View Full Version : sacking workers prior to christmas
magpie_joffa
4 Dec 2001, 21:53
It disturbs me greatly at the amount of workers losing there jobs before christmas it just seems to be getting worse,every night whilst watching the news some one is laying off hundreds of employees.
We are indeed approaching troublesome days.
God bless capitalism :rolleyes:
Well it's the greedy bloody workers fault, they should stop insisting on being paid, you can't expect the Directors & Board members to take pay cuts, just to keep some workers from being sacked before xmas :D
Many people lose their jobs every day. It's unfortunate, and it's often not the employees' fault, but how is it any different to losing one's job at any other time of the year?
Having no money to pay for food, rent/mortgage and bills and support kids is just as bad during the year as it is at Christmas.
Pessimistic
6 Dec 2001, 07:15
Originally posted by Darky
Many people lose their jobs every day. It's unfortunate, and it's often not the employees' fault, but how is it any different to losing one's job at any other time of the year?
Having no money to pay for food, rent/mortgage and bills and support kids is just as bad during the year as it is at Christmas.
Watch griswalds family christmas and you'll find out why. But if you use blockbuste camberwell, don't bother. I have their copy on loan and it's very worn and hazy.
I was retrenched once on Christmas Eve! How bad is that??? I think it can seem worse at Xmas time because we're usually in festive party mode. To suddenly, and without warning realise you now have no job can be a huge shock.
Darky's right though, losing your job at anytime of the year is just as bad. But maybe it just feels worse during a time when everyone else is happy and celebrating?
In the past 3 weeks we have had 14 permanent and 30 contract staff given there marching orders. Some of those permanent staff members had between 20 - 30 years service up.
My own area was under the microscope just last Wednesday. In short, we were told that all positions in our department were "dissolved" and that they would attempt to redeploy us into another department. Like a game of musical chairs, those without a seat when the music stopped were without a job.
They didn't announce publically who was without a job - they told us to go back to our desks and were calling each person up one at a time, in alphabetical order, and calling us to our doom.
This whole process went on for about 3 - 4 hours. I really felt sorry for the person who's name started with 'W'!
I still managed to keep my job - actually got a new job in a different department doing exactly the same thing - but some of my friends didn't. And they were stunned - shocked! They just walked back out of the meeting and silently picked up their things and went home.
They all get massive payouts - between $100 - 150,000 just for the redundancy, but that is really poor compensation for being told you are not wanted, especially only 3 weeks before Christmas.
Longboysfan
10 Dec 2001, 02:36
Had same here a few years back. December 10th or so.
1st laid off at old company - Departmental cut backs.
Hired new company in November.
Laid off company moving to another state - December 10th.
Old company re-hired me back 5% more cash and better position.
Got dam lucky it all worked out.
But it's no fun whenever it happens.
It's a heartless thing to do IMO but I guess it can be a calendar thing ie clearig the decks for a fresh start in the new year. If Christmas was in October then it probably wouldn't be so severe.
Redundancies are not the product of evil minded devil managers as some would like to view them. Companies have to create cash to pay their employees and if they can't, due to recession or as with Ansett, because they couldn't afford the high wages that were crippling them then they have to make redundancies or go bust. Similarily public services employees are constrained by the cash made available to pay them by the elected government of the people. If less cash is available then fewer employees are able to remain.
It is unfortunately a fact of life.
But make no mistake, the efforts of the Unions and the Greens have significant impact on the investments and availabilty of jobs in Australia. Even in this last week 4000 jobs are lost in WA because of a ban on logging. These 4000 people will need unemployment benefit at say $10,000 a year. Thats $40 million in extra costs. Add that to the fact that each would have paid an average of $5,000 in tax , which wont happen now and the burden on government is at least $60 million for one greenie decision. Where does the $60m come from? Three possibilities, raise taxes, make government rdundancies or borrow it and let our kids pay it off with interest. And so it snowballs because government makes redudancies, those people then cease to be tax contributors and become wefare recipients again causing a funding problem.
The only way to brak the cycle is to create more jobs, but where? The unions have the country by the balls, who wants to invest here?
And as for those who want to open the doors to hundreds of thousands of refugees, just thin about it. Every 100,000 brings with it $1 billion in welfare handouts as well as increasing the burden on schooling, hospitals etc. How many redundancies wold it take to allow the public to pay for them? Greens :mad:
Richmondfan#1
15 Dec 2001, 16:17
Originally posted by Pessimistic
Watch griswalds family christmas
I LOVE THAT MOVIE :D:D.
Dr AlfAndrews
18 Dec 2001, 16:04
Work sux.
Originally posted by Dr AlfAndrews
Work sux.
Here, here! If I was offered a package tomorrow, I'd take it. Not sure what I'd do then, but I did just receive offers for 3 new credit cards, so I guess I can live off those for a while? ;)
Collingwood supporters knocking the concept of work? Geez, who ever would have thought it? :rolleyes:
;)
How about the poor old Ansett worker who is getting thousands of dollars of taxpayers money as a christmas present (redundancy) then picking up their old job with Lew/Fox a couple of weeks later.........merry christmas
Pessimistic
31 Dec 2001, 14:37
Originally posted by Frodo
It is unfortunately a fact of life.
But make no mistake, the efforts of the Unions and the Greens have significant impact on the investments and availabilty of jobs in Australia. Even in this last week 4000 jobs are lost in WA because of a ban on logging. These 4000 people will need unemployment benefit at say $10,000 a year. Thats $40 million in extra costs. Add that to the fact that each would have paid an average of $5,000 in tax , which wont happen now and the burden on government is at least $60 million for one greenie decision. Where does the $60m come from? Three possibilities, raise taxes, make government rdundancies or borrow it and let our kids pay it off with interest. And so it snowballs because government makes redudancies, those people then cease to be tax contributors and become wefare recipients again causing a funding problem.
The only way to brak the cycle is to create more jobs, but where? The unions have the country by the balls, who wants to invest here?
They could always use the money the 'subsidise' those companies to chop down stuff in an unsustainable way.
Plus I heard a theory about redundancies prior to christmas - it goes that the companies do it at this time because unions are prepccupied and less likely to kick up a fuss.
But I suppose it's better to know sooner then you can avoid a 'blow-out' at christmas. better than being retrenched in the new year. A hard part is you can't seriously begin looking for work until well into january because HR departments are on holiday too.
On another note - why automatically blame unions for everything. They came into being because of a very unfair system all those years ago.
Is the system so fair now that we can dispense with unions ? If the crime rate went down would we get rid of the police force ?
Originally posted by Pessimistic
On another note - why automatically blame unions for everything. They came into being because of a very unfair system all those years ago.
Is the system so fair now that we can dispense with unions ? If the crime rate went down would we get rid of the police force ?
Trade unions were excellent almost a century ago when there was a bib class divide, workers and upper class lords who looked upon their workers as slaves. The trade nion movement was about workers getting together and fighting for each other. It was a tremendous brotherhood.
But now the pendulum has swung the other way with unions having little interest in their members and major interest in politics and ideology.
I have every respect for a group of workers forming or belonging to a union and collectively bargaining for fair reward for their work. I have no respect for co-ercion, calling strikes for political ends, secondary picketing, no ticket no start, blackmail or ballots that are not secret (ie you put your hand up for fear of being targeted by the union thugs otherwise)
There is a simplicity in this that seems to bypass so many people. If you think you are being wronged by your employer and your workmates support you then you have every right to say, as a workforce, that you are not prepared to work under those conditions and down tools. A simple negotiation between the two parties head to head will resolve the matter quickly with good will on both sides.
The problem is that it escalates to a national union matter, the AIC and lawyers being brought in on all sides. Who wins? The lawyers and the unions (paid hansdomely). Who loses? The workforce and the Company.
Labour has to get rid of Union control but more importantly workers need to take back the responsibility for settling disputes to a local level and give the political animals that run the unions the single finger.
Pessimistic
2 Jan 2002, 09:37
Originally posted by Frodo
Trade unions were excellent almost a century ago when there was a bib class divide, workers and upper class lords who looked upon their workers as slaves. The trade nion movement was about workers getting together and fighting for each other. It was a tremendous brotherhood.
But now the pendulum has swung the other way with unions having little interest in their members and major interest in politics and ideology.
I have every respect for a group of workers forming or belonging to a union and collectively bargaining for fair reward for their work. I have no respect for co-ercion, calling strikes for political ends, secondary picketing, no ticket no start, blackmail or ballots that are not secret (ie you put your hand up for fear of being targeted by the union thugs otherwise)
There is a simplicity in this that seems to bypass so many people. If you think you are being wronged by your employer and your workmates support you then you have every right to say, as a workforce, that you are not prepared to work under those conditions and down tools. A simple negotiation between the two parties head to head will resolve the matter quickly with good will on both sides.
The problem is that it escalates to a national union matter, the AIC and lawyers being brought in on all sides. Who wins? The lawyers and the unions (paid hansdomely). Who loses? The workforce and the Company.
Labour has to get rid of Union control but more importantly workers need to take back the responsibility for settling disputes to a local level and give the political animals that run the unions the single finger.
You are the one who hasn't moved on. A worker here is just as likely to have his/her job exported to somewhere like india (and wer'e talking IT not manufacturing). That is why unions have adopted a national and international response.
You are quite happy for a johb to be exported but extremely angry at the idea of an immigrant coming in to take a job. Why ?
At least when the immigrant moves here his/her wages are spent here, helping the local economy.
The labour and union movement was extremely successful in limes of great upheaval. In my opinion the current climate is just as great, The labour party just needs to be more relavant.
I sense even you would be a supporter if you felt it was more relavant. Hopefully they can discover how and they might have a resurgence, rather than rely on a political system which relies on 'bribing' the one or two percent of the population who''s votes make the difference.
But I don't think union bashing has any credibility. You only have to look at the way Rieth acted in the docks dispute to see the threat is still real. And unions have as many 'flavours' as the peple they represent.
Originally posted by Pessimistic
You are quite happy for a johb to be exported but extremely angry at the idea of an immigrant coming in to take a job. Why ?
Incorrect statement there. I am very unhappy about jobs being exported. I would like to see government policy seriously directed at supporting manufacturing industry in Australia and Union power reduced alongside so that companies are not 'afraid' of manufacturing here. (Eg secret ballots before strikes)
Unfortunately neither scenario is likely whilst we are a resource rich nation.
From an economic point of view, information now moves faster than it ever did. Thus when times look tough there is a faster reaction. The markets are able to trade faster and so stocks tumble faster.
The most proven way to boost confidence in a company's stock is to cut costs by laying off workers.
This is why in today's economy there is no such thing as a 'job for life'. You have to protect yourself by learning constantly, or going into business yourself, earning capital and re-investing it until your money (and your workers, tennants, invested businesses and companies) works for you.
I personally think it is better for the worker to be sacked before Christmas than after, when they have usually gotten themselves deeper into debt expecting to be able to pay this debt off during the year.
Being sacked without warning through no fault of your own is always going to be hard. But it is always going to happen.
Originally posted by Frodo
How about the poor old Ansett worker who is getting thousands of dollars of taxpayers money as a christmas present (redundancy) then picking up their old job with Lew/Fox a couple of weeks later.........merry christmas
LOL! So they aren't entitled to a redundancy now Frodo? You really do take the cake.
Originally posted by Frodo
I have no respect for co-ercion
"do it or you're sacked" is the sort of coercion that usually occurs......
Not all Trade Unions are bad Frodo, just as not all companies have the best interests of their workforce at heart. It's not as black and white as you make out.
Originally posted by Dave
"do it or you're sacked" is the sort of coercion that usually occurs......
Not all Trade Unions are bad Frodo, just as not all companies have the best interests of their workforce at heart. It's not as black and white as you make out.
Well I agree that not all are bad but the majority are not good for the workers or Australia.
do it or you're sacked
Maybe in a miniscule amount of caes but normally
Do it please for the following reasons (verbal)
Do it please for the following reasons (verbal) with a witness
Do it please in writing giving a timescale
Do it please in writing giving a timescale(2)
Do it please in writing giving a timescale or your employment may be terminated
Do it please in writing giving a timescale or your employment will be terminated.
Termination letter
AIRC pre trial which costs employee $5 and employer is advised to settle now or i will cost them at least $6000 plus thir time to defend it.
AIRC hearing with outcome depending on which political party selected the commissioner.
AND ALL THAT IS WITHOUT ANY UNION INVOLVEMENT AT ALL
Originally posted by Frodo
Well I agree that not all are bad but the majority are not good for the workers or Australia.
That's a generalisation. It's also untrue. I'd wager that trade unions are "good for the workers" more often than company boards. The company I work for sacked 300 people in november as a result of it's disasterous performances under the previous CEO. He received a 3 million dollar "retirement" package. Not bad for, in the words of the fin review, "overseeing the destruction of 2 billion dollars worth of shareholder value", not to mention the impact he had on those who have lost their jobs.
do it or you're sacked
Maybe in a miniscule amount of caes
then you probably need to get out more.
but normally
Do it please for the following reasons (verbal)
Do it please for the following reasons (verbal) with a witness
Do it please in writing giving a timescale
Do it please in writing giving a timescale(2)
Do it please in writing giving a timescale or your employment may be terminated
Do it please in writing giving a timescale or your employment will be terminated.
Termination letter
AIRC pre trial which costs employee $5 and employer is advised to settle now or i will cost them at least $6000 plus thir time to defend it.
Which hopefully will be a little simpler in the not too distant future. The fact remains though that employers have more power than empolyees when it comes to settling labour disputes *unless* the employees have some sort of union protection.
AIRC hearing with outcome depending on which political party selected the commissioner.
AND ALL THAT IS WITHOUT ANY UNION INVOLVEMENT AT ALL
It's pretty sad isn't it that neither side of politics is able to put doing the right thing above party ideology.
Dave, what he's saying is that they got a redundancy payout for jobs they didn't lose... and probably barely ever worked at in the first place if the stories are to be believed.
Originally posted by Bluey
Dave, what he's saying is that they got a redundancy payout for jobs they didn't lose...
So they kept their years of service and entitlements (annual & sick leave, long service etc etc etc)? Last time I looked if the company you worked for went bust and you ended up working somewhere else you did, in fact, lose your job. The fact that they found work somewhere else is irrelevant, they were entitled to the redundancy payouts.
and probably barely ever worked at in the first place if the stories are to be believed.
Pretty big "if" there Bluey. And so what if someone had barely worked there, the law provides that they get protected. It's not like they'd have received massive payouts!