Revealed: How Awas Strip Work Rights

[Skid_MacMarx]

SECRET figures reveal that 45 per cent of Australian workplace agreements have stripped away all of the award conditions that the Federal Government promised would be "protected by law" under Work Choices.

The statistics, which the Government has been refusing to release for months, also show a third of the individual employment contracts lodged during the first six months of Work Choices provided no wage rises during the life of the agreements.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/reveal...6696757585.html

................Similarly, some of the decisions made by the Coalition government have benefited us all - unarguable also.

http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?showtopic=48607

Obviously not when it comes to industrial relations

holiday over Aloysius ,,,

also of interest.,..

Employers caught failing to pay staff super

The World Today - Monday, 16 April , 2007 12:21:00

Reporter: Kathryn Roberts

EMMA ALBERICI: More than 8,000 employers in Australia may be cheating their staff members of their superannuation entitlements.

The Australian Taxation Office investigates thousands of complaints from workers each year who believe their bosses aren't paying their compulsory nine per cent superannuation contributions.

But the ATO has rejected reports it's failed to collect those unpaid contributions or pursue cases that aren't cost effective.

It says last year it collected $350-million in unpaid super, but there are situations where workers are missing out as Kathryn Roberts reports.

KATHRYN ROBERTS: Australian employers are required to pay their staff a nine per cent superannuation contribution, but it seems not all businesses are coughing up the money.

The Australian Tax Office investigates about 10,000 complaints from employees each year.

Assistant Deputy Commissioner Ian Read says the complaints come from workers who believe their bosses aren't paying them the correct amount of super, or in some cases, any at all.

IAN READ: We are looking at about 70 to 85 per cent of valid complaints. Now they would range from a single employee involved, through to one that may have 100, 150 employees involved.

So, what we do is if we see that there is a valid complaint, we will then look at other employees within that organisation to ensure ourselves that the super guarantee is being paid on all employees.

KATHRYN ROBERTS: Ian Read says the Tax Office will also investigate media reports that employers are falsifying pay slips to con staff into believing their super is being paid.

But he's rejected reports in a Queensland newspaper that the Tax Office is not coping with the backlog of unpaid super, and is failing to collect unpaid contributions.

He says last financial year the ATO examined the super payments of 120,000 employees to ensure they were receiving the super guarantee, and managed to claw back $350-million from employers.

But for those workers who have been cheated, there's no guarantee their super will ever be back paid.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1898306.htm

[DrP]

Hmm. Al must be asleep, or on another of his overseas jollies.

[Aloysius]

Hi DrP and Skid - no not away - just not responding, I think that this is a huge topic that could never be satifactorily addressed in this kind of forum.

To be fair one would have to desist from grabbing the odd statistic to make a point - for instance and not to get into a protracted discussion - the quotes above use some data that shows AWA's in a poor light - there is other data from the same source that shows otherwise - for instance 3/4 of people are actually paid more under AWA's.

A good example is that quoted by me recently relating to the Calliope Shire Council's recent agreement.

That said it would be a tremendous task to balance apparent losses against apparent gains.

As for the Super rort - clearly this is not an argument against IR Law - it's an indictment against people (employers) breaking that law.

I would support any action taken to have these crimes redressed and penalised - under the very law that is being blamed

[stahc]

paid more under their awa................maybe..at what cost................wait til the second one rolls around..then look out for carnage

awa's..................what a crock of shyte

[Santa1503559644]

Some would say "that's a little cute, Al"...

Giving us spin ahem, "information" like that Council advertorial piece, but feeling unusual self-restraint when it comes to the meat of the situation!

I'm not 100% full bottle on the ALP plans, but at the moment they seem more reasonable than many would have expected.

As you know, I'm no supporter of parts of Howard's AWA etc system ... it was too wrapped up in (numbskull) ideology, rather than fairness & practicality.

OTOH, I wasn't a great fan of the existing system.

I do think that the ALP proposal is probably more sensible.

Its just a pity there's so much ideology around on both sides that the best solution cannot be found/adopted.

That said, it would appear that the ALP proposal is closer to a sensible system than that of the Coaltion.

[Aloysius]

Some would say "that's a little cute, Al"...

Giving us spin ahem, "information" like that Council advertorial piece, but feeling unusual self-restraint when it comes to the meat of the situation!

I'm not 100% full bottle on the ALP plans, but at the moment they seem more reasonable than many would have expected.

As you know, I'm no supporter of parts of Howard's AWA etc system ... it was too wrapped up in (numbskull) ideology, rather than fairness & practicality.

OTOH, I wasn't a great fan of the existing system.

I do think that the ALP proposal is probably more sensible.

Its just a pity there's so much ideology around on both sides that the best solution cannot be found/adopted.

That said, it would appear that the ALP proposal is closer to a sensible system than that of the Coaltion.

Don't totally disagree - but you must admit it's another example of policies that are becoming less and less different as commented on recently.

I suspect that this pragmatic move to the centre may have it's dangers for the opposition - the decision for the voter will increasingly become more one of style rather than substance.

This isn't said critically, or ideologically, I have already agreed that these moves are overdue. I just see it as a danger for them. These changes will not be without electoral cost - I guess they make the call that the benefits will out-weigh the costs

[Santa1503559644]

Don't totally disagree - but you must admit it's another example of policies that are becoming less and less different as commented on recently.

I suspect that this pragmatic move to the centre may have it's dangers for the opposition - the decision for the voter will increasingly become more one of style rather than substance.

This isn't said critically, or ideologically, I have already agreed that these moves are overdue. I just see it as a danger for them. These changes will not be without electoral cost - I guess they make the call that the benefits will out-weigh the costs

As long as the centre makes sense, then we can only hope both parties grow closer!

If its a choice of style ... well, I'm not sure Johnny will be sitting too comfortably!

If the ALP is closer to the Coaltion in the areas where the Coalition makes more sense, then that could also spell danger for the Coalition - as the electorate may well ask "If the ALP will deliver what we need/want - why sell our souls on ethics, the future, etc, and re-elect John 'Overboard' 'Willing' 'What Climate Change?' Howard?"... :ph34r:

[Aloysius]

As long as the centre makes sense, then we can only hope both parties grow closer!

If its a choice of style ... well, I'm not sure Johnny will be sitting too comfortably!

If the ALP is closer to the Coaltion in the areas where the Coalition makes more sense, then that could also spell danger for the Coalition - as the electorate may well ask "If the ALP will deliver what we need/want - why sell our souls on ethics, the future, etc, and re-elect John 'Overboard' 'Willing' 'What Climate Change?' Howard?"... :ph34r:

They may also wonder if waltzing with Kerry Anne is a prerequisite for national leadership

Or even "better the devil you know" etc

[Santa1503559644]

They may also wonder if waltzing with Kerry Anne is a prerequisite for national leadership

Or even "better the devil you know" etc

Dunno ... Alexandra would argue that drag is definately the way to go.

WRT the devil ... the public may have tired of supping with the Devil, and be up for a change!

[Skid_MacMarx]

AWAs not so family-friendly, data show

Mark Davis Political Correspondent

April 18, 2007

THREE-QUARTERS of Australian workplace agreements do not include the family-friendly work provisions that the Federal Government has said are one of the key benefits of individual employment contracts under its new industrial relations laws.

Confidential statistics collated by the Office of the Employment Advocate on nearly 4000 such agreements show that only 25 per cent of them included provisions allowing for family-friendly work arrangements.

The rest were silent on family-friendly issues such as flexible working hours and job-sharing arrangements designed to make it easier for parents to balance their work and family responsibilities.

The figures are contained in documents obtained by the Herald, including statistics gathered by staff on the content of thousands of agreements lodged with the agency between April and September last year.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/awas-n...6696838735.html

[mello yello]

Im not totally happy about Rudds recently announced watered down Work Choices Mk II

He seems to be neglecting quite a few key issues ..especially the "casualisation" or "contracting" of the workforce.

If there is enough work to be done to keep you employed for a period of more than 3 months ...you MUST get all the entitlements and conditions that full time employees are getting for doing exactly the same duties.

2 men..same work..then same pay..pretty simple equation I would have thought.

Rudd seems to be doing a bit of butt kissing of his own.

Unfair Dismissals are called unfair dismissals for a reason you know

[Skid_MacMarx]

Hi DrP and Skid - no not away - just not responding, I think that this is a huge topic that could never be satifactorily addressed in this kind of forum.

To be fair one would have to desist from grabbing the odd statistic to make a point - for instance and not to get into a protracted discussion - the quotes above use some data that shows AWA's in a poor light - there is other data from the same source that shows otherwise - for instance 3/4 of people are actually paid more under AWA's.

A good example is that quoted by me recently relating to the Calliope Shire Council's recent agreement.

That said it would be a tremendous task to balance apparent losses against apparent gains.

As for the Super rort - clearly this is not an argument against IR Law - it's an indictment against people (employers) breaking that law.

I would support any action taken to have these crimes redressed and penalised - under the very law that is being blamed

Come on Aloysius I'm talking trends here not isolated cases

furthermore I have not added the super article to criticise IR Law ,, just to show the types of rogue employers.. workers must deal with day to day..,,,,if they are robbing them blind with the super.. I can't see these types of employers upholding those basic award conditions...

[Skid_MacMarx]

Don't totally disagree - but you must admit it's another example of policies that are becoming less and less different as commented on recently.

I suspect that this pragmatic move to the centre may have it's dangers for the opposition - the decision for the voter will increasingly become more one of style rather than substance.

Unlike the liberals with the Business Council, It further shows the Labor party is not solely in the pockets of Union movement...

As far as I'm concerned Labor has always been in the "centre" not the exteme left as you would like to make out.

shame you're not concerned about an extreme right wing party in power.

BTW noticed your mates are now accepting refugees from Cuba .. was that the deal done to free Hicks

[Aloysius]

Unlike the liberals with the Business Council, It further shows the Labor party is not solely in the pockets of Union movement...

As far as I'm concerned Labor has always been in the "centre" not the exteme left as you would like to make out.

shame you're not concerned about an extreme right wing party in power.

BTW noticed your mates are now accepting refugees from Cuba .. was that the deal done to free Hicks

You are misreading and dramatising what I said - moving toward the centre does not in any way shape or form imply"extreme left" or "extreme right" as the position from whence the movement originated.

I believe we are very fortunate in this country to have never had either type of government in power and never had to suffer the extreme swing to the other side of the spectrum that such an unfortunate condition would almost inevitably generate.

Another good reason to be grateful!

[Aloysius]

IR reform - these are not radical changes

By Mike Nahan - posted Wednesday, 12 October 2005 Sign Up for free e-mail updates!

Prime Minister John Howard is a conservative, as is Industrial Relations Minister Kevin Andrews. They are against change for its own sake. They are, however, also politicians who want to remain in power and know that the key to doing so is sustaining economic growth. Their workplace reform agenda illustrates both characteristics. It is not a radical initiative in concept or detail.

Every proverbial backyard galah has been squawking about the need for workplace reform for more than 20 years. Australia developed, behind protective tariff walls, one of the most restrictive systems of workplace regulations in the world. It was a system developed primarily to redistribute wealth rather than create it.

Once the protective walls were pulled down - by, let us not forget, Labor governments - the writing was on the wall for the Australian industrial relations system.

Ideally, reform of the labour market should have preceded liberalisation of the goods and capital markets. Unfortunately, Labor governments could not get the sequencing of the big-picture reforms right. As a result, workers bore a disproportionate share of the cost of structural adjustment in the form of higher unemployment and lower wages.

The Hawke and Keating Labor governments did recognise the need to move to a more flexible system. The union movement, in the face of a declining industrial base and the need to be internationally competitive, also recognised the need for change. But the labour movement has proved to be incapable of reforming the system. Labor, in government federally, made numerous attempts at reform of the industrial relations system, but all were modest in scope and incremental in effects.

The Keating Government's Industrial Relations Reform Act of 1993 did introduce an enterprise-based bargaining stream, but it turned out to be little more than a top-up arrangement. Moreover, the Act introduced unfair dismissal rights, which significantly increased the risk of hiring.

The Howard Government, under Peter Reith, tried to introduce more radical reform of industrial relations laws in 1996. However, his attempts were in the large part thwarted in the Senate. The subsequent Act did introduce an individual agreements stream (Australian Workplace Agreements) and a more wide-ranging enterprise-based agreements system. While these changes were positive, they were modest in impact as the Act retained many restrictions to their application. Reith also failed, after many attempts, to rectify the burgeoning growth of unfair dismissal claims.

At the state level, IR reforms followed a similarly thwarted path. Following failure to get its proposed reform through Victoria's upper house, the Kennett Government gave up and handed the state's industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth. In Western Australia, the Court Government's reforms were eliminated in the end by its Labor successor, the Gallop Government.

During this period of thwarted reforms, just about every independent research group, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Economic Forum, the Productivity Commission and the Business Council of Australia, argued for more reform of Australia's industrial relation systems.

Moreover, while Australia has been going down a slow path to reform, other countries such as New Zealand and Britain have been more radical and successful in reducing unemployment. On the other hand, countries such as Germany and France, which have maintained highly restricted labour laws, suffer high rates of unemployment.

Thus even a conservative must conclude that the IR system is in need of significant reform. Howard has known this for decades and would have been pilloried in posterity if, on gaining control of the Senate, he failed to carry out the task. Not just because it's the right thing to do but also because only his government can do it. The Labor Party, because of its ties to the union movement, is incapable of effective reform of the labour market.

During the past decade Australia's economy has boomed, producing near-record levels of employment growth. Indeed, Australia has outperformed just about all other developed countries, with the possible exception of the US and Ireland, on these scores. While the labour movement has said this shows there is no need for change, in fact it does the opposite.

The key message from the past decade is that market-based reforms are good for growth and good for retaining political power. Indeed, the many warnings of economic shut-down or the creation of 20-80 society (with 20 per cent employed and 80 per cent unemployed) that dominated the scribbling of our social commentators and academics, such as Robert Manne in the 1990s, have proved to be fundamentally wrong. The IR reforms in the past have helped, but more would have been better. Indeed, most of the growth in jobs during the past decade has taken place despite the existing system.

Moreover, with the economy booming, there are sectors, in particular the manufacturing and construction sectors, that are being held back by our IR system. Manufacturing, which has long been the apex of the IR system, is facing a do-or-die challenge from rising competition from China. It will need to reinvent itself to survive, which it is failing to do under the existing IR system.

Why then has Howard not been more radical? After all, he has a once in a generation chance to reform the system. And Howard's proposal is not radical. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission stays and retains significant powers; there will be minimal changes to award conditions; the new base-line for minimum conditions is generous, with high minimum wages. Indeed, the changes concentrate on providing greater access to, and negotiating space under, individual contracts. His proposal is far milder than the systems being applied under Labour governments in New Zealand and Britain.

In large part, the mild approach emanates from Howard's conservative nature and his desire not to get too far ahead of popular opinion. He is, I think rightly, also betting on the popularity of greater self-responsibility and empowerment that will spring from the changes.

The labour markets of the future will be sellers' markets. Therefore award minimum standards will gradually become less important.

The greatest growth in new workers will come from women re-entering the work force and from older people staying employed on a part-time basis. These trends will put a premium on flexible and personally tailored working arrangements.

More important, people are increasingly demanding greater control over all facets of their life, from education through health to retirement. And this, if allowed, will include work.

In large part this trend emanates from the market-based reforms put in place during the past 20 years. So, while the reforms may be conservative, they aim to tap into radical underlying changes in society.

First published in The Australian on October 11, 2005.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=181

[RodN]

Sorry but there's not one fact in that article other than "this is the shafting that workers had to have".

The articles posted by Skid (45% of workers worse off and 75% not family friendly) are based on some pretty undeniable figures around loss of conditions that were so called 'guaranteed' under the new laws. The bottom line is that people are NOT being empowered when moving to individual contracts over a very small and select few.

Howard will have a social epiphany when he hits seventy just like Frazer we just have to wait (unfortunately) till he's finished before he has it!

[stahc]

IR reform - these are not radical changes

By Mike Nahan - posted Wednesday, 12 October 2005 Sign Up for free e-mail updates!

Prime Minister John Howard is a conservative, as is Industrial Relations Minister Kevin Andrews. They are against change for its own sake. They are, however, also politicians who want to remain in power and know that the key to doing so is sustaining economic growth. Their workplace reform agenda illustrates both characteristics. It is not a radical initiative in concept or detail.

Every proverbial backyard galah has been squawking about the need for workplace reform for more than 20 years. Australia developed, behind protective tariff walls, one of the most restrictive systems of workplace regulations in the world. It was a system developed primarily to redistribute wealth rather than create it.

Once the protective walls were pulled down - by, let us not forget, Labor governments - the writing was on the wall for the Australian industrial relations system.

Ideally, reform of the labour market should have preceded liberalisation of the goods and capital markets. Unfortunately, Labor governments could not get the sequencing of the big-picture reforms right. As a result, workers bore a disproportionate share of the cost of structural adjustment in the form of higher unemployment and lower wages.

The Hawke and Keating Labor governments did recognise the need to move to a more flexible system. The union movement, in the face of a declining industrial base and the need to be internationally competitive, also recognised the need for change. But the labour movement has proved to be incapable of reforming the system. Labor, in government federally, made numerous attempts at reform of the industrial relations system, but all were modest in scope and incremental in effects.

The Keating Government's Industrial Relations Reform Act of 1993 did introduce an enterprise-based bargaining stream, but it turned out to be little more than a top-up arrangement. Moreover, the Act introduced unfair dismissal rights, which significantly increased the risk of hiring.

The Howard Government, under Peter Reith, tried to introduce more radical reform of industrial relations laws in 1996. However, his attempts were in the large part thwarted in the Senate. The subsequent Act did introduce an individual agreements stream (Australian Workplace Agreements) and a more wide-ranging enterprise-based agreements system. While these changes were positive, they were modest in impact as the Act retained many restrictions to their application. Reith also failed, after many attempts, to rectify the burgeoning growth of unfair dismissal claims.

At the state level, IR reforms followed a similarly thwarted path. Following failure to get its proposed reform through Victoria's upper house, the Kennett Government gave up and handed the state's industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth. In Western Australia, the Court Government's reforms were eliminated in the end by its Labor successor, the Gallop Government.

During this period of thwarted reforms, just about every independent research group, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Economic Forum, the Productivity Commission and the Business Council of Australia, argued for more reform of Australia's industrial relation systems.

Moreover, while Australia has been going down a slow path to reform, other countries such as New Zealand and Britain have been more radical and successful in reducing unemployment. On the other hand, countries such as Germany and France, which have maintained highly restricted labour laws, suffer high rates of unemployment.

Thus even a conservative must conclude that the IR system is in need of significant reform. Howard has known this for decades and would have been pilloried in posterity if, on gaining control of the Senate, he failed to carry out the task. Not just because it's the right thing to do but also because only his government can do it. The Labor Party, because of its ties to the union movement, is incapable of effective reform of the labour market.

During the past decade Australia's economy has boomed, producing near-record levels of employment growth. Indeed, Australia has outperformed just about all other developed countries, with the possible exception of the US and Ireland, on these scores. While the labour movement has said this shows there is no need for change, in fact it does the opposite.

The key message from the past decade is that market-based reforms are good for growth and good for retaining political power. Indeed, the many warnings of economic shut-down or the creation of 20-80 society (with 20 per cent employed and 80 per cent unemployed) that dominated the scribbling of our social commentators and academics, such as Robert Manne in the 1990s, have proved to be fundamentally wrong. The IR reforms in the past have helped, but more would have been better. Indeed, most of the growth in jobs during the past decade has taken place despite the existing system.

Moreover, with the economy booming, there are sectors, in particular the manufacturing and construction sectors, that are being held back by our IR system. Manufacturing, which has long been the apex of the IR system, is facing a do-or-die challenge from rising competition from China. It will need to reinvent itself to survive, which it is failing to do under the existing IR system.

Why then has Howard not been more radical? After all, he has a once in a generation chance to reform the system. And Howard's proposal is not radical. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission stays and retains significant powers; there will be minimal changes to award conditions; the new base-line for minimum conditions is generous, with high minimum wages. Indeed, the changes concentrate on providing greater access to, and negotiating space under, individual contracts. His proposal is far milder than the systems being applied under Labour governments in New Zealand and Britain.

In large part, the mild approach emanates from Howard's conservative nature and his desire not to get too far ahead of popular opinion. He is, I think rightly, also betting on the popularity of greater self-responsibility and empowerment that will spring from the changes.

The labour markets of the future will be sellers' markets. Therefore award minimum standards will gradually become less important.

The greatest growth in new workers will come from women re-entering the work force and from older people staying employed on a part-time basis. These trends will put a premium on flexible and personally tailored working arrangements.

More important, people are increasingly demanding greater control over all facets of their life, from education through health to retirement. And this, if allowed, will include work.

In large part this trend emanates from the market-based reforms put in place during the past 20 years. So, while the reforms may be conservative, they aim to tap into radical underlying changes in society.

First published in The Australian on October 11, 2005.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=181

he forgot to mention that kevin andrews is a right wing christian R SOUL

[Aloysius]

Sorry but there's not one fact in that article other than "this is the shafting that workers had to have".

The articles posted by Skid (45% of workers worse off and 75% not family friendly) are based on some pretty undeniable figures around loss of conditions that were so called 'guaranteed' under the new laws. The bottom line is that people are NOT being empowered when moving to individual contracts over a very small and select few.

Howard will have a social epiphany when he hits seventy just like Frazer we just have to wait (unfortunately) till he's finished before he has it!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[betty boop]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

aloy obviosly somthing of not a lot of interest to you ?

probably a lot mroe important to countless many who rely on thsi kind of thing to put food on the table and pay the bills

[Aloysius]

aloy obviosly somthing of not a lot of interest to you ?

probably a lot mroe important to countless many who rely on thsi kind of thing to put food on the table and pay the bills

You reckon I didn't have to worry about putting food on the table?

You reckon only anti Liberal commentators have that kind of worry?

I reckon Skids a good bloke, but he doesn't have a monopoly on the "facts"

I reckon Kevin Andrews religious persuasion is about as important as Julia Gillards child bearing performance - ie not in the least important

[mello yello]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Zorro!!!!!!

[stahc]

You reckon I didn't have to worry about putting food on the table?

You reckon only anti Liberal commentators have that kind of worry?

I reckon Skids a good bloke, but he doesn't have a monopoly on the "facts"

I reckon Kevin Andrews religious persuasion is about as important as Julia Gillards child bearing performance - ie not in the least important

you don't have a hillsong nest next to you do you

[Aloysius]

you don't have a hillsong nest next to you do you

No - whatever that is

[Chui2]

Mmmmmm,

This Mike Nahan - is he the Mike Nahan from the Institute of Public Affairs. Aren't they a right wing think tank?

If that's the case, he would publish this article, wouldn't he!

Chui

[Hussla]

Does anyone have any great ideas how Australian workers can compete with cheaper labour and manufacturing in China?