Aussie Politics

Fine.

I'll use a more politically correct term, say... people with limited skills and/or motivation in the work place.

You address the true point of my post.

I sincerely believe John Howard believes in the market economy to do exactly what it has done. Increase the productivity, incease profits, increase demand for workers and therefore increased wages and better living standards.

You're previous posts suggest you think John Howards wants the average Australian to be worse off. And that just doesn't make sense to me, because it's not logical.

 

I just don't buy the "battler's friend" persona.

 

Have you missed everything E_S and I have posted?

JH has made the employers' lot better. Employers like me. What have I done? Expanded my business. Lavished out on luxury items.

What's that done for employees? They have more options, more job opportunities that therefore more bargining power to ask for higher wages.

What if you give the same money to families that are struggling? They would pay off debts or save it. What does that do for the economy? Jack****.

You can't argue with the trickle down effect because it's currently happening in Australia.

And really, have you stopped to think about what you're saying? How do you think JH was elected? By the employers? Are there more employers than employees in Australia now?

 

Yeah, I've read it.

I'm not up for arguing economics at the moment, I couldn't be arsed right now.

 

I believe Howard's rationale is flawed. His reasonong is that the IR reforms will make industry more efficient, which will therefore make industry more profitable, which will therefore mean workers get higher wages because the company is making a bigger profit.

I think the reality will be the bigger the company profit the bigger the bonus and Beemer and stock option portfolio that the company executives will receive.

Shareholders may get a better dividend too.

The workers will not necessarily share in the company profits by higher wages. It is not an assumption I would want to rely on, particularly in light of how easy and inexpensive it will become to dismiss employees.

I believe Howard is on the right track with IR reform with respect to cleaning up the various state/federal awards mess - but he's really gone too far with the abolition of unfair dismissal laws for people working wuith an employer with under 100 staff and within 6 months of the commencement of employment.

I also believe that removing the jurisdiction of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission to adjudicate on unlawful termination claims and provide reinstatment is wrong - under Howard's reforms, if you get sacked for being black or married to an Arab then you may get up to $4,000 of legal advice (means tested) but otherwise you're on your own in Federal Court - which is a costs jurisdiction - which means if you lose you pay the employers costs. I know for a fact that a 5 day hearing in Federal Court will cost you around $50,000 - $75,000 without breaking a sweat. Big employer companies employ a team of QCs at $6000 per day so their costs can be around $200,000.

If you lose, then you can be up for the whole shebang - it is therefore customary in costs jurisdiction cases to use the threat of costs as a means of reaching settlement. As the Federal Court won't have the power to order reinstatement then you will only get damages - I imagine that they will offer you the smallest sum to make you go away and if you refuse to settle then threaten you with costs orders. Trust me, most employees will settle for much much much less than what they were entitled to receive under the current system.

 

I don't have much time except to say; I agree with LOH and T65. The unfair dismissal system was stupid before, and now it's gone too far.

E_S

 

I would have thought it was the other way around. That it's the employees being fired who can hold the employer to ransom. It might very well be cheaper to give them a little sweetener to go away than to go to court.

In today's economy, it's not really that hard to find another job if you look seriously. So the employee may very well come out ahead in the deal.

And we seem to be forgetting one thing. Bosses don't want to fire employees who are competent. It costs money to advertise a position and to train someone inexperienced with your company. And I always give 1-2 weeks wage before dismissing someone. All in all, including decreased efficiency while training, $2,000 without breaking a sweat. And that's being very conservative.

So what idiot wants to do that if they can avoid it?

 

I think your pertinent phrase there is "in today's economy." What happens when the economy turns the other way and it's the employers' who hold the bargaining power?

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't as clear as I meant to be before.

I agree in part with Sil.

What I meant to say was that the system was silly before this new change, and the change has gone to the opposite end of the silly spectrum. Reform was needed, but I question the medicine proposed.

E_S

 

What I meant to say was that the system was silly before this new change, and the change has gone to the opposite end of the silly spectrum. Reform was needed, but I question the medicine proposed.

The solution that has been proposed by employment lawyers for years has been simply to make the NSW Industrial Relations Commission a costs jurisdiction.

At the moment, orders for costs are discretionary and rarely given against an unsuccessful employee.

This of course encourages disgruntled employees to bring frivolous unfair dismissal claims. This is really what the IR reforms are attempting to crack down on as unfair dismissal claims cost employers millions of dollars every year fighting perfectly fair and reasonable dismissals.

At the moment employees can bring a frivolous claim without fear of a costs order against them if they lose.

If the Commission was to be become a costs jurisdiction then those frivolous claims would dry up.

Instead, Howard has dismantled the whole system and completely removed unfair dismissal remedies for a large proportion of the workforce.

T-65XJ - at the moment employees have some bargaining leverage in relation to unfair/unlawful dismissal because the NSW IRC is not a costs jurisdiction so employers would have to pay their own legal costs even if they won. By removing the jurisdiction of unlawful dismissal to the Federal Court, employers will now get an order for their costs against the employee if the employer is successful - so you can see that there is no longer any leverage for employees. It is simply a matter of take this $2,000 and piss off or we'll go to court and you'll risk a costs order of $100,000.00.

And Sil is 100% correct - the full effect of the IR reforms will be felt when there is an economic downturn and employers need to offload staff and downsize.

 

Isn't that what happens in other civil law suits? Loser pays. It's the way it should be and it discourages litigation and encourages the parties to work out their differences. Why should the IR arena be any different?

If you have a strong case, then the employer doesn't have much to threaten you with because it'll be very unlikely that you'd lose. He/she faces the same costs if you win. If your case is weak, what are you doing sueing in the first place?

And time and again I stress, no one wants to fire good employees for illegitamite reasons. It doesn't do your business any good. Have you got this image of the employers getting some kind of evil satisfaction by harming the livelihood of their employees?

With regards to what happens when the economy turns, are you suggesting that an employer has an obligation to maintain the lifestyle of his/her employee even if they're not making money for the business? If profits are down, the boss takes home less why should it be different for the employees?

 

Your argument does have merit, and it is true that the unfair dismissal laws at the moment favour the employee, but the pendulum has swung too much in the opposite direction with the proposed changes.

There'll be no such thing as unfair dismissal. The unlawful dismissal that has been touted as the same thing (rather sneakily) means a disproportionate hardship on behalf of the employee to seek a remedy.

Balance is what's needed and the new IR changes aint it.

 

That's precisely what I said...



Though of course, you need T65 to say it to agree.

E_S

 

Isn't that what happens in other civil law suits? Loser pays. It's the way it should be and it discourages litigation and encourages the parties to work out their differences. Why should the IR arena be any different?

If you have a strong case, then the employer doesn't have much to threaten you with because it'll be very unlikely that you'd lose. He/she faces the same costs if you win. If your case is weak, what are you doing sueing in the first place?

It's the same rationale for the Family Court which is also generally a no costs jurisdiction - I guess the legislators thought that family and employment related issues shouldn't have a 'loser pays' approach as it discourages people legitimately using the court system. It also encourages frivolous claims but that is the balance of convenience - employment and family are deemed to be more important than commercial issues and so the jurisdiction was designed on a no costs basis for easy access.

Unfortunately the law in practice is not so black and white in terms of "having a good case" or not. You may have a good case but the vagaries of litigation mean that you cannot guarantee success and so there is always a risk that you will lose - I agree that if your case is weak you probably should think hard about commencing action, but even if you have a strong case, that will not discourage an employer with deep pockets from threatening court costs - you'd be surprised how somebody who has been told they have "a good case" will blanch at the thought of litigation if there is a risk of a $100,000 costs order against them at the end.

And time and again I stress, no one wants to fire good employees for illegitamite reasons. It doesn't do your business any good. Have you got this image of the employers getting some kind of evil satisfaction by harming the livelihood of their employees?

Maybe you personally don't want to fire good employees for no reason but there are plenty of employers that do - for a multitude of reasons- my firm has an employment section that spends its days in litigation for unfair/unlawful dismissals for reasons that defy any logic or business sense, whether it be a change in the management team, a new managing director coming on board and wanting to clean house, or for personal reasons - the NSW IRC is full of cases of unfair/unlawful dismissals.

With regards to what happens when the economy turns, are you suggesting that an employer has an obligation to maintain the lifestyle of his/her employee even if they're not making money for the business? If profits are down, the boss takes home less why should it be different for the employees?

No I am not suggesting anything of the kind. I'm saying that currently employers would have to offer redundancy packages for employees who are caught up in a downsizing - once the IR reforms are in place however, it will be more attractive for employers to just dismiss their employees and rely on the lack of remedies available to the employees to take action - it will be cheaper in the long run to sack them rather then offer them redundancies.

 

But that's just the thing. For a business to work, there shouldn't be such a thing as unfair dismissal.

Businesses exist to make money. If you make it money, you won't be fired. If you don't make it money, it's not unfair that you are fired.

I guess that's the basic thing you have to believe in. That a boss wants to make money more than he cares about race or religion or political views or personal differences or any number of things that would make him sack a productive employee.

And I know it's not true of all employers. But I would hope and I believe it's true of the vast majority.

 

Do you understand the distinction between unfair dismissal and unlawful dismissal?

Neither have very much to do with whether the company or you as an employee are making any money.

Would you like to be fired because you are of Chinese origin and the new boss is a racist pig? Happens all the time. How they fire you is the key point.

Clearly they are not going to say to you - You are chinese - I hate all chinese therefore you're fired.

No. That is unlawful dismissal.

But they will devise a way to make it a performance based issue - they'll have a meeting and decide your ties are all wrong for the company and that your 'attitude' is not in keeping with company standards or they'll wait until you **** something up and exagerate the effects of your error.

They'll have a meeting with you and tell you that for performance and job related reasons they're letting you. Unfair dismissal.

Hundred of people are fired for unlawful reasons but their dismissal is orchestrated in such a way as to make it performance related - there are top tier employer geared law firms that provide legal advice on how to get rid of an employee without incurring an unlawful dismissal claim.

Employers sack productive employees all the time - in many businesses it doesn't affect the bottom line at all and many managers are willing to take a short term dip in productivity for the long term benefit of having replaced an undesirable employee.

Once the new IR reforms come in, you won't even be able to pursue an unfair dismissal claim at all if you are within the first 6 months of your employment or your employer employs less than 100 workers - you will have absolutely no remedy whatsoever.

And you don't think there should be such a thing as unfair dismissal?

 

I'm actually shocked. People would fire someone who's productive because of personal dislike?

My manager gets on my nerves all the time and half the time she thinks she owns the place. But because she's so good at what she does, I've put up with it for 4 years and I've given her huge bonuses to keep doing what she does.

Those people you speak of are idiots, and I would hope that in a free market economy, they are the failures because they don't make business decisions based on business principals. So those businesses will be far more likely to fold. I guess you reap what you sow.

 

Ironically, it's usually the bigger companies that are the major culprits as they seem to have a feeling of invincibility about them at management levels.

Small to medium businesses that employ productive managers are less likely to be culprits for all of the reasons you set out.

But mega companies are a different kettle of fish.

 

Don't act so surprised, mate. I was in a situation earlier this year where, as a permanent part-timer, I was (and still am) a productive and efficient worker. Despite this, the manager had made a decision to reduce costs, and actively persuaded myself and others on the team to change the terms of our employment. I refused to do so because the proposed change would have put me back where I had been a year before. I subsequently found my hours cut progressively to the point where I was unable to afford to pay rent and buy food for the week, let alone come to work. I tried negotiating a remedy which would have been mutually beneficial, but was turned down every time. In the end he actively provoked a situation which caused me to walk out before I lost my temper (I held on precariously while he screamed at me in front of customers and staff whiling calling me a liar). If I hadn't had the foresight (or connections) to quickly get in touch with friends with-in the company at other locations, I'd be out of work, and arguing an unfair dismissal case before the Queensland IRC.

 

So we got a taste of what a real ALP leader is like last night. Bob Hawke got up and ripped into the new IR reforms and John Howard's penchant for the Americanisation of Australia.

Not going into his actual speech, I thought it was a demonstration of how an old school ALP man would be taking the government to task in the current climate. It's a shame there's no-one anywhere near his standard in the ALP anymore.

 

Of course, it makes Hawke a raging hypocrit since not only did he bring Australia close to America in the 1980's, he had to ring George HW Bush and ask him if we could send troops to the first Gulf War.

If I check the SMH website, will there be no mention at all of Mr Hawke's past pro-Americanism?

E_S

 

He was talking more along the lines of the IR reforms rather than anything else, though he did mention our foreign policy. There's no mention of his speech at all on SMH's website.

 

I missed his speech but I imagine it would have been good - Hawke was a fantastically Australian orator who didn't need to resort to using terms like 'ticker' all the time to demonstrate his 'grass roots'.

Beazley take note.

 

I hardly think a man whose legacy consists of decentralisation and economic rationalisation can hardly be absolved of Americanisation on any front, Loopster.

It's amazingly hypocritical of him to level that charge against Howard, since he's guilty of the same thing.

Note: This isn't saying Hawke is bad. It's saying he's no leg to stand on here insofar as "Americanising" Australia, given what his policies were.

Lost: It's got to be frustrating for Hawke and Keating to watch the ALP's death throes, though I would guarantee Hawke at least realises he's better off under the Liberal regime.

E_S

 

LostOnHoth - Which is exactly the point I was making. Forget the content, he delivered a passionate and fiery speech that reminded me of how the ALP once had people who had the gumption to stand up and be heard.

The current crop of ALP leaders are dull as dishwater and no-one cares enough to listen to them. The Liberal party have extremely boring orators, John Howard isn't the most charismatic man, but the ALP can't lay a finger on them at the moment.

Australian politics is dull at the moment, when it should be going off like a skyrocket.

Ender - the reason I didn't talk about the content is because I don't want to debate the content. I'm simply pointing out the lack of leadership the ALP is showing.

though I would guarantee Hawke at least realises he's better off under the Liberal regime

That's a bit presumptuous. How would you guarantee that?

I also don't think you could call them death throes, I mean the Liberal party was in exactly the same boat in the 80's and early 90's. God, even Downer had a go at being leader.