Beware of the leopard
Beware of the leopard, it never changes its spots.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry of the IR and counter terrorism legislations. Both leave me with a profound feeling of depression.
Supposedly John Howard’s approval rating has gone up in the last few weeks. I just don’t know what to say. I suppose the vast majority of Australians think that neither piece of legislation will apply to them. I am assuming that these people actually can think of course. Assumptions are a dangerous thing.
The government has modified the IR legislation to counteract the union campaign. Howard then had a meeting with the people who he thought would be most interested – business ‘leaders’. No representative of those most affected has been scheduled, or is likely. Even the churches are beginning to stand up – not that it will do them much good.
Howard lost out trying to weaken the power of the ACCC – another piece of legislation that smacked of a favour for friends in low places. Highly unlikely Mr Joyce will ever cross the floor again. After Mark Vaile has a piece of him when he gets home, I’ll be surprised is Barnaby will walk easily ever again.
It’s a pretty sorry state of affairs when those who oppose the changes the current government are trying to bring in have only Mr Joyce to rely on to keep the changes from impacting too much.
Barnaby Joyce – a national party senator from Queensland is now the poster boy for the left. What kind of country is this??!!
It’s pretty obvious that the IR laws will be followed by a change to welfare entitlement. Howard only wants to talk about how these changes apply to people who are going back into the workplace after a spell of unemployment. Effectively the workers will be subsiding the employer by agreeing to forgo all conditions that workers would usually have, just so they can work.
Howard says that if would be employees don’t like it they can say no. Those who receive unemployment benefits don’t have that option. They’ll lose their payment if they refuse a job. I don’t call that choice.
If the unemployed do managed to avoid this exploitation, I’ll lay bets the next thing that happens is that the amount of time someone can receive welfare payments is time limited as it is in the US. This will force the unemployed into exploitative contracts through sheer economic necessity.
For the government, the beauty of this is that the government will no longer have to pay the short term subsidies that it currently pays to employers if someone who is long term unemployed is hired. Saves the government money, the employers the time and effort of having public servants sniffing around to make sure they’re behaving towards their employee properly and of course the subsidy goes for as long as the employee works for them.
The bonus of course is that employers can force down wages of everyone else as once these people have been employed for a while they’ll be experienced – and then if the current experienced people are being paid a pittance, why shouldn’t everyone?
As one of Howard’s brave new world labour market participants I’m lucky. I gain around 25% more than an equivalent permanent employee and they gain the freedom to fire me with 24hrs notice and no reason. I have absolutely no rights nor entitlements.
The only reason I get more than the permanents is that I work in an industry that has a shortage of skilled people. I’m lucky, I earn enough to survive the periods of unemployment that comes during the lull between contracts. There are few of these industries around and those that aren’t in that kind of industry will find they can ill afford the side effects of the contract market and so will bear the brunt of the sharp practices imposed upon them by their prospective employers. I'm subjected to very sharp practices by those who have a greedy eye. It's taken a long time for me to be able to get infomation on what is a reasonable settlement and therefore be adequately recompensed for my labour - and usually I still lose out. What chance have others got?
The casualisation of labour is a serious issue and the consequences for those who are affected are grave. These people cannot get loans as they don’t have a permanent job nor do they have any guarantee of work. With the introduction of these unfair dismissal ‘reforms’ anyone who works in a company with under 100 people is effectively casual labour. It doesn’t matter what they think the contract says.
It makes me want to weep.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry of the IR and counter terrorism legislations. Both leave me with a profound feeling of depression.
Supposedly John Howard’s approval rating has gone up in the last few weeks. I just don’t know what to say. I suppose the vast majority of Australians think that neither piece of legislation will apply to them. I am assuming that these people actually can think of course. Assumptions are a dangerous thing.
The government has modified the IR legislation to counteract the union campaign. Howard then had a meeting with the people who he thought would be most interested – business ‘leaders’. No representative of those most affected has been scheduled, or is likely. Even the churches are beginning to stand up – not that it will do them much good.
Howard lost out trying to weaken the power of the ACCC – another piece of legislation that smacked of a favour for friends in low places. Highly unlikely Mr Joyce will ever cross the floor again. After Mark Vaile has a piece of him when he gets home, I’ll be surprised is Barnaby will walk easily ever again.
It’s a pretty sorry state of affairs when those who oppose the changes the current government are trying to bring in have only Mr Joyce to rely on to keep the changes from impacting too much.
Barnaby Joyce – a national party senator from Queensland is now the poster boy for the left. What kind of country is this??!!
It’s pretty obvious that the IR laws will be followed by a change to welfare entitlement. Howard only wants to talk about how these changes apply to people who are going back into the workplace after a spell of unemployment. Effectively the workers will be subsiding the employer by agreeing to forgo all conditions that workers would usually have, just so they can work.
Howard says that if would be employees don’t like it they can say no. Those who receive unemployment benefits don’t have that option. They’ll lose their payment if they refuse a job. I don’t call that choice.
If the unemployed do managed to avoid this exploitation, I’ll lay bets the next thing that happens is that the amount of time someone can receive welfare payments is time limited as it is in the US. This will force the unemployed into exploitative contracts through sheer economic necessity.
For the government, the beauty of this is that the government will no longer have to pay the short term subsidies that it currently pays to employers if someone who is long term unemployed is hired. Saves the government money, the employers the time and effort of having public servants sniffing around to make sure they’re behaving towards their employee properly and of course the subsidy goes for as long as the employee works for them.
The bonus of course is that employers can force down wages of everyone else as once these people have been employed for a while they’ll be experienced – and then if the current experienced people are being paid a pittance, why shouldn’t everyone?
As one of Howard’s brave new world labour market participants I’m lucky. I gain around 25% more than an equivalent permanent employee and they gain the freedom to fire me with 24hrs notice and no reason. I have absolutely no rights nor entitlements.
The only reason I get more than the permanents is that I work in an industry that has a shortage of skilled people. I’m lucky, I earn enough to survive the periods of unemployment that comes during the lull between contracts. There are few of these industries around and those that aren’t in that kind of industry will find they can ill afford the side effects of the contract market and so will bear the brunt of the sharp practices imposed upon them by their prospective employers. I'm subjected to very sharp practices by those who have a greedy eye. It's taken a long time for me to be able to get infomation on what is a reasonable settlement and therefore be adequately recompensed for my labour - and usually I still lose out. What chance have others got?
The casualisation of labour is a serious issue and the consequences for those who are affected are grave. These people cannot get loans as they don’t have a permanent job nor do they have any guarantee of work. With the introduction of these unfair dismissal ‘reforms’ anyone who works in a company with under 100 people is effectively casual labour. It doesn’t matter what they think the contract says.
It makes me want to weep.
posted by UnAustralian at 8:38 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home