

I am reading a book at the moment called "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" by Robert Tressell... An interesting book which follows the lives of a group of painters/decorators in early 20th century England. You can download it here for free http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3608

Here is an excerpt from the book:

The Great Money Trick

Taken from The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist by Robert Tressel

"Money is the real cause of poverty," said Owen.

"Prove it," repeated Crass.

"Money is the cause of poverty because it is the device by which those who are too lazy to work are enabled to rob the workers of the fruits of their labour."

"Prove it," said Crass.

Owen slowly folded up the piece of newspaper he had been reading and put it in his pocket.

"All right," he replied. "I'll show you how the Great Money Trick is worked."

Owen opened his dinner basket and took from it two slices of bread, but as these where not sufficient, he requested that anyone who had some bread left should give it to him. They gave him several pieces, which he placed in a heap on a clean piece of paper, and, having borrowed the pocket knives of Easton, Harlow and Philpot, he addressed the, as follows:

"These pieces of bread represent the raw materials which exist naturally in and on the earth for the use of mankind; they were not made by any human being, but were created for the benefit and sustenance of all, the same as were the air and the light of the sun."

"Now," continued Owen, "I am a capitalist; or rather I represent the landlord and capitalist class. That is to say, all these raw materials belong to me. It does not matter for our present arguement how I obtained possession of them, the only thing that matters now is the admitted fact that all the raw materials which are necessary for the production of the necessaries of life are now the property of the landlord and capitalist class. I am that class; all these raw materials belong to me."

"Now you three represent the working class. You have nothing, and, for my part, although I have these raw materials, they are of no use to me. What I need is the things that can be made out of these raw materials by work; but I am too lazy to work for me. But first I must explain that I possess something else beside the raw materials. These three knives represent all the machinery of production; the factories, tools, railways, and so forth, without which the necessaries of life cannot be produced in abundance. And these three coins" - taking three half pennies from his pocket - "represent my money, capital."

"But before we go any further," said Owen, interrupting himself, "it is important to remember that I am not supposed to be merely a capitalist. I represent the whole capitalist class. You are not supposed to be just three workers, you represent the whole working class."

Owen proceeded to cut up one of the slices of bread into a number of little square blocks.

"These represent the things which are produced by labour, aided by machinery, from the raw materials. We will suppose that three of these blocks represent a week's work. We will suppose that a week's work is worth one pund."

Owen now addressed himself to the working class as represented by Philpot, Harlow and Easton.

"You say that you are all in need of employment, and as I am the kind-hearted capitalist class I am going to invest all my money in variuos industries, so as to give you plenty of work. I shall pay each of you one pound per week, and a week's work is that you must each produce three of these square blocks. For doing this work you will each recieve your wages; the money will be your own, to do as you like with, and the things you produce will of course be mine to do as I like with. You will each take one of these machines and as soon as you have done a week's work, you shall have your money."

The working classes accordingly set to work, and the capitalist class sat down and watched them. As soon as they had finished, they passed the nine little blocks to Owen, who placed them on a piece of paper by his side and paid the workers their wages.

"These blocks represent the necessaries of life. You can't live without some of these things, but as they belong to me, you will have to buy them from me: my price for these blocks is,one pound each."

As the working classes were in need of the necessaries of life and as they could not eat, drink or wear the useless money, they were compelled to agree to the capitalist's terms. They each bought back, and at once consumed, one-third of the produce of their labour. The capitalist class also devoured two of the square blocks, and so the net result of the week's work was that the kind capitalist had consumed two pounds worth of things produced by the labour of others, and reckoning the squares at their market value of one pound each, he had more than doubled his capital, for he still possessed the three poinds in money and in addition four pounds worth of goods. As for the working classes, Philpot, Harlow and Easton, having each consumed the pound's worth of necessaries they had bought with their wages, they were agin in precisely the same condition as when they had started work - they had nothing.

This process was repeated several times; for each weeks work the producers were paid their wages. They kept on working and spending all their earnings. The kind-hearted capitalist consumed twice as much as any one of them and his pool of wealth continually increased. In a little while, reckoning the little squares at their market value of one pound each, he was worth about one hundred pounds, and the working classes were still in the same condition as when they began, and were still tearing into their work as if their lives depended on it.

After a while the rest of the crowd began to laugh, and their meriment increased when the kind-hearted capitalist, just after having sold a pound's worth of necessaries to each of his workers, suddenly took their tools, the machinery of production, the knives, away from them, and informed them that as owing to over production all his store-houses were glutted with the necessaries of life, he had decided to close down the works.

"Well, and wot the bloody 'ell are we to do now ?" demanded Philpot.

"That's not my business," replied the kind-hearted capitalist. "I've paid your wages, and provided you with plenty of work for a long time past. I have no more work for you to do at the present. Come round again in a few months time and I'll see what I can do."

"But what about the necessaries of life?" Demanded Harlow. "we must have something to eat."

"Of course you must," replied the capitalist, affably; "and I shall be very pleased to sell you some." "But we ain't got no bloody money!"

"Well, you cant expect me to give you my goods for nothing! You didn't work for nothing, you know. I paid you for your work and you should have saved something: you should have been thrifty like me. Look how I have got on by being thrifty!"

The unemployed looked blankly at each other, but the rest of the crowd only laughed; and then the three unemployed began to abuse the kind-hearted capitalist, demanding that he should give them some of the necessaries of life that he had piled up in his warehouses, or to be allowed to work and produce some more for their own needs; and even threated to take some of the things by force if he did not comply with their demands. But the kind-hearted capitalist told them not to be insolent, and spoke to them about honesty, and said if they were not carefule he would have their faces battered in for them by the police, or if necessary he would call out the military and have them shot down like dogs, the same as he had done before at Featherstone and Belfast.

Yes the new proposed laws are f***ed! John Howard should be shot!

money is useful for a lot of things, but keeping the black man down isn't one of them

no, no, no, f*** you.

just because you don't like the current conditions that you're under, doesn't mean that others should lose out on their entitlements.

u knew exactly what u signed up for when u became an apprentice chef, and if u didn't, you're a f***ing idiot. now i'm not saying that your conditions are fair, they're not, but that doesn't mean that others should be brought down to your level, your level should be raised to that of others

I was more saying that instead of making changes to the system as it is now for you all, they should concentrate on the stuff that is REALLY wrong. Like the state of apprenticeships. I did understand what I was getting into and I really didnt care. There are worse things than not getting lunch breaks... losing holidays is bulls*** though, I agree.

last edited by Qmass at 00:12:06 28/Jul/05

as an employer i can assure you that there not many employers out there are looking at reducing their workers' entitlements. in fact everyday, i am finding ways i can afford to INCREASE my workers entitlements, because i want to retain my skilled workers and not lose them.

yes that because atm everyone has to do this other wise people can find better work conditions somewhere else the second the laws change and the work condtions become the same everywhere you will prolly be the first to find ways to screw your employees over.

sc00bs, if ur dumb enough to believe the s*** being spun by the unions and the labor party then yay for you.

Has Liberal actually given us their side of the story? As far as I know it is:

Unions: THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
Labor: DOOOOOMMM!!!!!
Liberal: it is not!
Union: THE SKY, IT IS FALLING!!!!
Labor: it is so DOOOOOMMMM!!!!
Liberal: Don't listen to them, they are all crazy!
Liberal: look out behind you, terrorists!

Unions: THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
Labor: DOOOOOMMM!!!!!
Liberal: it is not!
Union: THE SKY, IT IS FALLING!!!!
Labor: it is so DOOOOOMMMM!!!!
Liberal: Don't listen to them, they are all crazy!
Liberal: look out behind you, terrorists!

made me rofl

Honestly Im sick of the Liberal propaganda as well. There is absolutely no way they will convince any sane person that workers will be better off.

I wish that they would just be honest about and say :

"We have control of the senate and we are going to change the IR relation rules. You workers are gonna be worse off. Theres nothing you can do about it so just f***ing accept it."

Id rather the brutal truth than these f***bag politcians lying to us.

what a load of horsehit obes.

for anyone who actually knows anything about labour force projections (as can be read about in the 2004 senate enquiry into health and aged care demand) there will be no end to the current labour shortage for the next 50 years due to our chronically ageing economy.

there will be no new happiness time for employers, they will spend the rest of their miserable lives trying to stop their employees from walking out on them them, and trying to actually get them to turn up to work.

i mean honestly, who gives a flying f*** about whether someone gets a uniform allowance or not. we are talking about the real flexibilities that can only be neogitated between a worker and their boss one on one.

further, unions do not give a damn if i as the employer make a profit or not. in fact unions perceive profit as an evil, but in fact profit is very good for workers because it means the model i am using is efficient and i will want to grow it, and to do that i need - suprise, suprise - more employees.

employees are in the wonderful box seat of being able to pick and choose their jobs in today's economy.

given that it takes roughly 20% of a position's annual salary (in retraining and associated downtime costs) to turnover an employee why would you drive away someone who is trained and good at what they do by letting their conditions fall behind the market.

edit: re liberal propaganda, in 1996 the unions preached the end of civilised labor standards for australia as we knew it. instead real wages increased by 14%. wtf is with that! they were wrong then, labor will be wrong now too.

last edited by infi at 08:25:27 28/Jul/05

This is pure and simple fear-mongering.

Yer because Jonny's never used that tactic before.

I was more saying that instead of making changes to the system as it is now for you all, they should concentrate on the stuff that is REALLY wrong. Like the state of apprenticeships. I did understand what I was getting into and I really didnt care. There are worse things than not getting lunch breaks... losing holidays is bulls*** though, I agree.

I go to uni which is meant to be a full time job (40 hours a week). This costs me 5k a year in HECS debt.

Then what? I can get 100 a week from centrelink if i stay at home..or 175 a week with rent assistance.
Thats hardly enough to live on. So therefore i get a job. I earn 200 a week...and get probably 30 a week from centrelink.
So i "work" for 55 hours a week to get 230 a week. And people wonder why uni students dont do their homework!
Apprenticeships...sure you dont get much money 1st year, but it goes up 2nd/3rd years. And at the end of it you get qualifications! No 15-25k debt! Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

When you get a family you will understand the need for holiday's, leave, paid breaks, and job security

When you are young and care free I can understand why it isn't much of an issue

Worken at the Post Office I had one of the best unions around. I never used them, probably could have once or twince, but meh. I was getting paied about $18 an hour to kick a few parcels around and drive a van. The union got that deal happening, if they didnt it would be around $15 and hour I rekon. The post dont really care that much about keeping non-exec workers, there is a nice supply of monkies almost all the time.
That said, I've also seen plenty of usually older jadded workers totaly abusing the system such as parking their vans under a tree then reading or eating something, while they are supposed to be doing work. The bosses know this, they just cant do anything about it...yet.
I can see in some ways why the laws need to be changed, I can also see potential problems with it as well.

infi ... Please buy a shift key.

Your rejection of the english language makes your arguement much less convincing becuase well, it looks childish and unprofessional.

And like I said the fact you love it is all the proof I need that to say that perhaps these changes are purely in the employers favour. If everybody was upset about bits of it, I'd say it might be balanced. If the unions were dancing in the streets I'd say it was too strong in their favour. And if everyone was happy you'd know something was wrong with it for sure.

Your rejection of the english language makes your arguement much less convincing becuase well, it looks childish and unprofessional.

And you were on such a role too obes =)

I'm the biggest grammar Nazi you will ever meet - when I am writing for an educated audience that is. :p

last edited by infi at 11:20:07 28/Jul/05

Heh hermi .. I am the worst speller you will ever meet. Hence why I came so close to flunking english at school.

Its bizarre I honestly can't see the spelling mistakes even if I read it a few times.

The and Teh look the same to me. gn and ng ... invisible.
The au, ua and the ie ei (any bunch of vowels) I just never even see them. Its probably becuase I read thigns fairly quickly.

Its probably becuase I read thigns fairly quickly.

probably.

last edited by infi at 11:55:27 28/Jul/05

infi knows where it's at.

liberalisation of areas of g'ment intervention is 99% of the time a good thing. chicago school economics for the win.

Lack of "unfair dismissal" would allow them to sack you for taking meal breaks anyway *shrug*. I have not yet spoken to a single person who works for a company <100 that thinks the changes are a good thing.

It's completely f***ed these changes are. And I'm a lib voter!

oh and hunter that little story would have brought a tear to Marx's eye.

By 'meal break' you mean a 10 minute break? if so that isnt a lot of time to get un/paid for. 30minutes to an hour is something else though.

I am the worst speller you will ever meet.

*cough*

infi, your political bias has clouded your reasoning.

Your argument doesn't even make sense. Removing the requirements for meal breaks, holiday pay, work hours etc will make it easier for the poor employers to attract the workers they want in an increasingly skills shortaged world!?

Run that one by us again. Please tell us how removing a statutory requirement that ALL employers had to comply with has given any one employer an advantage over any other employer with which they are competing for the "scarce" employees.

You do know that employers are already allowed to offer the people they really want to employ as much incentive as they can? Nothing is stopping you from offering an extra 20% salary already to make sure you keep that vital skilled person. Removing the requirement that you give poor Dilbert time for lunch, the requirement that Dilbert is allowed to spend Easter with his children and still meet his mortgage repayments that week, the requirement that Dilbert can't be sacked because his jealous boss thinks his PA has a crush on him or any other spurious reason, removing any of these requirements does not leave you in a position of being able to offer more than your competitor next door who has also now been freed of these same "unreasonable" requirements.

Let's say the cost of providing all of the Industrial Relations requirements for working conditions is $X per employee.

Currently the employees get all of X in a form that almost every single worker agrees with very highly (lunch breaks, public holiday pay etc)

The effect of this change then, as you well know, is:

1) In industries facing a skills shortage

No effect. The employer still retains all of $X, most likely in the same form that is already in place. A small percentage of workers will opt for a cosmetically different form of renumeration of $X.

2) In industries facing high unemployment

Large effect. All of $X will go from the workers to the employers as there becomes no reason to continue to pay $X.

Now, bear in mind that unskilled labour means anyone (almost) can do it with effectively no training at all. Bear in mind that unskilled (and even minimally skilled) labour accounts for substantial percentage of total employment. Bear in mind all of that and realise that for many workers in this country they are facing option 2 head on.

Bear in mind that even those facing option 1 will not be gaining anything except the happy outlook of joining the option 2'ers at the next economic downturn.


Therefore, and given the dishonest lies you have spread about unions (your claim that unions find proft "evil"), it is clear you are arguing from a political agenda and not from a well reasoned and considered one.

plok:

Lets say the Easter holiday and breaks cost the employer $X but Dilbert only values these conditions at 65% of $X. If the employer was able to offer Dilbert somewhere between 65% and 100% (exclusive) of the cost of these benefits in lieu of the benefits both Dilbert and the employer would be better off. This is the problem with the current IR legislation, it doesn't account that different employees will value things differently so it ends up making things worse for some employees.

how about this plok:

small business regularly cites red tape and government regulation as the single largest factor slowing their productivity.

give employers a break and let them figure out the terms of employment with their employees and THROW OUT THE RULE BOOK. unions can negotiate on behalf of employees if that is the employee's wish. larger groups of employees can do this collectively if they wish as well because this is all in the workplace relations act.

the last thing a modern economy needs is a set of anachronistic rules (the award I work from is over 40 pages long) to pay their employees by. there is simply no point to it when the effect of an award has been superceded largely by workplace health and safety laws (re breaks and amenities), and modern supply side economics dictating rates of pay.

you can argue all you want that these minor line items in awards set the average worker at ease but until the Australian economy is prepared to take off its trainer wheels with these paternalistic regulations australia's workforce will not reach its full potential.

in particular those marginal low skilled workers who want to work, but whose labour value is more than the dole and less than their award, think of those poor suckers.

i have no idea what the dole is but say at the moment it is $300/week and the minimum award is $390/week for a low skilled job. Now say the economy for that job dictates that this employee is really only worth $325/week because the value of the finished products he/she creates is worth $375/week. no employer in their right mind would expand that industry becuase it is clearly unprofitable.

if however you removed all the regulations and let the pair of them sort a deal out then you would have a person earning more than the dole, and you would have an industry growing.

another thing you have forgotten in your $X analogy is the administrative cost of providing all those benefits v. the simplicity perhaps of trading some of them away in exchange for higher base rates of pay for example.

alternatively an employee may only want 2 weeks of holidays per year because THAT IS WHAT THEY CHOOSE. who dare tell them that they MUST have four. I think it's actually quite arrogant of the unions and labour to be saying these things.

Plok, trust you to come into the politcal discussions...

For your "high unemployment industries" lets look at the reason as to why that may infact occur and also why inevitably it wont matter?
1. Expanding global economy with an ever increasing ability to access cheaper 'labour' markets
2. Any smart large organisation will tap that labour market to increase profits
3. Australia + most of the 'west' have their labour force in service industry (around 70%)... educated and highly skilled workforce
4. industry is around 20%, and agriculture the rest.
5 Industries are highly tech orientated these days, as the 1980s and 90s squeeze most of the labour force out for 'tech' solutions... gone were the days of 'job for life'...

The unions are losing a grip on the political process (as in the US right now) as there base has declined dramatically due to the make up in the workforce.

With China, India, Africa (low % chance) and already Asia in general and the southern America's competing for "labour contracts" the goverment if anything is trying to keep companies within Australia for longer but inevitably, people will lose jobs to other countries, not because of IR reform...

For any joe blogg that wants to mitigate their risk... educate yourself further!!

Stop being such a socialist plok, your a quasi-employer!! ;)

and before you come back with, but what about the essentials ie plumbers and electricians, waiters.... market demands will see to it that those wages remain competitive; and as plumbers are right now out of their apprenticeship, paid better then first year doctors!!

woot! plok for the post win!! is it tuesday? are the wow servers down?

I laughed at this part:

Bear in mind all of that and realise that for many workers in this country they are facing option 2 head on

Option 2 being: industries facing high unemployment

How this happens when Australia's unemployment rate is at 5% is beyond me. But it doesn't stop plok from telling us that *many* people face this option. Now, I know that plok is pretty loose with the facts and meanings of words when he gets a few beers under his belt and a head of steam up. But, I would use the word 'many'to say that 'Many' people are not facing and will not face the dreaded Option 2. In reality, only 1 in 20 Australians wanting and able to work will, if the doomsayer plok is right, face it. Talk about scare mongering and spreading lies! plok will look you dead in the eye and tell you that unemployment is rife while it scrapes 30 year lows. gold.

wtf is this afr.ausforums.com or something

haha infi! Just because you say "your good" doesn't mean everyone else isn't going to use these laws to the most power possible. Open your f***ing eyes your not the only employer! There are evil people out there!

and what i am saying is that the "evil" employers will lose their employees.

and what is the worst that is going to happen to that employee, that is "taken advantage of", they will think "geez this is a s***ty job", and look for a new one.

oh and btw, under the current marvellous system, employees are already being taken advantage of, as we hear regularly on these forums, so try opening your eyes yourself.

just because it is written on paper doesn't mean unscrupulous employers won't ignore it.

infi, one could be forgiven for thinking that you only believe what you've said so that you may sleep well at night...

i think yall missing the point ,its about gettin unions out of the picture which needs to be done to improve the manufacturing capabilties of this country. we cant just keep digging stuff up out of the ground and sellin it overseas. there is plenty of laws in place covering workers rights . dont be fooled into thinkin u get an objective from the media or from unions who r the ones who stand to loose money (which they do sweet FA for)

hunter, no. just no, ok.

infi knows what he is talking about. if you have some better solution, let's hear it.

markets aren't perfect, but they are the best economic solution ever devised for all but a few economic problems. markets work far more efficiently without government intervention. the labour market is no different. legislation is irrelevent, if you have something worth selling (time, skills, knowledge), and there are people willing to buy it (employers) then you should be able to engage in voluntary trade in whatever manner you please.

you think employers will abuse their power to engage in trade on their terms? then you have been reading too much socialist crap like that stupid story you posted before, because i don't think many workers are going to trade on those terms. skilled workers are in high demand, and that isn't going to change any time soon. that means that the skilled workers have the power in any trade.

if workers are going to be fired left, right and centre like some of the unionist crap says, (which is highly unlikely), it would not necessarily be a bad thing. if the employer does not wish to trade his cash for your time and skills, then obviously, in his opinion, the money is worth more than the products of your labour. the employer would put this money to another use, allocating resources in the most efficient manner to him. forcing the employer to keep you, would be forcing an allocation of resources on the employer which is inneficient. that hurts society. for evidence of that just look at communism, and how great that was for the average person.

this unionist and labour crap is all scare tactics, most of it defies basic economics.

argh i hope this post makes sense, im tired.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1952/mswerdyo6eo.jpg

last edited by infi at 09:14:37 29/Jul/05

I think employers will get a shyer person who does the job 80% as well becuase the good person is wanting to be treated fairly ? where the shyer less capable person basically will do whatever the employer asks and say please master kick me again (less pay, less conditions ... ie. the boss says this is what the award says, so they accept it as the fair thing ... almost everyone gets paid above the federal awards) ?

imo The system encourages employers less confident people they can exploit easily rather then a system where employers look to get the best employee to do the job.

Why is this system fair ?

2 people doing exactly the same job to the same ability level, one is better at bargaining and gets 10% more, the other is on less becuase they are less able to bargain ? And they aren't allowed to tell each other what deal they are on. Worse yet the less self confident person is better and getting paid less !!!

For those of you on contracts its no big deal you are basically dealing with this now but if you are on contracts you are a skilled worker and in demand so its all good (ie. no different).

And for skilled workers who have fulltime/permanent positions there is no point being commited to your employer in that fasion, these people usually took a small cut in pay for the bonus of security and having a system that provided pay increases etc etc, now thats removed why would you commit yourself to the company ? you are going to have to individually bargain everytime may as well be on a contract so that you can force your employer to give you better deals by having the date when you go off to consider other employers.

But think back to your very first job you got when you were 15 or 16 and were essentially unskilled, and not savvy to how things work, how many apprentices chefs have been sent off to get the left handed fork/bei maree/pots or tradies the left handed (insert tool name here). Changes those pranks to pay and conditions. These are the people who are going to be in trouble ie. the service industries or anywhere else where lots of young people are working. Federal Awards are pretty grim.

Even police, nurses and teachers rely on their unions to fight for their pay and conditions.

Vote me for PM. We'll go to communist, me being the dictator, then there will be no inheritances, everyone gets the right amount of money when they enter life, and we'll all live on farms, put in a hard days work, then go home put our legs up and tuck into a big f***in meal and beers.

What about topless barmaids tuco ... we need them to help us drink our beer!

i have no idea what the dole is but say at the moment it is $300/week and the minimum award is $390/week for a low skilled job. Now say the economy for that job dictates that this employee is really only worth $325/week because the value of the finished products he/she creates is worth $375/week. no employer in their right mind would expand that industry becuase it is clearly unprofitable.

Most people on the dole are on about $200-$250 a week.

Besides that, if you have to pay people the less than the poverty line to make a profit you need to change industries. In fact, a smart businessman would move to a more profitable business.

if however you removed all the regulations and let the pair of them sort a deal out then you would have a person earning more than the dole, and you would have an industry growing.

The problem I have with your concept is that you are trying to make a profit while paying people less than the poverty line. Not only that, but your example if you calculate the costs that people have by working (clothing, transportation, out of house food costs), they are going to be below the dole line.

Also, didn’t we start with unregulated employment models? Isn’t that the reason we created unions in the first place?

Lol I don't know why anyone here is bothering to argue... as I've said many times in the past, I can't wait for things to really turn nasty/bad. Hopefully all those in favour of relinquishing more rights for short-term, perceived gains get what they deserve. Let them suffer in their jocks.

yeah, and you're saying that because you have no grasp of how besic economics works hunter.

since, your such a sophistacted reading type and like to show everyone the high brow stuff you read, go read a book called 'free to choose' by milton friedman. or better yet, a book called 'wealth of nations' by a guy called adam smith. hell, that book was written in 1776 and he understands more about economics than most people today.

then maybe you'll have a clue.

besic = basic.... seriously does anyone else have the problem where they can't edit posts? it takes me to a aus gamers log on page, and when i put my user and pw in the page just refreshes?

nurses and teachers rely on their unions to fight for their pay and conditions.

Obes, please answer these two questions;
1) when was the last strike for each of these respective groups, on the recommendation on unions? and while your at it, how many in the past 15 years?
2) when was the last Private hospital or school that collapsed due to massive walk outs because employees of these institutions wanted to work at the public (union run) based institutions?

If I understood your argument correctly, being represented by Unions enables employees to obtain better awards, conditions etc then their counterparts... The market based institutions ("pay to stay") would no doubt falter in this regard, leading to employee dissatisfaction, due to the fact that the private institutes push for greater profits and 'screw' the employee.

Overall question, based on historical data, who do you think looks after their employees/paying members better, Unions or 'free enterprise bargaining'?

typo i don't understand your point. if a worker has a chance to earn more than the dole and is willing to work at that rate, but is not allowed to work at that rate due to an award how is this fair?

you are denying the worker a right to be employed and to enjoy the improved self-esteem accompanied with employment.

due to the artificial barrier to full employment which awards create there is a huge blackspot amongst particularly young people (21+, junior rates tend to cover the younger ones) who cannot get employment because the award has priced them out of the market.

this is the exact kind of situation these new reforms will address, and not before time.

twat, i can tell you that in collective terms, union-represented workplaces are far better reumunerated. compare the public hospitals, to the rates of pay for aged care nurses (20% difference). also in education, the public sector rates normally set the benchmark for private schools who are playing catch up and watching what EQ will do next time round.

but in individual terms, for example in the mining industry, employees who have entered into AWAs (individual contracts) are usually significantly better off.

when was the last strike for each of these respective groups, on the recommendation on unions? and while your at it, how many in the past 15 years?

i can remember several teachers strikes... it was always awesome cause you didn't have to go to school!

Twat, which country do you live in?

due to the fact that the private institutes push for greater profits and 'screw' the employee.

if that was the case. why don't the employees change job? or change into the public system.

whitewolf, I think you should read my post again...

which country do you live in?

USA... your powers of observation are startling! :P

if that was the case. why don't the employees change job? or change into the public system.

That is exactly the point whitewolf, wd, a gold star for you!! sorry that sounded patronising... oh that's cos it was! :D jks, couldnt help it!

Obes, please answer these two questions;

sure, but um ... you're in America so none of this even affects you...

1) when was the last strike for each of these respective groups, on the recommendation on unions? and while your at it, how many in the past 15 years?

Nurses, well I'd have to ask my sister but the last threatened one was about a year ago ?? maybe boxhead would know more I think he's a nurse.
Teachers, last EBA about 2 years ago I think, again they threatened to. Interestingly the government who had walked away from the table saying no deal, came back to the table and worked something out.
How many in the last 15 years ? I think the teachers have maybe once or twice but its very very very rare usually the threat of it is enough for the various employers to come back to the bargaining table.

2) when was the last Private hospital or school that collapsed due to massive walk outs because employees of these institutions wanted to work at the public (union run) based institutions?

I work in a private education institution, we base our agreements (almost word for word) off the CEO's (Catholic Education Office) who base their's off the EQ (education queensland) ones. And The unions are involved in all of these institution. All of the private ones are under the QIUE (Queensland Independent Education Union) while the state ones are under QTU (Queensland Teachers Union).
And I have seen a strike almost happen at the private institution almost happen twice, once becuase our employer was not going to match the states deal, and once over extra cirricular activities (we were about the only group that wasn't being paid to run sport after school and weekends... its not much $600 pre tax for a full season with minimum 2 training sessions a week and a game on weekends for a minimum of 14 weeks). In other words your question makes no sense.

Honestly... you assume private institutions are totally un-unionised? and assume all a union does is strike ?
You don't have to actually strike to get an employer to listen. Simply threatening can get even a biligerent employer to listen, and most of the time they don't even need to threaten. And it has worked well where in the past the Government said "no pay rises for teachers" and the union said "we want 10% they said cool we'll strike since you won't even discuss it". They threatened to strike, and the government ok we'll talk about it and they ended up agreeing on 5% over 3 years or whatever it was. ie. The process works.

Its also worth noting they are having trouble recruiting police, teachers and nurses, so despite being in demand the employers are quite willing to stuff people over for even the smallest condition.


If you don't understand what a union is think of it like this. Its bulk bargaining power for employees. Much like if you get 100 mates together and get a cheaper rate on a 21" LCD monitor or something.

last edited by Obes at 14:07:04 29/Jul/05

USA... your powers of observation are startling!

so why are you talking about the economics of a country that you don't even live in?

and er.. private schools also have unions. so i don't know what the f*** your talking about?

yeah its rarely the employees that suggest a strike. it is normally the unions that force them. the employees in my experience are usually more concerned about their customers (whether they be school kids, hospital patients, old people etc.).

yeah, and you're saying that because you have no grasp of how besic economics works hunter.

since, your such a sophistacted reading type and like to show everyone the high brow stuff you read, go read a book called 'free to choose' by milton friedman. or better yet, a book called 'wealth of nations' by a guy called adam smith. hell, that book was written in 1776 and he understands more about economics than most people today.

then maybe you'll have a clue.

You truly are an ignoramus, aren't you? Since it would appear that you are ignorant and only concerned with 'economics' I don't think its worthwhile even discussing anything with you. I bet you recycle your teabags too.

yeah its rarely the employees that suggest a strike. it is normally the unions that force them. the employees in my experience are usually more concerned about their customers (whether they be school kids, hospital patients, old people etc.).

Riiiight. You do realise you don't have to strike if you're in a union? Of course you'll be then rightly called a scab but hey you're still free not to strike if you don't want to.

What Obes has said is correct. At the end of the day employers love to tell themselves that they're not really bad people after all and that the workers love being taken advantage.

But again, arguing about these points on QGL is like shoving spaghetti up a cat's arse...

huntard, what we are talking about is economics. economics is the study of choice, of allocating resources, which is very relevent and applicable here. that is why i am talking about economics. i wish you were as well, but in actual fact you are talking s***.

recycling teabags, what? was that seriously supposed to be some sort of insult? haha and why do you use the word ignoramus like anyone born after 1952 gives a f***. why don't you give up now and go back to starting threads about how pathetic your life is or why your cat pisses on everything you own.

Employers aren't bad people.
Employees aren't bad people.
That said there are bad apples everywhere. (Hunters post may have been interpretted as employers were bad people, and I don't think he was suggesting that they are)
And most of the time the good apples have the exact same goals, help the customers, make money for the company.

The problem is in certain situations the goals of these 2 groups is different. Thats why there is an adversarial approach to the bargaining. Employees want to be paid as much as they can, and employers want to keep costs down. Both equally fair points of view but in total disagreement with each other.

And infact this is 1 of the things that won't be so nice. Now an employee has to fight with their employer for conditions etc etc, where before a union would have done that, hence at the end of the day no bad feelings between the employer and employee. But under the new rules ... its possible, tho its far more likely the employee will be let go or will just cave and take whatever is thrown at them.

Employers hold all the cards except in alot of situations (ie. high demand, super specialized skill sets, dangerous work, disgusting work, super high quality work).

For the drones, and situations where there is alot of people doing the exact same job. A union can help balance that equation.

For the highly skilled/desirable employees on contracts are able to balance that equation for themselves. "Don't pay me what I am worth, I will go somewhere where I will."

Yes I don't personally like the changes ... why ?
Becuase I am not a great negotiator, I know for a fact I will get ripped off, becuase I value having a job (any job) more then not having one no matter how bad it is/was.

Overall the changes might be better for the country, but you know what ? I think the country is doing pretty damn fine the way it is. And I know thats not enough reason to prevent change. But I can't see how these changes are any better for the vast majority of people (workers & unemployed). I can see why small business in particular likes them, and if I was 1 of them, my self centered view of the world would probably think the changes were great.

Obes:

Individual contracts don't prevent people from negotiating via a union. Even if the employer was able to mandate that everyone must be on an individual contract, which I don't think they'll legally be able to, employees would still be able to negotiate together and use the threat of the group witholding their labour.

last edited by hast at 15:22:39 29/Jul/05

Why should the 'drones' be protected? Their value should be guaged according to demand and supply.

In every unskilled workplace I've worked in, I have been amazed at the number of lazy, unproductive and unenthusiastic workers. They spend all day whinging about their conditions, whinging about their life and essentially not doing the job they were hired to do. Meanwhile, the company is kept afloat by the minority of workers who actually work hard, create profits, doing their job description.

Hopefully the change in legislation will mean the archetypal fat, lazy yobbo australian worker will have to pull their socks up.

levels... Aussies for the most part actually are pretty good workers. Thats why it is fairly easy for us to get jobs when we go overseas.

Hast I think you'll find under the new rules... You have to bargain yourself. You are not allowed to use a 3rd party to bargain (ie. union). You are not allowed to talk about the deal you got. There will be no state awards only federal ones and they don't cover much, and the awards are the starting point (pretty meager, most peoples current EBAs are well above the base award which are atm usually state based).

Why should drones be protected ?
Becuase we need the drones. We need someone to be a garbo, we need people to be on road crews, we need people work in call centers. We can't all be rocket scientists and brain surgeons.

employees will always have the right to be represented by a union. the current government has never opposed that, and indeed it is fundamental to a modern democractic society.

i have no problem with unions, i have a union agreement with my employees. other employees have an AWA with me because that is what they choose. the AWA employees got a better deal though cause they could go one on one with me, whereas the paranoid majority got their McAgreement one-size-fits-all and guess what - 12 months later, about 10 of them came back and said we don't like our McAgreement anymore we want an AWA.

I said sure, climb aboard.

Forcing employees to think about their working conditions isn't a bad thing. Because the union in our case actually sold 90% of the membership down the river to get a special condition for the 10% of staff at the next pay level up so they could trumpet it all across Qld. The 90% were none the wiser but that was very unethical by the union.

Remember when the GST was coming in and all the small businesses were saying "OMG, so much more paperwork, I am going to need a computer to do all this, so much wasted time, what's the point."

Those same small business now realise:
- the GST delivers quarterly profit and loss results for them
- the computer (and software) they bought was worth every cent they spent
- they are now more organised than before GST.

This comparison is valid because if employees actually cared to look at their working conditions and tinkered a bit with them in partnership with their boss, then they would probably get an even better deal than they expected without costing any extra money.

One size fits all sounds simple and fair, but it is rarely ever fair.

so why are you talking about the economics of a country that you don't even live in?

Whitewolf, I am not sure what world you live in, but I live in the global economy and I also take an interest in it... fyi, I have this thing called a 'passport' that allows me to "travel" and live in 'other countries' (ie not just australia)... wow! I also still have my vote in Australia!! ;)

Obes, I will admit I might have a warped view on Unions, but honestly when they get to a stage where they can almost strangle hold industries and/or criple your economy, it is worrying. Before the last major IR reforms, the wharfies were the least efficient in the western world (by a ridiculous %), but of the highest paid. The wharfy unions had the companies over a barrel as they controlled the labour and used mafia style tatics on any employee who wanted to take up a 'individual contract'. This had a ripple on effect to all other sectors in the economy.
Little johnny, has always been about the small business, stating that they are the growth of Australia, and the reforms will definitely favour them, again not to be harsh but small business are dependent on 'good' labour and should not be held to ransom by unions or harsh IR laws.
As infi said (i think) this should bring out more discussion by the employees so instead of having someone else negotiate your pay and conditions, as a 'group' (just dont pay union fees) they can participate in open discussions on what they believe they deserve, and some performance measures that will be binding to both parties. So if they perform they get their raises, no questions asked and if they dont perform, out the door!!
I dont believe that this reform will mean "you cant discuss your pay with others" it will actually do quite the opposite...

I guess the real message in this lot of reform is to keep the labour force honest, essentially to drive productivity and create efficiencies in the economy, so we can be competitive globally.

But again, arguing about these points on QGL is like shoving spaghetti up a cat's arse...

I believe this thread has had some interesting discussion, and I appreciate others views although I may differ slightly, I am sure when the legislation is finally tabled then this thread will reignite... so Hunter shut the f*** up... its called democracy!! :D

The saddest thing about this, is the paranoia being spread by Labor and the ACTU BEFORE the bill has been submitted to Parliament.

Why not give it a chance... fkn

Infi how about you tell us what business you run and how many emlpoyees you have just to put it into context for us. I'm pretty sure you don't head a company the size of Comalco or Patricks or even one the size of say ANI Bradken.

As for your comments about the unions thats what I would expect from an uneducated twit that has never worked under the gun of a boss that sees his workers as anything more than cattle. Some of you many not realise this but individual contracts have been around for quite sometime. Hamersly Iron in WA broght them in for their employees over 10 years ago and Boyne Smelters south of Gladstone here in QLD did the same in 1996(both companies are oned by Comalco).

I have some insight into how these things strip workers of their conditions because I grew up in Paraburdoo WA (Hamersly Iron) and lived at Boyne Island and worked for Boyne Smelters Ltd many years. I have spent two thirds of my life either working for or living in a town ran by Comalco or one of their companies. Believe me when I tell you they only care about the bottom line and if they can squeeze you or get rid of you they will.

On the small company side of things they will be able to sack any employee anytime they want and with no reason what so ever.. none ... nothing not a word except your sacked. As it stands now you can go for unfair dissmissal but once the law changes you won't be able to. A company in this case only has to have 100 or less people to qualify as a small business and that allows them to sack you on the spot and you have nothing not even a word as to why.

It might pay to mention at this point that the current situation with unfair dismissal claims is that less than 1% fall in favour of the employee anyway. But at least there is an independant body to decide this and it isn't left to a boss that "might" just be having a bad day.

Now Individual contracts or AWA's as some of you would of heard them called is another thing they are going to push to further weaken the workers position. Firstly it removes collective bargaining thus leaving the worker on their own to negotiate their contract for further employment. Now I don't know about you but I don't know to many bus drivers, Fitters, shelf packers ect ect that are able to effectively negotiate contracts but I'm willing to bet it's not many. Now your boss sits you down and flicks a piece of paper across the table to you. On the paper you notice your RDO's are gone there is a componant of over time per week to be done plus you'll be required to be on call 7 days per week(BTW this is just a really small example of what I have seen with my very own eye's). You say to your boss that he can't take the RDO's off you because they are protected under the award, he chuckles back and says sorry pal but once you are on an AWA you AREN'T covered by the award because you are now considered STAFF!

You look over the meager offerings and say no thanx, he says ok no problem there is the door we'll find someone else who will sign. There is alot more they can take off you believe me because I have seen it happen to 100's of people ... yes thats right 100's.

At Boyne Smelters they offered 100 redundancies to people that didn't want to stay when they were offering the AWA's. Well people were so happy with the prospect of what they would be offered with an AWA that 500 of around 1000 employees applied for the redundancies, does that tell you anything?

I have an extremely long list of reason WHY people should fight these changes but to be honest if you can't see where these things can and will lead then you are just the kind of cattle companies will be only to happy to shaft. Another thing to remember here is that the conditions you hand over to day are the conditions that our Grandparents, mothers and fathers fought for to make a better and fairer life for them and us. It would be akin to us handing this country over to the Japs after all the fighting our country did in WW2. You may think this as overly dramatic and perhaps it is but the governments plan is no less insidious.

typo i don't understand your point. if a worker has a chance to earn more than the dole and is willing to work at that rate, but is not allowed to work at that rate due to an award how is this fair?

My point was when you price in clothing costs, transport and food out of house expense minimum wage isn’t that far above the dole really. Your really s***ty example would essentially pay people less than the dole because you have a crappy product.

you are denying the worker a right to be employed and to enjoy the improved self-esteem accompanied with employment.

Can you make up your mind? On one hand you are saying that it is hard to keep employees because it is an employees market, and then on the other hand you are saying that the current market is removing the ability for employees to get work?

yeah its rarely the employees that suggest a strike. it is normally the unions that force them. the employees in my experience are usually more concerned about their customers (whether they be school kids, hospital patients, old people etc.).

f***, you really are a mental giant aren’t you. Maybe the term “Workers Union” has escaped you.

employees will always have the right to be represented by a union. the current government has never opposed that, and indeed it is fundamental to a modern democractic society.

Except they won’t be represented when it comes to the agreements that they make. Heck, employees won’t even be able to discuss their individual contracts with each other, let alone to the union.

The saddest thing about this, is the paranoia being spread by Labor and the ACTU BEFORE the bill has been submitted to Parliament.

Why not give it a chance... fkn

two points:

a) Liberal has stated that they don’t plan on changing anything before it gets to parliament.
b) Liberal have the majority in upper and lower house, if we wait until it reaches parliament with no arguments then it is going to get passed. If we make a big enough fuss right now, we might change the proposed system.

Infi why not give it a chance eh?

Do you have any concept of how hard it is to remove things like this once they are in? This isn't like trying a new flavour ice cream or new pair of jeans you can just take it back, it doesn't work like that.

Lets look at good old jonny for a second this is the same guy that 10 years ago when asked by a reporter how many average aussies could afford a $90,000 car he repplied that he knows plenty of AVERAGE aussies that drive cars of that value? I saw that with my own eyes aswell. Howards only intention here is to write his name into the history books as the leader that brought the biggest (not best) changes to Australia since federation. The man is completely out of touch wih reality and completely out of touch with average hard working australians, ffs he has been in federal politics since 1973. Thats 32 years of living in the biggest god damn bubble this country has.

last edited by Taipan at 20:01:01 29/Jul/05

Hate to bring up an old point but its pretty obvious Howard is trying to turn Australia into America.

When the place is a total s***hole shake the hand of the nearest brain dead twat you know who voted for the libs.

The only thing smaller than the mind of a liberal voter is the size of John Howards penis.

Twat

I am a wharfie pal and those f***ing comments are f***ing insulting and totaly false. You like so many other f***ing morons in this country swallow every little bit of s*** the media throws your way, Mafia my f***en arse. I really really wish that everyone in this country got to spend sometime working as a wharfie because then they might realise how the media twist everything to suit the story they want to show and not what the actual facts are.

Hell I have it said to me all the time by people, I remember that Patricks strike a few years back. I'm like WTF are you talking about it wasn't a strike the company sacked the entire work force on the spot and used masked guards and dogs to throw them out. They then say but you were on strike before that to which I respond yeah thats f***ing right it was protected action taken in accordance with the law during and an EBA period.

On the topic of productivity. Our ports are NOT the least productive in the world and never were. To understand why you need to consider why places like Singapore and Amsterdam have higher box rates. For a start those two ports will get nothing but the biggest ships in and will have 4-5 cranes working on them at a time. Now alot of those ships carry upwards of 5000 containers and in those port almost every single box is exchanged meaning the cranes don't have to f*** around moving here and there all day long. Here in Brisbane for example we usualy only have 1-2 cranes working ships of a large size not to mention many smaller ships that are much more difficult to load and unload. Add to this that we DON'T exchange an entire ships cargo we have to move around alot more picking out what we need because of the way they were loaded in prior ports.

If you know anything about stats you'll know that if certain information is left out you can make them say what ever the f*** you want. I personaly can unload 40 boxes per hour which is 15 more (Note: we have many drivers that can do more) than worlds best practice but that depends entirely on the load plan and the f***ing ship.


Seriously some of you people really need to pull your heads out of the f***ing sand and pay less attention to the f***ing papers and TV.

P.S. Individual contracts have never been offered on the australian water front so thats yet another mistake you made.

last edited by Taipan at 18:40:37 29/Jul/05

last edited by Taipan at 18:40:47 29/Jul/05

last edited by Taipan at 18:46:22 29/Jul/05

Little johnny, has always been about the small businesses

and please explain how the GST didnt singlehandedly f*** a zillion small businesses?

ok I actually read further back through the opus and found

IThose same small business now realise:
- the GST delivers quarterly profit and loss results for them
- the computer (and software) they bought was worth every cent they spent
- they are now more organised than before GST.

1. thanks for f***ing telling me what I know as a small business operator everyday.
2. The computer and software is all s***.
3. f*** you liberal vermin I will be the judge of that.

last edited by rolo_tomasi at 19:01:58 29/Jul/05

Obes:

Hast I think you'll find under the new rules... You have to bargain yourself. You are not allowed to use a 3rd party to bargain (ie. union). You are not allowed to talk about the deal you got.

When the unions talk about people not being able to do 'x', usually they are complaining about not being forced to make people do 'x'. According to the government the new rules will no longer make it mandatory for AWAs to be assesed by the OEA. The government also says that unions will still be able to bargain for employees, but I assume they will no longer be forced to have union input.

A general overview of the new rules is available from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations site. I'm surprise no-one has linked to it yet in this thread.

last edited by hast at 18:53:41 29/Jul/05

Taipan

Are you kidding me, Australia had the WORST record for efficiency in the wharfs... and during that dispute when Peter Reith was putting through the reforms, he had over 10 australian federal police protecting him (which I saw with my own eyes)... so no the unions would never use any underhanded tatics... my ass! but I guess it is all the investigative journalists from 4 corners and dateline that got it wrong, it couldn't have been the Unions you were a member of feeding you horse s***!! Stevedores, sacked you because you were inefficient comparable to everyone else in the rest of the world!!! Your 'elite club' was being threatened and the unions got up in arms... Bring back Joh and sack the f***ers for not doing their job effectively!!

and please explain how the GST didnt singlehandedly f*** a zillion small businesses?

The senate (democrats) butchered the GST reform... anyway, initially it was a little harsh, but the modifications that were subsequently done, have addressed those problems.

On the small company side of things they will be able to sack any employee anytime they want and with no reason what so ever.. none ... nothing not a word except your sacked. As it stands now you can go for unfair dissmissal but once the law changes you won't be able to. A company in this case only has to have 100 or less people to qualify as a small business and that allows them to sack you on the spot and you have nothing not even a word as to why.

Taipan:

This is incorrect you can still have your grievences heard in a civil court. Of course the standard of proof is higher and it is more expensive, so it is harder to get relief for frivolous claims.

read 60% of the thread.

All i know is that 2 weeks ago I quit my job because I was told I had one of 2 options. Go full time at around $10/h or
go casual on $14/h with NO overtime. I HAD to work overtime just to cover the cost of living out of home.
(38h week)
It was costing me on average about $100 a week just to get to work.
So I quit as did a few other people that did work there because of this. So yet again im un-employed with minimal skills, and no licence and a possible baby on the way.

money ROCKS this world!

P.S. Individual contracts have never been offered on the australian water front so thats yet another mistake you made.

Well your correct on the fact that there were no individual contracts, not so sure on the 'not offered' part. As the Union's end game was to prevent stevedores from doing exactly that...

"the MUA was able to get its members back to work and thus prevent the successful establishment of non-unionised labour on the Australian wharves. There was a trade off, however. The deal eventually struck with Patrick Stevedores led to an increase in casualised workers on the wharves"

Also Non-union waterfront labour were used through the lockout.

Twat and it never crossed your mind that those police might of just been window dressing to help add to the governments BS story? Pal accept the fact that you fell for the same old tied s*** they they have been peddling for years. Just like when Little Jonny was wearing that bullet proof vest while addressing gun owners in Gympie some years back, it was all done for effect you supit prick.

As for our box rates you are a moron and I know because I work there. You obviously have no idea whats so ever about what goes into working a ship and small but none the less important details were left out during the media's feeding frenzy over the Waterfront back in 98. Do you know what actually came of that whole debarkle? They managed to reduce the number of guys working on each crane point by a couple of men. The savings in wages was suposed to be pased onto the consumers over the long term, but guess f***ing what!!! it costs more now to move a box than it did back then and the supossed saving went straight into Patricks pocket and still is.

Mate you have obviously based your entire opinion on what you watched on TV or read in the papers and that in itself is enough to show what a total f***ing tool you are.

If you are ever interested in coming to see it for yourself and let me know and I'll take you first hand around the place and explain it very clearly to you then you can make decent opinion about the situation.

On the small company side of things they will be able to sack any employee anytime they want and with no reason what so ever.. none ... nothing not a word except your sacked. As it stands now you can go for unfair dissmissal but once the law changes you won't be able to. A company in this case only has to have 100 or less people to qualify as a small business and that allows them to sack you on the spot and you have nothing not even a word as to why.

Cost to lodge claim - $50
Cost to business - $2000 (time, legal advice, closed days)

Most small businesses dont have the luxury of being able to be away from their business and as it is their livelihood, are usually submersed in the business one way or another 7 days a week.

so your 1% of claims that prove legitamite hardly seems worth all the burden placed on the businesses for the other 99% of frivolous claims. I hardly see how this was to help your argument. Also if the person is good, there is no way in hell that an employer would get rid that employee unless the whole business is taking a dive... it uses up too many resources to train new employees. Small businesses much prefer to retain knowledgable, well performing staff.

yeah they were scabs and they were there as a desperate attempt by the company to keep working after THEY sacked their entire work force. Oh and just so you know the company sign those scabs up on 6 month contract and then reniged on them. How do I know this? Because i now work with one of them who gladly joined the MUA after the company f***ed him and all the guys he was scabing with.

You seem to be missing one really f***ing critical thing he and that is that the union is the workers so when you say the unions did this the unions did that guess who your talking about, the f***ing workers. All this s*** is put to a vote and everyone gets to vote and union goes with what ever the votes say. The workers don't want AWA's therefore the union doesn't want them. remember this pal the union does NOT tell us what they want we the workers tell them what we want.

You go the % around the wrong way you f***ing pinhead. Only 1% of workers win so just to make it really f***ing simple for you 99% of the time the boss wins but this does have the effect of making employers use reasonable grounds for dismissal. So if your boss has had a bad day it's probably not a good idea just to sack a worker for the hell of it because that wouldn't be fair or reasonable would it?

The workers don't want AWA's therefore the union doesn't want them. remember this pal the union does NOT tell us what they want we the workers tell them what we want.

NO you have Paid Union bosses that tell you what you want, and then you vote what they said you want... cynical I know, but as if they are going to tell you something that you dont want to here!

No we have elected union officials, elected by guess who *drum roll* the f***ing WORKERS ie the union membership.

Seriously mate everytime you reply you just dig yourself a deeper hole.

Ok look if you want me to take you through this more clearly I will. Do you have team speak or ventrilo? because if thats what it takes to get you to at least understand even the smallest piece of this I will gladly sit there and chat to you.

last edited by Taipan at 19:58:48 29/Jul/05

just a small example here.

The last EBA we had the union reps (we elected) came back to us with an agreement they had reasched with the company and said it was a fine deal and we should take it. We voted no so they went back to the company and then returned some weeks later and we voted no again. This happened a total of 3 times before we the workers got what we wanted in the agreement.

Fun but that doesn't much sound like them telling us what to do.


BTW thats was just the most recent thing, there have be issues to numerous to mention prior to this where the out come was the same. The union persues issues for us on our behalf, issues that WE wanted addressed. You can't have 500 guys from one jobs site roll into the bosses office one afternoon to go over this s*** so you send your ELECTED rep's.

It's not hard to understand really

You go the % around the wrong way you f***ing pinhead. Only 1% of workers win so just to make it really f***ing simple for you 99% of the time the boss wins but this does have the effect of making employers use reasonable grounds for dismissal. So if your boss has had a bad day it's probably not a good idea just to sack a worker for the hell of it because that wouldn't be fair or reasonable would it?

Yes Taipan I got it the first time... 99% of employers win therefore the claims by the employees for 'wrongful dismissal' would said to be frivilous, but the employer still has to go through the claims process wasting the employers money to find out that he had every right to tell the employee he is f***ing useless!!!

I dont really want to post the stats (incase you get offended/embarrassed) for the inefficiencies of the wharfies back then, and I can confirm this for you (or you just go ahead and correct me!) was about 12 crates per hour, as opposed to the 25 an hour by other ports around the world. Bear in mind, I believe the data is referring to the Melbourne/sydney ports, I have nfi where you work/worked back then.

How do you know the avg cost of un/loading each crate is? and that cost increase has exceeded the rate of inflation?? and therefore that the profits have gone directly to the coy. Is this on a Union flyer!? btw, I wouldnt know, I am just curious as to what source information your refering to, so I can look into further.

No we have elected union officials, elected by guess who *drum roll* the f***ing WORKERS ie the union membership.

I was thinking of the ACTU that does the negotiations /power brokering with labour and for when IR reform comes up and they represent the other union affiliates including MUA among the rest of the industries... I didnt make myself clear on that point... I dont really care about what you earn or negotiate persay, I am refering to the legistlation in general as to what it is trying to achieve, ie creating a competitive economy.

ok for a start the approx cost of lifting a box off a ship is about $200 now that is more than it was even after taking into consideration other factors such as inflation.

Ok on the box rate. As I mentioned before those stats are total useless and misleading in the extreme when you don't put them in the correct contexted. Our ports are being compared to other ports that have far suprior infrastructure, for example the ability they have to dedicate 4-5 cranes to one ship where we only have the cranes to put 1-2 cranes on a ship.

Ok so a ship comes in this with a 1200 box turn over.

Us
1X crane
Start to finish = 48 hrs

Them
5X cranes
Start to finish = 9.6 hrs

^^Whats the box rate for eash of those?

Now this is the correct way to look at it because it's obvious to see that they have more cranes and thats whats making the difference. But when your bashing wharfies this doesn't aid your arguement does it. They also don't mention that they are comparing small ports (au) against the biggest and busiest ports in the world in ports like Amsterdam, LA and Singapore ect ect.

We deal with alot of smaller more time consuming shiping than they do. We also have ships that carry containers and break bulk which is stuff like timber and steal. Timber and steal are extremely time consuming because of the rigging thats involved. But because it's on a ship that has containers on it the total time the ship is in port counts against the box rate. example 50 off in 2 hours change to unloading break bulk 2 hours back to boxes 50 done in two hours. Ships total work time 6 hours. Now we only worked boxes for 4 of those hours at a rate of 25 boxes per hour but they forget to mention the break bulk and work it out over the full 6 hours thus making the box rate look like s*** at 12.5 boxes per hour (Amsterdam/Singapore don't do this).

Add to this that we have to move our cranes around constantly which takes alot of time because we have small patches of boxes to work on the time gets blown out even more. In the big international ports they set a crane over one stack of boxes and leave it there all day thrashing away at it which is very very easy to get top rates. We aren't blessed with the massive import and export turn over that they have so this never happens.

Seriously mate unless you see this stuff for yourself and gain an understanding of how it all works you'll never truely appreciate what a total load of crap the media spun over the whole saga. I don't know if it plays with perception of the order of the world to be faced with the possibility that the media actually lied to you but trust me when I say..... they did.

I dont really want to post the stats (incase you get offended/embarrassed) for the inefficiencies of the wharfies back then, and I can confirm this for you (or you just go ahead and correct me!) was about 12 crates per hour, as opposed to the 25 an hour by other ports around the world. Bear in mind, I believe the data is referring to the Melbourne/sydney ports, I have nfi where you work/worked back then.

ROFL i dont know much about these stats but it looks like your just trying to save your self and are failing.

last edited by Irhabi at 20:39:32 29/Jul/05

Mate since when has the ACTU told anyone on the shop floor what to do? Funny because I don't ever recall them getting me to walk off the job or going to my boss over a safety issue that popped up this morning. It's the grass roots stuff that matters here not that s*** because at the end of the day if there is no grass roots there is no ACTU.

Ok I have a few things i have to do.

I just wanted to add my last owrd on the matter.

I have worked on the waterfront for many years and I KNOW what numbers we get, I see it everyday. I know what the press and Libs have said and I can assure you that they have manipulated the figures to suit themselves. Don't bother argueing against me because I'm there and I see it so I know the truth it's that simple. You have as they say BEEN HAD.

End of story

Patrick's claim that on their Darling Harbor wharf they have doubled their capacity and halved the labour needed.

EDIT: Patrick's also did a case study comparing an Australian wharf with a wharf overseas and also had statistics that showed declining crane rates while overseas crane rates increased.

last edited by hast at 21:57:03 29/Jul/05

You look over the meager offerings and say no thanx, he says ok no problem there is the door we'll find someone else who will sign. There is alot more they can take off you believe me because I have seen it happen to 100's of people ... yes thats right 100's.

exactly right. the market has said the current rate is too high. no award can set that rate, only the market. the minute the rate for labour is pushed too high people start losing jobs.

1. thanks for f***ing telling me what I know as a small business operator everyday.

as a matter of fact most small businesses do not do quarterly profit and loss reports and only find out how f***ed their cashflow is for their annual tax return. that problem is fixed now cause the need to have the cash to pay their GST every quarter.

Taipan, as for all of your horses*** about the wharve's efficiency, everyone knows the wharves were a basket case prior to the 98 dispute.

Now that Corrigan broke the MUA's stranglehold on the wharves it is running at the rates should have been all along.

Can't wait until someone non-union is able to work on the wharves. Shock horror, the MUA aren't bullies, that can't be possible.

As for your comments about the unions thats what I would expect from an uneducated twit that has never worked under the gun of a boss that sees his workers as anything more than cattle.

I have been an industrial negotiator for 5 years in both the government and private sector. I have negotiated more AWAs and certified agreements than you could literally poke a stick at.

For your information if an employee does not accept an AWA they can engage in protected industrial action, by striking. Similarly the employer can lock the employee out until they agree. If the parties fail to reach agreement on the new AWA but do not engage in protected industrial action then the employee remains on their existing industrial instrument.

Bush lawyers who do not actually known the legal machanics of the bargaining they are criticising...

FFS, the unions have been carping on about getting the right to strike for decades. They finally got it in the 90's now they are complaniing that employers are bullies.

edit: also for the record i run my family's aged care service with about 90 employees. so bring on the unfair dismissal exemptions i say!


last edited by infi at 00:17:25 30/Jul/05

last edited by infi at 01:10:06 30/Jul/05

lol taipan wharfies about as hard as coucil works and get 70g plus a year who r tryin to kid

Infi,

I have owned and operated my own businesses for 13 years, I am middle aged (late 40's) and have a wife, 3 kids and a lovely home on the bay, So I am not your typical UNION SUPPORTER but BOY DO I SUPPORT UNIONS TO THE FULLEST.

I have lots of problems with the IR changes being made. I believe in workers rights to belong to a union. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. The only fellow busines owners I know that have a problem are the ones who want to reduce their workers entitlements and can't because the union on behalf of the employees fights like tooth and nail for them. GOOD ON THEM I SAY.

As to your arguments, all I can say is you're an optimist who seems to think the world is run on integrity and honesty. Well sorry mate it doesn't, never has, never will. People will always exploit people if the law allows them the capability. You are naive to think the opposite. Just look at history. Man is capable of exterminating whole races of people, so why is it so ridiculous for you to concede that there will be some, maybe many or maybe even thousands who will exploit the weaker during the bargaining process. It happens now even though we do have unions in this country so why do you think anything will change when this new legislation is enacted. People will continue to exploit others but even more now as the worker will not have an equal bargaining position.

Just cause you might not conduct yourself in this manner means diddly squat to me. Nor makes a diifference to the other 10million employees over and above your meager 90.

I think if you seriously believe the majority of business/industry will ethically be respopnsible to their employees you are definitely living in Fantasia. Just look at the CBA, they are suing their workers because they collectively with their union attend the Annual GM and ask tough questions of the board, like asking for ACCOUNTABILITY BY THE BOARD OF IT's ACTIONS. The CBA board doesn't like the scrutiny by their employees so what do they do, sue them. So here you go, life in the workplace of the future. Once this has concluded in court, if the CBA bank wins, there goes your collective bargaining mate as every bank has indicated following suit if the court case is in favour of the CBA. Also some major insurers have also indicated support for this as well.

On another note, it seems okay for the government to use scare tactics and any underhanded way of getting what it wants while spending millions of our money on lying to you, but when a UNION does, wow the sky is falling. f***, wake up to yourselves. I now know who are the drones in this society, the ones that follow their queen to whatever end, without question.

Oh and yeah, the unfair dismissal propaganda you are espousing is bull. I have always been able to sack staff that does not perform. All I have to do is give them a decent reason (like consistent underperformance in reaching targets) and three warnings and if they don't improve I can fire them. I don't mind giving them a warning first either, I think giving someone a chance to improve once it has been brought to their attention that their performance or possibly behaviour is not at a satifactory level is not a bad thing at all. So what's the big deal.

OH an BTW, f..k off Twat. No way do I want and American culture or style of living with it's unbridled capitalism applied to this country. It' s*** and I don't want it here, end of story. I want what I grew up with so that my kids can enjoy the same security and possibilites in life, a fair days pay for a fair days work, 4 weeks holiday leave, sick leave, overtime, penalty rates, lunch break and protection from exploitation and most of all equality. People are not commodities or resources, they are people. (I FKN hate it when people refer to me or others as resources, how fkn insensitive). We are a civilised society and that means we have to be aware of our social responsibilites to one another, otherwise we are barabarians.

Oh and stfu those who yell "Reds under the Bed". I am not a communist, just because I care for others means jack s*** about politics. So don't even try to use that as an argument with me, not interested.

Cheers
Shaun

PS. I am a very generous and considerate employer who firmly believes in a Family-Friendly environment and as a result I have staff that would die for me, literally. I believe loyalty, compassion and sincerity are a two way street. Don't expect it from the other party if you're not willing to do the same.

last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 03:00:41 30/Jul/05

last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 03:01:57 30/Jul/05

I forgot to say. I'm with you all the way Taipan even though I am on the other side of the fence.

If anyone comments on my spelling and grammar for something I wrote at 3:00am can get knotted and I seriously think you should get a personality.

Cheers

last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 03:07:30 30/Jul/05

Twat. No way do I want and American culture or style of living with it's unbridled capitalism applied to this country.

the point i was getting at, twat, you have no REAL WORLD understanding about australian employment, and the fact that you don't live and work in australia mean that you don't really need the job security. and if 90% of workers got improved entitlements, yet 10% of workers got f***ed in the arse you might consider that a good deal, but we really aren't talking about a comodity as SFB said, we are talking about people with real lives and need for job security.

Unions are for the people. if you have worked on a construction site or any trade/grunt work then you would understand the real need for Unions. which is why im in agreement with taipan aswell. and twat, there is no way to even begin to comment on how hard workers work untill you do there job. Aussies are generally hard workers, even council workers.

also. someone said the cost for a clame for injust dismissal is 50$ where for a company it would be $2000. most companies can afford $2000 (perhaps not on the spot, but they have the means of getting that money). a jobless person who still has to pay bills etc can't really afford 50$ can they?

afaik twat has only recently moved to the US? and therefore, has spent a number of years here? correct me if im wrong, twat

To firstly clarify one point, I have lived in Australia my entire life, I have only moved to America in the last 8 months, so I am arguing for Australia’s future being a realist in the “global economy”. I thought the language I used would be obvious enough, look at the way I spell labour, organisations etc…

OK OK… change of tactic to illustrate the fundamental reason for “change”.

SFB… If you really think the way you grew up will remain the same for your kids then you are in a fantasy land. I certainly grew up with better economic blessings then my father did, and he certainly didn’t grow up in the same economic climate as his father did and so on.

With the current economic climate change, the reforms, imo, are aimed at positioning the Australian economy to be more competitive. Whether these changes go through or not, Australia is not an isolated island anymore in the global economy. Trade barriers are being dismantled and new trade pacts are made (note the recent ASEAN summit), we are looking at joining the largest populated economies in the world with potentially no trade barriers! Who do you think has the competitive advantage when it comes to labour resources? (sorry but labour is a resource! - please dont think of me as a heartless bastard that would compare people to a lump of coal, it is just for illustrative purposes!).

SFB, I admire that you do the right thing by your employees and as a result your productivity (I assume) is efficient and effective. I worked for both small (15) and large (7000+) organisations that have treated their employees with respect and those management attitudes definitely flowed through to the employee’s productivity.

I will concede the above point to Taipan, productivity does have as much to do with the ‘approach’ of management to their employees as the attitudes and entrenched mindset of employees. In the waterfront dispute I am sure you would argue, the major reason was the approach of Stevedores. But instead of being stuck on this point, with literature from both sides stating various “facts”, I will concede (as you are from the industry), prolly to much ridicule of this thread and move back to the crux of the ‘IR reform’ argument.

The approach of the reform, imo, is to change the way the fundamentals in the work agreements are set out. Move away from mass “set” awards, that have restrictive components and don’t allow for an employer to use the labour resources as effective as possible. When negotiating contracts, whether, as an individual, a collective group, or as a union, to be able to establish your own ‘performance measures’ and ‘benefits’ as opposed to ‘minimum wages with set increases’ and ‘benefits’. It is a shift in mindset, and one that many will not necessarily like but will be inevitable, whether from our government or by overseas influences.

Put this notion in to an extreme example,

An unproductive organisation in Australia that fails to compete globally will either be bought or put out of business. If any of the functions of that business can be done else where more efficiently they will be stripped out and the workers will pay the price, of losing there job.

Now, the question is how to mitigate the risk? Therefore moving forward what will be the best arrangements that will facilitate a more productive workforce and hence a more competitive organisation?

imo, the Set awards prior to the 21st Century have been fine for 40 years…

$x for normal hours
$2x for overtime
50+ hours in a week = pay plus extra day off per 6 hrs of OT… or whatever…

imo, performance measures will be what will drive Australia’s productivity to a globally competitive level for the future.

I don’t want to get into the semantics of the methodologies/formulas, as they would need to be setup differently for each industry, organisation, business unit, etc…
But for illustrative purposes only, lets say:

$x per y units

So instead of receiving a set minimum for turning up to work regardless of your output, get rewarded on the output you produce, thus having potentially uncapped incentive system.


Disclaimer: I am not saying that these incentives don’t already exist out there in some industries, whether it be in its entirety or a hybrid, but for those industries that are stuck in there mindset and haven’t taken the initiative to adopt such incentive programs (due to management or current agreements), this may be the ‘gentle’ nudge they need…


With what little has been released and the speculative information from various sources, the above is what I gather is what the reform is about, and I do think it will be the best for the country moving forward. I am not a mindless drone, I do think for myself and believe I do have a better grasp then most people of Australia's economy with comparison to other economies around the globe, as I have first hand travel and work experience abroad (and no I am not basing it on the USA alone). I have worked and travelled across Europe,Africa,Asia and the Americas, and can base my opions on the experiences I have seen and read.

^^ Well said

we are forgetting the real point here - i was right.

I want what I grew up with so that my kids can enjoy the same security and possibilites in life, a fair days pay for a fair days work, 4 weeks holiday leave, sick leave, overtime, penalty rates, lunch break and protection from exploitation and most of all equality.

See that's the McAgreement I was talking about. Everyone is equal. Everyone is treated the same. No one is different.

Nothing can ever change, life and work stays the same for ever. We all know that.

even in France where they used to have a 35 hour week, that law has recently been repealed because thew French government realised that it was interfering too much with the economics of labour.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7265807/

Infi there has been non union labour on the australian waterfront since 1996, two years prior to the Patricks illegal sacking of it's entire work force. As for the stats on box rates believing those is abit like the Germans in the 1930's believing Hitler when he pointed the finger at the Jews as the cause of all their countries woe's.

What do you find so f***ing hard to believe about it? Do you feel that the average aussie work can't help but lie so nothing they say is true? Are the conpanies and government beyond question to the point that it is incomprehencable that they will twist information to meet their own ends?

You can take protected action while in and Enterprise Bargaining period not as an individual while signing an AWA pal. If you by yourself withdraw your labour while negotiating an AWA what will that do? Nothing, absolutely f*** all as one guy walking of the job will cause the company to do one thing ... laugh at you it brings no pressure to bare on them what so ever and is ridiculous to even consider.

I ask you all again, what is so hard about believing that? Are you the same fools that would never believed the current Steve Vizard case if it hadn't been plastered all over the press. Or what about the collaspe of HIH, OMFG a company director destroying and entire company it's not possible. How about Onetel would that of been impossible to believe because director's morals and ethics are such they can't be questioned?

Seriously the more you people go on the more you look and sound like unthinking drones just the way the Libs and the companies would like us all to be. Oh and for your information Darling habour is doing so well it's being shut down and moved and the stats on it are also misleading because half the work done there has been farmed out to contract firms. SO what you have is the same amount of working being done over the same time frame and with the same number of people but only a % of those people are directly on the companies books. OMFG it looks like it cost less but guess f***ing what it still costs the same. But hey the stupid drones out there believe it so it's all good.

Twat,

I do accept your argument amount economic reform. We all acknowledge economic reform is necessary. But why take away rights of an employee to satisfy the need for reform. There are far greater ways of enacting reform. Like getting the WTO to have the protectionism in the USA and EU removed from their inefficient industries. I am sure there are many more reforms that could be made that don't require the diminishing rights of one side of the equation. If you are going to remove employees rights then how about removing some of the employers rights. Only then will it appear an even distribution of the reform across all sectors of the community and the pain is shared equally.

I was aware you were from Australia and only now living in the USA. All I was trying to say was that the model of unbridled capitalism unleashed upon the USA is not what I want here and I don't want us evolving into a a replica of it.

Infi,

Your depiction of equality actually is very insulting. Equality is the basis of democracy, 1 vote from a blue collar worker is equal to the vote of Kerri Packer. The whole community has equal say in determining the future of the country, not just the elite few. So why is it such a rich idea that we could have this in the workplace too. Liberty, Fraternity and Equality is the underlying core of democracy, so if you can't cope with having equals in the workforce (which by the way is an extension of your community) then please pack your bags and go to a despotic country run by an elite few who persecute and execute those that diasagree so that you can have it all your own way.

Now according to your statement, even society should not have progressed due to the fact it is based fundamentally on equality. I would like you to look out your window and look at the world for once and you will see that this very society has progressed far greater than at anytime in history due to the emergence of democracy and the concept of equality.

Equality is not about equality in pay but equality in consideration of what's best for all, not what's best for me.

I am afraid you come across in your tirade a very sefish one-sided individiual who puts your individualism above the rest of society and hold it up as some sort of Holy Grail. Sorry mate but I don't want to live in your world I want to live in a world of communities not a world of individuals who care only about themselves.

Cheers
Shaun



last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 12:09:50 30/Jul/05

You can take protected action while in and Enterprise Bargaining period not as an individual while signing an AWA pal.

Yes, you can take industrial action while bargaining an AWA, read the Act.

if you can't cope with having equals in the workforce (which by the way is an extension of your community) then please pack your bags and go to a despotic country run by an elite few who persecute and execute those that diasagree so that you can have it all your own way.

"equal" as in george orwell, animal farm "equal". who are you kidding?

nobody is equal. finally the fed govt has introduced comparative based reporting for school kids. "equality" is why s*** teachers get the same pay as excellent teachers and it is a f***ing disgrace.

democractically we are equals and in respect to human rights we are equals, but that's about where it ends.

awards spell medicority and poor performance (not to mention complex, but we are past that now i guess). the best working conditions will always differentiate between high performers and poor performers.

Infi are you completely stupid? What would an individual achieve by going out on strike by them selves? Because thats what taking protected action while negotiating an AWA amounts to. It would be totaly pointless and your boss would just laugh at you. The whole point of taking action is to apply pressure to the company using the only thing a worker has and that is he's labour. One person working off a job is pointless, however getting everyone to walk out will put pressure on the company and force them to the table.

Now seen as AWA are only negotiated with the individual and as such would only allow the individual to do anything any kind of action taken would be a monumental waste of time and the company wouldn't even blink much less submit.

how is it fair that an employer with a team of legal experts gets to negotiate with a single employee about their employment contract? this is the main reason of unions existence nowadays, negotiating eba's etc. i challenge anyone who isnt a workplace relation HR officer, university trained etc, to know all the ins and outs of an agreement you would have to sign if you were forced into that positions.

i personally know quite a few people who worked for virginblue as engineers, they all were persuaded onto AWA's 2 years ago now, 1 license(737) $95000 a year, which is very good in australia for a rate of pay. compare it to qantas which 1 license will get you about $1100 a week base rate of pay.

the people i am talking about all left virgin to come to qantas full knowing they were halving their base rate of pay, they knew that their employer, who happens to be mr corrigan ie wharfie buster, will negotiate with everyone when the AWA is due for renewel, with the argument of 'well qantas engineers are on $55000-60000 a year for 1 license, we have to compete, so here you go, 30% pay cut, dont like it? leave.'

they came to qantas under an EBA, at least they know they have some bargaining power when it comes to negotiations every year. with eba's people also get a range of other benefits. benefits negotiated by a union. benefits that werent in existance at VB. penalty rates, duty travel rates, staff travel, unfair dismissal, legal protection in case of an aircraft accident(union provided), training, career progression, provision for voluntary redundancy, proper forced redundancy provisions (consultations prior to, voluntaries offered first etc). all of this is WRITTEN IN to the EBA, it is not provided for at VB.

its especially f***ed in the aviation industry where _any_ global event is reason to reduce staff. at least at qantas there is a union to somewhat protect its employees. at vb, if times are tough, youll just get told you have no job.




--



also, no employers get the opportunity for you to bargain out your lunch breaks for leaving 15 minutes early. do u really think dumblonde checkout chick is going to be able to negotiate with her employer, say coles, when they say, come to work for 6 hours, no break and you can leave a bit early. 6 hours of standing doing repeitive tasks. sounds like fun.


---



and do we all forget that it was because of unions that we have;
-38 hour standard working week
-4 weeks annual leave per year
-overtime/weekend penalty rates
-bereavement leave

I have been an industrial negotiator for 5 years in both the government and private sector. I have negotiated more AWAs and certified agreements than you could literally poke a stick at.

Man, and you still have problems forming a solid and consistent argument? No wonder you changed careers.

nobody is equal. finally the fed govt has introduced comparative based reporting for school kids. "equality" is why s*** teachers get the same pay as excellent teachers and it is a f***ing disgrace.

...

awards spell medicority and poor performance (not to mention complex, but we are past that now i guess). the best working conditions will always differentiate between high performers and poor performers.

I don’t know if you realise this, but this highlights the kind of employer you are.


last edited by typo at 15:31:42 30/Jul/05

do you have a problem with different people doing the same job getting paid different amounts if one performs the job more effectively than the other?

Infi,

You come across so right-wing it is not funny. Everytime someone questions your view you produce the worst analogies to justify your answer. You really are extreme.

You know what I meant you jackass in regards to equality. Equality in respect of treatment and fair play, this does not stop difference in pay or position. We all know different professions and trades and jobs deserve different remuneration. There will always be a variation, that is not inhuman. Exploitation, maltreatment and weakening of rights is inhuman.

I cannot see any problem this being refelcted in the way employees are treated, who by the way are people thus deserving a humane approach. I don't consider individual bargaining with effectively no position of equality or equal strength is fair or honourable. The employee is always in the position of inferiority/weakness.

If it is so bad to have equality as a basis of negotiation then people like you will always dominate the other who is economically weaker than you. But I guess that's what makes you feel good, being able to dominate the outcome of someone else's life.

It appears you like an unequal world where people like you can justify their lust to be superior to someone. You really are starting to sound pathetic.

Look Infi grow up. We all know everyone won't suffer under this new IR regime, of course not. You will definitely benefit (probably sack all his staff and use Kanaks as slave labour) But I feel any system that removes the equality or the right to be equal in strength whilst negotiating (which some employees use their Union for) is seriously flawed in favour of the strong and disadvantaged to the weak.

I just hope you're children will feel the same way you do, when they go working down the mines. No, I don't think that will happen, but who says it can't when people like you feel the need and can justify it by ECONOMICS.

It's funny how economic needs always outweighs social needs esepcially amongst those that already have economic power and strength. I call that GREED.

There is a big difference between being paid what you're worth compared to accumulating wealth for the sake of it whilst at the disadvantage of others.

I'm not going to argue with you any more Infi. I can feel your jackboot sneaking up on my throat and many others already and that makes me feel uncomfortable being in the same world as you.

Cheers
Shaun

P.S. I have no problem with someone earning more than another if they work hard for it. Infi you fail in your argument when you use silly examples like this which you should know we all believe as well. No one thinks someone should get paid the same or more for doing less than the person next to him. So why use that as viewpoint to strengthen your argument. In fact it doesn't. It just makes you sound even more hysterical.

last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 15:47:41 30/Jul/05

Taipan:

I don't know what your talking about. An employee can appoint a union rep as his agent when negotiating an AWA. One problem with AWAs from the unions perspective is that you can't commit industrial action during the negotiation period. However, if the employers are screwing you over you can always collectively give the notice required by your employment contract and leave. Not the same as a protected strike action, but has high negative cost for employers where restructuring costs are significant. High enough that it would always make sense to concede to "reasonable" demands.

I think this situation makes for an interesting game theory problem. Lets say employees are getting paid slightly higher than they could at another job. The employment contract is up for negotiation and the employees know they can increase their wage by $X because they know that the increase is less than the restructuring costs - the savings made by taking alternative labour. Now, if the employer thought that the workers would only do this once then it would probably make sense to cave. But if he thought that the workers might do this repeatedly then it probably would make sense not to cave and just take the negative hit in the short term to avoid possibly bankrupty in the longer term.


last edited by hast at 16:02:20 30/Jul/05

Infi argument seems to be at the moment the awards system that we have in place is hindering business. As such we should remove them entirely and essentially let the free market dictate how employees are treated.

Awards are a way of providing a failsafe in employment. Sure, if the system is working we don’t need failsafe mechanisms and often those mechanisms reduce efficiency in a system. However, when the system isn’t working as intended it can be very hard to (re-)introduce these failesafes.

My fear is that as a collective we haven’t thought though the long term implications of what this means if the system breaks down.

Also, to a lessor extent I don’t think people are remembering their history. Unions where forged because of the way Employers treated their employees. In general businesses don’t care about their employees, or at least not care about them like they where humans. The only thing they really care about (and Infi makes for an excellent example) are the profit and loss that each employee draws or adds into the system.

IMHO our economy needs both strong Unions and powerful Businesses. Without powerful Businesses, the people in unions are f***ed. Without strong Uniones, Business spends all of its time screwing employees for as much profit as possible.

do you have a problem with different people doing the same job getting paid different amounts if one performs the job more effectively than the other?

Your current argument basically suggests that you want to punish people for poor performance instead of rewarding people for good performance.

Nothing is stopping you from rewarding hardworking, or talented personal. Your apparent idea for a reward is paying them award rates, and punishing people who don’t perform as well.

SFB u obviously feel very strongly about this good for you. I understand that we both have the welfare of employee workers at heart which is the most important thing.

However, if we are to repel the threat of losing a great deal of work to foreign labor which is cheaper than ours, we must do something. It cannot be ignored.

Thomas Friedman's Lexus and the Olive Tree deals with this in great detail. Either we free up our domestic market or the global markets will do it for us by buying all our businesses and devaluing our currency.

Duopolies like stevedoring and mining are protected in a way because the labour must be Australian largely however more competitive markets e.g. software engineering or call centre services need to be highly market driven or else the business simply goes elsewhere I am sorry to say.

Infi,

I do apologise for the personal form of my retorts. You are right I do feel extremely sensitive to the plight of others. I grew up as a child below the poverty line and so I know what it is like to be extremely poor. I just don't want that to perpetuate for eternity for me or others as it is definitely a hurtful experience.

I accept your viewpoint and will concede to you that I am sure you are no Ogre. I do however hate they way some people treat others less fortunate than themselves. It is something I can never get over being subjected to it in my childhood and youth due only to me for being of peasant stock.

Cheers
Shaun

edit: double posted first part.

PS this is not about getting rid of unions, they do balance the bargaining position of employees in large commoditized workforces but large workplaces are not the norm. Small business IS, and these reforms are primarily addressed at the small business end of town where the employee as an individal has a lot of influence ni the conditions of employment.

last edited by infi at 16:40:04 30/Jul/05

e.g. software engineering or call centre services need to be highly market driven or else the business simply goes elsewhere I am sorry to say.

Yet, many companies that went to outsourcing as a model are moving back to quality native developers/customer support people. Why is that?

Also, why is it that the IT employment sector (across the board) in growth again?

- Outsourcing isn’t as cost effective as many people thought it was.
- Customers don’t like dealing with people who don’t understand them
- If a single bad design decision can cost you a million dollars, having a few time zones and a few thousand kilometres between you, your customers and your development crew is often a very bad thing.

In short, outsourcing is only really useful on BUF, which on its own has huge problems. The vast majority of IT related products don't use BUF for its entire application space.

For the record IT doesn’t have an award; in fact it never has. IT staff have (in general) negotiated their own contracts with employers. People who are extremely valuable to a company can command excellent contracts.

Junior staff often get paid less than the award wages in hospitality. Considering the skill differences between the two types of jobs, that is obviously a bulls*** position.

If anything, infi your arguments are getting worse.

## in addition, IT doesn't have a union. The poor state of IT in this country isn't due because of the Unions has stuffed it.

last edited by typo at 16:57:40 30/Jul/05

PS this is not about getting rid of unions, they do balance the bargaining position of employees in large commoditized workforces but large workplaces are not the norm. Small business IS, and these reforms are primarily addressed at the small business end of town where the employee as an individal has a lot of influence ni the conditions of employment.

Small Business also has its fair share in the creation of Unions in the first place. If Small Business really could be trusted, then chances are we wouldn’t have Unions today.

All of the really dodgy places I have worked for have been small businesses. If anything Small Business needs Unions as much as Large Business.

Unions have a position in all business, just like there are small business alliances (ala Business Unions) have a place in Enterprise Corporation negotiations. A single 4 Square store doesn’t have much say in the world of Corporate Negotiations, but all eleventy billion of them have a powerful voice.

However, if we are to repel the threat of losing a great deal of work to foreign labor which is cheaper than ours, we must do something. It cannot be ignored.

So, your suggestion is that we lower our wages to reflect how much it would cost someone who lives in eastern bumf***ia? Sure, that sounds like a good idea, while we are at it can we lower the cost of living in Australia to 8 cents a day?

Duopolies like stevedoring and mining are protected in a way because the labour must be Australian largely however more competitive markets e.g. software engineering or call centre services need to be highly market driven or else the business simply goes elsewhere I am sorry to say.

I think it's funny that you talk about Software Engineering going overseas. By and large, places that have sent programming overseas(india is an example) are re-evaluating that simply based on quality of product(or lack thereof).

I'd also like to add another point. How do you measure performance? Microsoft had a policy of firing the bottem N% (i think the number was 10 but i could be wrong) of performers based on lines of code. What worries me about how i'm reading your argument is that it can all come down to a "whether i eat next fortnight is based on some abstract performance metric". I have two problems with this.

A) Performance isn't just about how awesome one person is. Sure that can be a part of it but in my experience rarely is it all of the story and sometimes performance has very little correlation with talent. How would you like it if your doctor has to diagnose and treat a patient every 5 minutes? How about if you have some obscure illness which looks like something else. (infarction in the leg ala House MD anyone? 5 minutes would probably cover "you have a pain in your leg. Take these pain killers and see me next week")

B) My housemate works for a company where his team gets a bonus if the amount they process in a year comes over a certain company set figure. My understanding of their performance over the last financial year was that it was regularly several points higher than the expected processing rate. However because their total processing figure was slightly below this company set milestone they got no bonus. I'll leave speculation as to where this could lead as an exercise to the reader. I'll give you a hint, a company's sole purpose in life is to utilise their workers to the most with it costing the least.

In the end, an award rate should say "if you're paying someone less than this then it's not safe for him to be doing it". Less take home pay means more hours need to be worked to pay bills. More hours needing to be worked means less time for Zoning Out/Sleep etc. You don't get this time then your productivity suffers. Not only that but you become more dangerous as fatigue affects your critical thinking.

PS this is not about getting rid of unions, they do balance the bargaining position of employees in large commoditized workforces but large workplaces are not the norm. Small business IS, and these reforms are primarily addressed at the small business end of town where the employee as an individal has a lot of influence ni the conditions of employment

Are you saying your argument isn't about getting rid of unions or this legislation isn't about getting rid of unions? My understanding of the legislature is that you could be dismissed for talking about the deal you got. Wouldn't that seem to imply a necessary hobbling of unions? And please... the dodgiest work places i've been in have been small buisness. No-one gives a rats arse if "Australink Pty Ltd" are a bunch of fags, they sounded dodgy in the first place. But if "International Buisness Machines Pty Ltd" screwed their staff over that would be a huge hit to their reputation.

Infi what foreign labour are you talking about? Honestly what level would we have to reduce our workers conditions to to say compete with China? Would you like to see us all living on 30 cents a day making socks or buttons and exporting them because that would make us comptetive against the largest labour market in the world? (China)

That might be an acceptable outcome in your eye's and all in the name of being able to compete but it's not acceptable to me and I'd be willing to bet it's not acceptable to the vast majority of Australians. Using your logic even if we cut the average wage by 50% and took all the conditions off workers ie holidays we still wouldn't be able to compete with countries like China so how low will it have to go?? It won't work simple as that and the whole compete on the global market BS drumed up by the Libs is a pile of crap. Sure if we worked cheaper than everyone our exports would be more affordable but at what cost to our living standards?

free up markets does not necessarily mean lowering wages to compete with another conutry - it's about flexibility.

IT is the perfect example of a deregulated - or at least less regulated - workforce which HAS been able to respond to external threats.

if another country's worker's are willing to perform identical work for less then either we match that rate or that industry dies. e.g. textiles and footwear. those who choose to continue working in that industry must lower their rate of pay. a business will not sell their product at the makret rate and pay their workers a higher wage, the profit margin must exist to sustain that industry.

australia's quality of living has been so far maintained due to its richness in natural resources (also agriculture and tourism which will grow), but what happens when that runs out and the manufacturing powerhouses like China just roll staight over us.

We can complain all we want about their human rights record etc but the global economy is pretty amoral about those issues.

So Australia must value add, grow high tech industry AND free up its labour market. without all we will only sustain our quality of living for so long.

? My understanding of the legislature is that you could be dismissed for talking about the deal you got. Wouldn't that seem to imply a necessary hobbling of unions?

incorrect. workers can presently appoint a "bargaining agent" when negotiating an AWA (that could be your union rep or your mother), and that would not change. why change it? it works fine.

the freedom of assiociation provisions under the Act are the result of th e International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights so they aren't going anywehre.

Would you like to see us all living on 30 cents a day making socks or buttons and exporting them because that would make us comptetive against the largest labour market in the world?

in all likelihood, those industries would die eventually unless technology was introduced to make Austalian workers more productive than their foreign competitors. an Aussie can only do so much!

anyways it's been a very stimulating discussion and i appreciated hearing everyone's different views. there is no perfect answer to this very human problem. but those against the reforms had better get used to it with the govt in control of the senate.

the beauty of democracy is that if you don't like what the govt did you can always vote them out in 2007. before you do that though just remenber paul keating and bob hawke deregulated the labor force on a much more widespread scale by introducing enterprise bargaining back in 1994, and scrapping thwe Accord with the unions.

what is being proposed by the current government is tinkering at the edges compared to what the Industrial Relations Act (1994) introduced into Australia.

last edited by infi at 17:35:53 30/Jul/05

IT is the perfect example of a deregulated - or at least less regulated - workforce which HAS been able to respond to external threats.

The unregulated nature of IT is what caused the IT bubble in the first place.

So Australia must value add, grow high tech industry AND free up its labour market. without all we will only sustain our quality of living for so long.

All while we destroy our education and resarch ability? Do you believe everything the liberal government tells you? Nice doggy!

the beauty of democracy is that if you don't like what the govt did you can always vote them out in 2007

Oh wow, that's right if they utterly f*** things up we can simply vote them out in 2 years time. How about a third option? Wouldn't finding the middle ground between the bulls*** that liberal and labour/union are sprouting be a better option than just removing the saftey nets now?

Just because we can vote the c***s out of office in 2/3 years time, doesn't mean that we can fix the problems. Even if we can, who knows how long it would take to fix the untended side effects?

Maybe if you took that tiny liberal cock out of your mouth for just one second and thought about the possible untended side effects and of possible consequences you wouldn't seem like such a liberal stoolie.

We can complain all we want about their human rights record etc but the global economy is pretty amoral about those issues.

So because the gloal economy is amoral about those issues we should all move down to the lowest common denominator when it comes to quality of living?

Infi it doesn't matter who you take with you to negotiate an AWA because as an individual you have little or nothing to bargain with. As a collective on the other hand you have the bargaining power of every person on that job.

Union rep: I'm sorry but the AWA you offered Bob isn't good enough
Company: Sorry but thats all we are offering
Union rep: Bob has been a loyal worker for this company for 15 years and has proven his worth over that time.
Company: Sorry the offer stands and we feel there is no benefit to improving the offer. It's a take it or leave it offer not a negotiation.

Bob: So what do I do now?
Infi: You can walk of the job that should make the company come to their senses.

Bob walks off the job BY HIMSELF the company laughs and moves on to the next sucker.

However if during negotiations the Union represents the entire body of workers at the company the threat of action is something the company has to take seriously thus making them deal in a more fair manner. AWA's remove this the only power a united work force has against companies that care for one thing and one thing alone..... their share price.

Anyone every noticed how the share price of companies go up after mass sackings? It's because the misguided investors automatical assume that sackings equals a shift by the company to being more cost efficient. Where do companies always look when they have to cut costs? They look straight at the little guys that bust their asses day in day out, slashing labour costs is instant cash in the bank as far as they are concernd. Heaven forbid they ever kull middle management or spend the cash on actually improving the companies operating systems. No they look at the average aussie and cut his job, just look at the banks over the past 15 years and the jobs they cut. They profit by hundreds of millions of dollars every year but cry poor when every they jack fees up and still the job cuts come. The biggest lurk they have going is that everyone in the country these days gets paid directly into a back account thus generating a profit for the banks right there on the spot.

banks are typical of the corperate mentality of companies in this country and all over the world. Look at what BHP did to the Fly river in PNG, do you think that would of happened here in Australia? But they destoryed that eco system because they knew they could and that is no different from what will happen here. If the company doesn't have to play fair they WON'T it's that simple and the bigger the company the worse that attitude will be.

But if Bob doesn't like the offer then surely his union mates will also not like the offer and will not accept if their AWA is up for negotiation and in the case where their AWA isn't up for negotiation then surely they will leave in solidarity? And of course restaffing costs still apply even if only one person is leaving. It's rarely in a companies interest to try and bully when they can afford wage increases and restaffing costs are present.

last edited by hast at 21:22:54 30/Jul/05

last edited by hast at 21:23:16 30/Jul/05

Hast you forgot the part where you ar NOT allowed to talk about the offer you were made to anyone and in the case of Boyne smelters where I used to work you would be sacked for doing so. So if you can't talk to your mates about it you can hardly give a reason to them to walk out the gate. You would also find that if you walked out the gate in support of a work mate over his AWA you too would be sacked because his offer (or negotiation) has nothing to do with yours and as such you have NO right to support him by withdrawing your labour.

The funny thing here is that the word negotiation keeps coming up. Let me asure you that AWA's are not a negotiation they are and offer. This means the boss says here it is take it or leave it and if you don't like it there's the door. It's that simple really and because of this nothing you say or do will win you anything as you have NOTHING to bargain with and even if you did there is no Negotiation.

WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996
- SECT 170VG
Content of AWA

(2)

The employer must ensure that the AWA does not include any provisions that prohibit or restrict disclosure of details of the AWA by either party to another person.

Interesting hast thanx.

I actually didn't know that as my management stood infront of a room full of us and told us straight to our faces that if we spoke about the contents of our contract offers we would be instantly dismissed. Either they didn't know any better (doubtful) or they straight out lied to us (omg is that even possible*end sacasm)

That's why unions are ok. You can't expect an employee to know the whole workplace relations act.

Its not all that bad, the advertisements on TV etc, paint a very biast opinion of the act.

they have to paint a bias picture otherwise 1 party takes all they can get, give them an inch and theyll take a mile. thats why whenever you negotiate, always always ask for far more then you know you would get. if u both decide there and then that 3% or something is fair, then youre stupid, the company wins, they screw u again.