What is Wrong with John Howard's IR Laws?

[nokiacasio]

If you asked me before I may have disagreed with the IR laws, but when I look at the issue in more detail I realize that John Howard's IR laws aren't that bad.

Many people are going crazy over John Howard's IR policies, but I don't see what the problem is. There are skills shortages in Australia. Howard is just trying to make the labour market more flexible. At the moment hiring someone for a company is a gamble because that person might turn out to be a lemon. If it is easier for employers to fire people then firms can hire people without worrying about hiring a lemon. This will boost employment. Firms can fire all their lemons and keep all their oranges. This makes the workers sweet and productive.

These IR laws are very important for Australian businesses. If John Howard really cares about business he will do what he can to help them even if it goes against the wishes of most Australians. IR law popularity isn't much of a problem because other issues can be introduced to turn the Australian voter back to John Howard.

 

[Alvin Teal]

There is nothing wrong with them at all.
Simply put, the lefties are all howling crook for one reason only. That these laws will put a stop to the practice of someone being able to occupy a job and put in the bare required minimum to satisfy the role requirements, abuse privileges such as sick leave, and take numerous liberties, and be protected by ' closed shop ' style unionism and award nonsense. It also puts an end to the abhorrent Leftist philosophy that every worker should be treated the same regardless of skills, knowledge and output.

Those who perform well have nothing to fear. Full stop.

 

[Dry Rot]

If you asked me before I may have disagreed with the IR laws, but when I look at the issue in more detail I realize that John Howard's IR laws aren't that bad.

Many people are going crazy over John Howard's IR policies, but I don't see what the problem is. There are skills shortages in Australia. Howard is just trying to make the labour market more flexible. At the moment hiring someone for a company is a gamble because that person might turn out to be a lemon. If it is easier for employers to fire people then firms can hire people without worrying about hiring a lemon. This will boost employment. Firms can fire all their lemons and keep all their oranges. This makes the workers sweet and productive.

These IR laws are very important for Australian businesses. If John Howard really cares about business he will do what he can to help them even if it goes against the wishes of most Australians. IR law popularity isn't much of a problem because other issues can be introduced to turn the Australian voter back to John Howard.

You are talking about a small part re unfair dismissals. What avbout the rest of the legislation?

And what are your predictions of their impact when times aren't so rosy?

 

[Dry Rot]

There is nothing wrong with them at all.

Those who perform well have nothing to fear. Full stop.

Righto. Mods close the thread. We have nothing to worry about.

You must be damned disappointed Peter Rieth retired.

 

[stompie]

I don't know much about the laws, but I have worked with lazy people, and unreliable people, and symapthised with the boss that they couldn't be fired. In fact, sympathy was probably the wrong word, because these bludgers made life more difficult for me. When someone takes a sickie, either because they've been drinking the night before, or just can't be stuffed, everybody else has to cover for them.

To make matters worse, when they did come to work, they would go on about being victimised and this would dampen the whole atmosphere of the place. Anything that would have facilitated them getting the boot would be good in my book.

 

[Dry Rot]

I don't know much about the laws, .

Ok, thanks.

 

[Corpuscles]

Dear confused moble unit,

Having considered your threads most earnestly!, therefore recommend you masturbate in public, have a priest 'on side' with bible and ....then

P Off!

If this is a rare, genuine thread... read the legislation and get back to us with your opinion, combined with fact.... or see above!

To new viewers, no I am not being harsh!

Corp

PS It is brilliant legislation for big business. You know the "power consuming polluting, fund giving, ones".... but an major erosion of worker rights which has been established in law for the majority of the last 30 years... go on prove that statement wrong!

 

[Richo83]

If you asked me before I may have disagreed with the IR laws, but when I look at the issue in more detail I realize that John Howard's IR laws aren't that bad.

Many people are going crazy over John Howard's IR policies, but I don't see what the problem is. There are skills shortages in Australia. Howard is just trying to make the labour market more flexible. At the moment hiring someone for a company is a gamble because that person might turn out to be a lemon. If it is easier for employers to fire people then firms can hire people without worrying about hiring a lemon. This will boost employment. Firms can fire all their lemons and keep all their oranges. This makes the workers sweet and productive.

These IR laws are very important for Australian businesses. If John Howard really cares about business he will do what he can to help them even if it goes against the wishes of most Australians. IR law popularity isn't much of a problem because other issues can be introduced to turn the Australian voter back to John Howard.

Not if there's an election around.

The issue here is that employers are not only firing lemons, but they're firing the oranges as well, and replacing them both with mechanical oranges or foreign oranges who will work for 3 dollars an hour with no health care plan. Both are hurt by these new laws, and although employment may rise, the quality of work will drop with lower salaries, less workers rights and a lop-sided employer-employee relationship where the employer dictates everything.

The only reason why I think these laws are in any way good is because it means were more competitive with Asian work markets. Even so I think we shouldn't lower ourselves to their level of poor worker standards and make them improve their labour standards. I know that will never happen but should we be that spineless that we bow to the pressures of the Asian market every time? People think that Howard is all about the Aussie worker and nationalism but this is a good example of how he isn't.

 

[Hawk Dork]

It will make us more competitive with China.
Now if he would legislate for factories to build sleeping dorms we would get closer.

Under the new IR Laws we could start makeing Nike Runners

 

[1jasonoz]

There is nothing wrong with them at all.
Simply put, the lefties are all howling crook for one reason only. That these laws will put a stop to the practice of someone being able to occupy a job and put in the bare required minimum to satisfy the role requirements, abuse privileges such as sick leave, and take numerous liberties, and be protected by ' closed shop ' style unionism and award nonsense. It also puts an end to the abhorrent Leftist philosophy that every worker should be treated the same regardless of skills, knowledge and output.

Those who perform well have nothing to fear. Full stop.

Those who perform well have nothing to fear. Full stop

Of course they don't!

There is nothing wrong with them at all.
Simply put, the lefties are all howling crook for one reason only. That these laws will put a stop to the practice of someone being able to occupy a job and put in the bare required minimum to satisfy the role requirements, abuse privileges such as sick leave, and take numerous liberties, and be protected by ' closed shop ' style unionism and award nonsense. It also puts an end to the abhorrent Leftist philosophy that every worker should be treated the same regardless of skills, knowledge and output.

You had such a handle on the last thread i responded to one of your posts, now tell me about your indepth knowledge of the Workchoices Act 2005 (Cth) and how they effect the employment relationship between the parties to an agreement.

 

[bmwofoz]

There is nothing wrong with them at all.
Simply put, the lefties are all howling crook for one reason only. That these laws will put a stop to the practice of someone being able to occupy a job and put in the bare required minimum to satisfy the role requirements, abuse privileges such as sick leave, and take numerous liberties, and be protected by ' closed shop ' style unionism and award nonsense. It also puts an end to the abhorrent Leftist philosophy that every worker should be treated the same regardless of skills, knowledge and output.

Those who perform well have nothing to fear. Full stop.

This is correct

My problem with the act is how the the Australian Fair Pay Commission AFPC conducts pay reviews.

below is the part relating to it, very poorly worded.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
7K Wage reviews and Wage-setting decisions

(1) The AFPC may determine the Following:

(a) the timing and frequency of Wage reviews:

(b) the scope of particular wage reviews;

(c) the manner in which wage reviews are conducted;

(d) when wage setting decisions are to come into effect.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Pessimistic]

Howard himself said they could be fairer. But his hands are tied - and he has the cheek to say unions would run the country under labour !

 

[opng]

If you asked me before I may have disagreed with the IR laws, but when I look at the issue in more detail I realize that John Howard's IR laws aren't that bad.

Many people are going crazy over John Howard's IR policies, but I don't see what the problem is. There are skills shortages in Australia. Howard is just trying to make the labour market more flexible. At the moment hiring someone for a company is a gamble because that person might turn out to be a lemon. If it is easier for employers to fire people then firms can hire people without worrying about hiring a lemon. This will boost employment. Firms can fire all their lemons and keep all their oranges. This makes the workers sweet and productive.

These IR laws are very important for Australian businesses. If John Howard really cares about business he will do what he can to help them even if it goes against the wishes of most Australians. IR law popularity isn't much of a problem because other issues can be introduced to turn the Australian voter back to John Howard.

I think what most people dont like about the IR laws is the unfair dismissal, its not so much a problem now but people are worried what will happen when theres an economic downturn. Me i quite like the new laws in that im in an industry that should have growth for the next 35 years but i do feel a bit worried for those out there without that type of security.

 

[opng]

Yeh on one hand you cant say there good laws because we have a skill shortage and on the other have a run down education system, howards in the wrong either way you look at it with this type of argument. Thats why we elect these people, to make the decisions so we dont have these types of problems.

 

[kolchak]

I think what most people dont like about the IR laws is the unfair dismissal, its not so much a problem now but people are worried what will happen when theres an economic downturn. Me i quite like the new laws in that im in an industry that should have growth for the next 35 years but i do feel a bit worried for those out there without that type of security.

For the good small business owners out there who try and do the right thing by their employees and occasionally get an employee who ends up costing them money, and then sues them for dismissing them, these laws will be good, but it also give more scrupolous employers more leverage in negotiating. I'd like to know exactly how the unions are disadvantaged in protecting employees.

 

[TheBloods]

It's shocking legislation.

In the past it was too difficult to sack unsatisfactory workers.

Now it is too easy to sack any workers.

 

[Alvin Teal]

but I have worked with lazy people, and unreliable people, and symapthised with the boss that they couldn't be fired. In fact, sympathy was probably the wrong word, because these bludgers made life more difficult for me. When someone takes a sickie, either because they've been drinking the night before, or just can't be stuffed, everybody else has to cover for them.

To make matters worse, when they did come to work, they would go on about being victimised and this would dampen the whole atmosphere of the place. Anything that would have facilitated them getting the boot would be good in my book.

Spot on.

 

[bmwofoz]

I don't know much about the laws, but I have worked with lazy people, and unreliable people, and symapthised with the boss that they couldn't be fired. In fact, sympathy was probably the wrong word, because these bludgers made life more difficult for me. When someone takes a sickie, either because they've been drinking the night before, or just can't be stuffed, everybody else has to cover for them.

To make matters worse, when they did come to work, they would go on about being victimised and this would dampen the whole atmosphere of the place. Anything that would have facilitated them getting the boot would be good in my book.

I hate those types of workers whom you referr, but they won't change,

 

[Richo83]

It's shocking legislation.

In the past it was too difficult to sack unsatisfactory workers.

Now it is too easy to sack any workers.

Bingo.

AT, any comment?

 

[Alvin Teal]

Bingo.

AT, any comment?

Plenty, but I'll summarise.

1.Totally disagree these days that it's too easy to sack anyone.
2. Bosses don't sack good workers.

 

[cowboy18]

Plenty, but I'll summarise.

1.Totally disagree these days that it's too easy to sack anyone.
2. Bosses don't sack good workers.

1. How easy do you want it? Via SMS? Wave of the hand? It's possible to manufacture frivolous reasons to sack people - if you want to.
2. Why wouldn't you sack a good worker if you could replace them with an equally good worker willing to work for less? Or a good workforce if you could get a workforce willing to work for less? Or sack your workforce and re-employ them at lesser cost?

 

[TheBloods]

Plenty, but I'll summarise.

1.Totally disagree these days that it's too easy to sack anyone.
2. Bosses don't sack good workers.

Fantasy land - bosses sack good workers if either:
i) they want to downsize and not pay redundancies
ii) personality clashes
iii) force them to accept lesser conditions or be sacked

 

[Alvin Teal]

Fantasy land - bosses sack good workers if either:
i) they want to downsize and not pay redundancies
ii) personality clashes
iii) force them to accept lesser conditions or be sacked

1. Maybe for lemons but they will look after their best workers.
2. Valid point
3. Paranoia.

 

[TheBloods]

1. Maybe for lemons but they will look after their best workers.
2. Valid point
3. Paranoia.

1. Seen it happen - they may look after their best workers or their favourites or some combination, but it doesn't mean the ones sacked were doing a bad job.

3. Seen this happen too - many employees have extremely limited bargaining power.

 

[Mossie]

1. Maybe for lemons but they will look after their best workers.
2. Valid point
3. Paranoia.

sorry but I work in Jobnet and the bosse s" look after best workers" line is fine for anyone with a skill or trade
But if you are an unskilled worker even a" sick note" will not save you.

Last month or so I have had workers with a legit note from the doctor sacked by the "boss" for no reason.

too easy now by far.