-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Trades hall union rednecks...
- Thread starter nitrotiger
- Start date
On a different note....nice work by the anti-IR law people for vandalising the MCG today! 
Congratulations morons!!!
What a flop it turned out to be.....they were after 80,000-100,000....only 40,000 turned-up.
Taking into account we have..what...3-million people in Melbourne, and other large populations in nearby Ballarat, Geelong, and Gippsland.....40,000 is pathetic.
The only people who turned-up were the ones who just wanted a day off work...simple as that.
And where is the evidence of these mass sackings brought on by the new IR laws?
Unemployment is at its lowest in 25-30 years, even though we have had interest-rate hikes.
Its just another beat up by the Unions/ALP, to try and work the public into a frenzy, as thats the only way Fat-Cat Beazley has any hope of moving into the PM's chair.
your union fees at work.this morning on the news the unions were stating that they would have so many pple there that they had placed giant T.V's outside the g to cater 4 the crowd :rofl :rofl and per usual the subbies went to work.to all the school teachers.public servants and over paid construction unionists. if i and every other subbie charged what the construction union sector demands and recieves.NONONE IN AUSTRALIA WOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO BUILD/REPAIR ANYTHING.and that is a fact.i have a few tradie mates in the union construction ind and they agree it is the most overpaid underworked job anyone could ever snare,and that costs everyone from poor to rich
Congratulations morons!!!
What a flop it turned out to be.....they were after 80,000-100,000....only 40,000 turned-up.
Taking into account we have..what...3-million people in Melbourne, and other large populations in nearby Ballarat, Geelong, and Gippsland.....40,000 is pathetic.
The only people who turned-up were the ones who just wanted a day off work...simple as that.
And where is the evidence of these mass sackings brought on by the new IR laws?
Unemployment is at its lowest in 25-30 years, even though we have had interest-rate hikes.
Its just another beat up by the Unions/ALP, to try and work the public into a frenzy, as thats the only way Fat-Cat Beazley has any hope of moving into the PM's chair.
your union fees at work.this morning on the news the unions were stating that they would have so many pple there that they had placed giant T.V's outside the g to cater 4 the crowd :rofl :rofl and per usual the subbies went to work.to all the school teachers.public servants and over paid construction unionists. if i and every other subbie charged what the construction union sector demands and recieves.NONONE IN AUSTRALIA WOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO BUILD/REPAIR ANYTHING.and that is a fact.i have a few tradie mates in the union construction ind and they agree it is the most overpaid underworked job anyone could ever snare,and that costs everyone from poor to rich
Liverpool said:
25 to 30 years ago employment meant full time work with sick leave and holiday pay - since your mate johnny got in they also now count casual work as employment hence the comparison always looks good for todays figures.
I do not know the real figures today of full time work employment and whether they are better than they were 3 decades ago but I do know I have a neighbour who as a garbo works 20 hours a week as that is all the shift they can give him and he is considered by this Government s employed - as he said to me try paying off a mortgage and sending the kids to school on 20 hours a week.
Employment figures today - yesterday - I really don't think we are comparing apples with apples.
Lastly why was there a poor turnout at the rallies today - because a majority of workers are now on permanent casual which means they could easily be removed from the job if they rock the boat.
Liverpool - these new IR laws are against everything our forefathers fought for - they are taking the worker back to the days of industrial revolution when workers were considered expendible and seen as a cost rather than an asset to the business. By making the employers gods in their own realm the power will go to the bosses head - and when there is the inevitable downturn in the economy lets see who suffers - I'll have a lazy green cabbage ($100 note) with you that it won't be the bosses suffering loss of wages.
Or if they took the day off and provided a medical certificate they could have been asked to sign a medical release. Meaning your employer is forcing you to be shown your medical record from the doctor you attended on the day.
Wouldn't want to have had a genuine sick day with any too embarrasing symptoms today, that's for sure.
Wouldn't want to have had a genuine sick day with any too embarrasing symptoms today, that's for sure.
Most people are employed by small business. The relationship between the boss and the workers in most small businesses is vastly superior to the relationship the worker may have with a union.
I employ 13 people. Not one of them asked for today off. Not one. And there was zero discussion at my workplace about todays rally. Why? Because my staff value their job and the relationship with me. They know if I go broke they are out of a job. So they all came to work today without a moments thought. Two of the women brought their primary school kids with them 'cos the kids state primary school was effectively shut. That's ok. We set the kids up with a computer each with an internet connection and kept them entertained for most of the day.
IR laws? What IR laws? They don't effect me or my staff.
I employ 13 people. Not one of them asked for today off. Not one. And there was zero discussion at my workplace about todays rally. Why? Because my staff value their job and the relationship with me. They know if I go broke they are out of a job. So they all came to work today without a moments thought. Two of the women brought their primary school kids with them 'cos the kids state primary school was effectively shut. That's ok. We set the kids up with a computer each with an internet connection and kept them entertained for most of the day.
IR laws? What IR laws? They don't effect me or my staff.
RemoteTiger said:
RemoteTiger,
Many of your posts are pretty good, but I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you on this one.
Under the law, I have to offer a casual worker who has been employed with us for a set period the choice of going on as a casual, or to become full-time.
Some are happy to become full-time, but many casuals I have dealt with are happy to stay casual...yes, they miss out on holidays, etc...but they get a loading on their wage which gives them more $$$ per hour.
As far as I know, this law hasn't changed under the new system.
I am quite happy if they stay casual or become full-time...a I have always stated to my workers that if they are doing a good job, I will have no intention of getting rid of anyone.
The rallies weren't a poor turnout because of permanent-casuals...you know that, and I know that.
I could get rid of a casual anytime I please, and don't need the excuse of an IR rally to say see you later to them.....but the casuals I have are happy with the arrangement we have, and have no reason to attend such a rally.
Any casuals out there who feel threatened should start looking for another job, or show their employer that they are worthy to become full-time.
Casuals ARE expendable, hence the title of "casual"....as an employer has no obligation to give them hours for the sake of giving them hours, and they are under no obligation to go to work and can quit anytime they like.
Workers have always been expendable, even before these IR changes....look at all the moves off shore, redundancy packages, etc that have been happening for years now, well before Howard even popped up as the PM.
It is only the naive who think that all workers are assets. They are not.
The only workers who are assets are the ones who show initiative, reliability, and a bit of old-fashioned "ooomf".
Lazy, couldn't give a stuff, workers are no asset...and all the IR laws have done is make things a little easier for employers to weed these people out of the business, without having to go through constant bogus unfair dismissal claims clogging up the courts.
Yes, there will be bosses out there who will take advantage of this situation....no doubt...but what about the previous laws where it was the employee trying to take the employers to the cleaners?
Anyone, who honestly thinks they have done nothing wrong, and is sacked for no reason, shouldn't be angry with the new IR laws....they should be glad they have gotten the hell out of the place they had a poor manager, and get themselves a better position.
I'm sorry mate...but the new IR laws, which have NOT taken away leave entitlements or anything like that....are the biggest beat-up and scare-mongering campaign for years.
The crowd at the MCG today showed that the public is smarter than what the Unions/ALP give them credit for.
poppa x said:
PoppaX,
I'm at the other end of the spectrum where we are a large business, and therefore we can't sack anyone due to the "over 100 employees" bit (plus our head-office is overseas, and so we aren't an Australian company anyway)......but still, not one person mentioned the rally.
If anything, my workers are very anti-union....they like the arrangement we have, where even though they have an EBA, we are flexible with it...its give and take. They do not want me to follow the EBA strictly, and therefore don't want the unions involved either.
We can't allow kids on our premises due to the dangerous equipment...however, many times one of my workers has said they have had to leave early to pick their kids up from school, etc....and we work around that. Its no problem.
They are good workers, and I am happy to be flexible....sacking them because of something like that would be the furthest thing from my mind, even if I did have the rights to do it.
Only moronic bosses will sack good workers, but this isn't the fault of the new IR laws, but the fault of the moronic bosses...it'll be their loss in the end.
Liverpool said:
What law is this? My mob have a blanket ban on making ground level casual staff permanent part-time. Even if they are a top-notch worker, doesn't matter.
No roster: their hours vary wildly from week to week so they always worry about their financial position. Get another job, you say -- well, time and again I have seen people tell the boss they have been actively looking for another job, and that some prospective employers may ring for a reference. While they are looking, they cannot afford to just jack in their current job as they need to make ends meet. Unsurprisingly, they suddenly wind up on the bare minimum hours, and if they have no immediate success in getting another job, they are in big trouble.
When I was an undergraduate I worked a very rudimentary job which was supposedly "permanent part-time" -- you got guaranteed hours, but no holiday pay, no sick pay, no penalties for weekends or public holidays or overtime. The hourly rate was above the award to "compensate", but nowhere near enough. Hard to believe people put up with this sort of *smile*, but they do, in some cases for years.
Workers might get more per hour by being casual... but 8 hours a week on a higher hourly wage is not a job, it's a disgrace.
Ready said:
I'm just about to conduct an audit here at work, so sorry for the rushed answer (I'll try and give you a better answer later in the day)...but here is the NSW one for now, it was similar to the Victorian one that my workers were under at time, but ours was full-time, as mine were permanent-casuals:
Casual Conversion
A casual employee engaged by a particular employer on a regular and systematic basis
for a sequence of periods of employment under this Award during a calendar period of
six months shall thereafter have the right to elect to have his or her ongoing contract of
employment converted to permanent full-time employment or part-time employment if
the employment is to continue beyond the conversion process prescribed by this
subclause.
http://www.industrialrelations.nsw.gov.au/awards/pathways/results.jsp?award_code=039&show=Content&content_id=1632040
Ready said:
Ready,
But that is what a "casual" is all about....these employees would have understood this situation at the time of signing their contract.
Many are happy to take the risk of not having the job-security (depends on the boss, and if the worker is a good worker, then they know they'll be most likely safe) for the extra $$$.
I've also had a few 'casuals' who I WANT full-time because I don't want them leaving, tell me THEY WANT to stay as casuals, because they don't want the full-time hours.
This is applicable to some women I have worked with, who want that flexibility when kids are on school-holidays, or if full-time hours affect their single-parent pensions.
They've worked out that its better for them and their family to work casual and get some welfare, than it is to work full-time. That is their right and their choice...one of the positives for a worker on a casual basis.
Being casual is a flexible arrangement....there is no point people complaining and carrying on....from an employers side of things, there have have been instances where I have trained people up, only to have them never to turn up again, and when contacted, have said they have gotten a job elsewhere, full time, and used the training we paid for and provided to do this.
So, yes, a casual employee doesn't have the job security, but then, they can also walk out whenever they feel like it too.
It works both ways.
Advantages and disadvantages of casual employees
The advantages of employing casual staff include:
the flexibility it allows to respond to increases and decreases in workload
the flexibility that it offers to employees
reduced cost because of reduced employee entitlements
reduced risk under unfair dismissal legislation
less risk of temporarily 'losing' employees because of leave entitlements
The disadvantages of employing casual staff include:
the need to pay a greater hourly wage
the possibility that employees will be less committed to your business than permanent employees
the need to keep track of your need for staff and to make sure that you have enough staff to address your needs
the possibility that staff will on occasion be unavailable to work the hours you want them to
Obligations toward part-time and casual employees
To ensure that you understand your obligations toward your part-time and casual employees, consult all awards and agreements relevant to your business and consult with your employer organisation.
http://www.business.vic.gov.au/BUSVIC/STANDARD/1001/PC_50550.html
And become a Tea Todling Melbourne supporter?jb03 said:
As for the Smokes,Evo enjoys my brand ;D
Liverpool said:
Many employees do not understand what the contract says - they nod their head to the boss and say yes sir - so they can get an income - many are not as lucid as you or I to negotiate better deals for themselves........and if they were - the smarty bosses say pissoff I got another bloke behind you standing in line who wants the job on these conditions.
This is all about wealth distribution and if you leave it too the market to regulate itself - the rich get richer and the poor can go please themselves - take a long hard look at the USA - do we want a bigger class divide here than what we have now? Or do we want this to be the land of the "fair go"?
Markets regulating themselves and trickle down economics went out with Margaret Thatcher - because the trickle down never happens and the market is controlled by the bosses who line their own pockets first and *smile* the rest....................
And lastly its always the workers family that goes to war - to protect the country and in so doing protecting the bosses fortune - ya rarely see the board of directors families on the front line - so give the workers a break - be fair dinkum - be true blue - for *smile* sake be a real dinky dye and give the battler a go!.......... :harp :guitar
Just an aside to this thread i have noticed the word cretin getting a bit of a run here.
The world is full of cretins, space wasters and oxygen thieves who should not and i mean NOT be permitted to do 3 things.............. these 3 things are
Thou shalt not be allowed to vote.
Thou shalt not be able to procreate
Thou shalt not be permitted to drive a vehicle.
Cheers.
The world is full of cretins, space wasters and oxygen thieves who should not and i mean NOT be permitted to do 3 things.............. these 3 things are
Thou shalt not be allowed to vote.
Thou shalt not be able to procreate
Thou shalt not be permitted to drive a vehicle.
Cheers.
RemoteTiger said:
RemoteTiger,
I can see where you're coming from mate, and while I don't like to see the poor getting poorer and rich getting richer, I also don't want to live in an environment where everyone is the same, like a communist country.
There needs to be different 'statuses', so people have a motivation to do as much as they can to improve, to strive, and to better themselves professionally.
Overtaxing rich people to prop up the people who just plod along in life, should not be the direction this country takes....it would be a cop out for people who can't be bothered in life.
If people are not lucid enough, or don't have the education or balls to be able to read a contract before signing it, then I don't know what we can do for these people....meaning, as an employer, I am under no obligation to place someone on higher wages or better conditions, simply because they are not lucid enough, or that I feel compassion for their personal circumstances.
Businesses are businesses.....who exist to make a profit and to look after the shareholders who invest their money into the business.
Businesses are not charities for 'battlers', I'm afraid.
