It’s time again for weekend reflections, which makes space for longer than usual comments on any topic. Civilised discussion and no coarse language please.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/rudd-defends-work-laws-after-teens-sacked/story-e6frf7ko-1225827007317
Another stupid law messing with peoples lives.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Give me a break Terje. Another stupid employer messing with the act. Why was the fair work peopel involved? because someone called them…thats why. Maybe one of those kids wanted to work more and the boss said no? Or maybe the boss thought he could use a kid a the parents objected.
You dont the full story here Terje but if everyone was happy, the schoolkids would be on cash otr an eft thats below the tax threshold and fair work wouldnt have been called in the first place.
But no employers shouldnt have the right to demand people drive from home (or catch a train) work for an hour and go home.
Thats exploitation pure and simple. Another stupid employer messing with workers lives Terje?
Alice, I’d like you to take a break for a week. You’re swamping the threads, contrary to my earlier request. When you come back, please try to focus on substantive contributions of your own rather than debates with other commenters.
Sorry JQ – I may post a lot in a short pace of time but really I do find the constant presence of hard right ideologues rather irritating to say the least and they are worth objecting to. I need a break too. I have made substantive contributions only to have them twisted and denied but thats par for the course. I am sure I am not the only one who finds the neoliberal / political views objectionable and I would suggest I am in in the majority rather than the minority.
Either the employees didn’t want to work longer shifts or the employer didn’t want them to work longer shifts. Either way the net effect of the law is that they now lose their job. Bravo Mr Rudd.
Don’t all laws “mess with peoples lives”?
“Murdoch’s Law” applies, i.e.: he who uses a quote from a Murdoch outlet in an argument has lost instantly on credibility grounds.
Sure, it does seem silly that these kids have to work 3 hours or not at all. I’d be willing to bet that it is indeed a shameless beat-up and that there is a way they could keep these jobs, maybe get an ABN and call them “contractors”? That’s what everyone else does, no compo, holidays, super, sick leave etc.. They’re great!
Alice, you’re not the only one.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
The restriction on hours (if correct) does seem a bit silly. Although the purpose might have been to avoid employees being mucked around by employers which is not silly. Even if this part is silly, that does not mean that anything else in the legislation is silly.
The claim by Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, in Federal Parliament on Thursday, 4 February that electricity prices will rise by a maximum of 25 per cent (one-quarter) by 2012-13, the second year of the Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), should not alarm Sydney residents on non-market electricity contracts.
In fact, it represents a substantial slowdown on the 33.3 per cent increase (one-third) over the two years between December 2007 and December 2009.
In a question in the House of Representatives (see page 50 of the Proof Issue of Hansard for 4 February 2010), Abbott wanted to know if the increase in electricity prices would be the 18 per cent claimed by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, the 20 per cent which the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) claimed or the 25 per cent which Frontier Economics claimed.
Now, of the three I would be inclined to accept the 20 per cent claim by IPART which actually recommends the increases to apply in NSW.
As an aside, the question by Abbott shows just how sloppy is the research by him and the shadow Treasurer, Joe Hocked. As Rudd pointed out, the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, released a statement last November showing projected electricity price increases as 7 per cent in 2011-12 and 12 per cent in 2012-2013.
But, accepting the higher figure of 25 per cent cited by Abbott, that’s less than the 33.3 per cent Energy Australia’s non-market usage charge rose in the two years from December 2007 to December 2009 – and that’s without a CPRS.
I was curious to find out how Abbott’s claim of the rise in electricity prices in the first two years of the CPRS compared with the increase in the two years between December 2007 and my last electricity bill in December 2009.
The Energy Australia bill I received in December 2007 showed the rate per kilowatt hour (kWH) as 11.7000c. The Energy Australia bill received in December 2009 shows the rate per kilowatt hour (kWH) as 15.6000c.
The increase in the two years is 3.9000c (to use the same terms as the Energy Australia bill). The 3.9000c is exactly one-third of the 2007 base of 11.7000c.
The copies I have of these bills also includes a daily charge for SAC, which is the charge for the delivery of electricity and the maintenance of the poles and wires. (I had to use Google to find out what SAC was).
This charge rose from 33 cents a day in December 2007 to 39 cents a day in 2009 – an increase over the two years of 6 cents a day (18.2 per cent).
Laugh, Kookaburra, laugh…looks like “Men At Work” are going to have to go back to work.
Really though, this decision/ruling is no laughing matter: just how many popular songs are derivative to an even greater extent? Once all of the lawsuits and countersuits litigious dust settles only the legal eagles with be the richer for it. And our cultural heritage ha ha.
Final chuckle – what (if any) musical piece does our humour-laden Kookaburra’s song derive its sound from?
@Alice
Objecting to a viewpoint is different from making posts composed exclusively or mainly of hectoring others.
For the record, Alice has not been banned for a week because of hectoring. In the words of the owner of this blog-site:
“Alice, I’d like you to take a break for a week. You’re swamping the threads, contrary to my earlier request. When you come back, please try to focus on substantive contributions of your own rather than debates with other commenters.”
@Fran Barlow
With respect JQ – Ill take my week off immediately from now but I object to Fran’s slight above and its not fair and nor is it true (yet another twist) – if Fran wants to label a post as hectoring – she go straight to John Coochey’s posts and Tony G’s and others like him who are still here for some unknown reason.
Donald, I reckon all rap ‘music’ is plagiarism. It all sounds the same to me anyway:)
Alice those two are merely out and proud delusionals who will never get a clue, whereas you could and should know better (sorry for this gratuitous advice).
News.com is reporting that a secret central bank summit is taking place in Australia this weekend – http://www.news.com.au/business/secret-summit-of-top-bankers/story-e6frfm1i-1225827289543.
Anyone know anything more?
The first proper investigation that came out ClimateGate has concluded. Penn State Uni has investigated climate scientist Michael Mann who has been the victim of a huge number of smears, has essentially been exonerated. The pdf can be found here.
Terje #1 has a valid point. Similar provisions have been a part of many awards for years. The provision for a minimum “book-on” time is specifically to prevent commute cost for staff (especially casual staff) from exceeding wages for the shift.
Fine in some metropolitan scenario when staff live 4 suburbs from their workplace. A pain in the neck in small towns, regional cities, semi-rural districts, or other occassion when staff live near to their workplace.
This provision has historically possibly the second-most breached award condition, and was one of the tangles that workchoices (now “fair work”) is designed to eradicate.
Breaching IR laws is not an option. Thus people who would otherwise have a shift miss out. Businesses that otherwise would have work done, or a customer need met, miss out.
The new awards, under Fair Work, are full of such complications. Little to no common sense went into writing them.
@Ken Miles
Thank you for the update and in particular for the attachment.
It is fair enough that a worker should know before accepting a shift the minimum number of hours that it may entail. It is also fair enough that they should be able to say no to the shift if it they are not guaranteed enough hours. However the minimum number of hours that is acceptable is an entirely personal matter. People may not like haggling with the boss but haggling is part of life. As a former small business owner I never much liked haggling with employees but sometimes they insist. Next they will wish to ban the boss from talking directly to the worker lest somebody gets offended.
Mandatory minimum work hours is monumentaly stupid.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
If everyone was independently wealthy and had no need to work except as it pleased them what you suggest would probably be fine. However, that is not the case. There is quite a difference, often, between the power of the employer and the employee in negotiations, hence, the opportunity for explotation can exist. The opportunity for people to express their views through government is something you may not like, but government and laws, including industrial law, are facts of life.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
I am not surprised that you have been a small business owner.
Tin Tin, It’s the RBA’s 50th birthday, hence all the celebrations and all the bankers here.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
I disagree. In hospitality, it is not uncommon to have wait staff come in and wait to even sign on. There are costs attached to the business of attending work that are not scaleable to the hours worked.
While there may be some justification for allowing someone who is already at work but due to finish to hang about for another 90 minutes after a crib break, I regard 3 hours as a minimum for general purposes. If the employer wants to employ the person for less than that they should either part-reimburse for travel time and cost or pay three hours.
RE 12
Alice, I have been sin binned here plenty of times in the past and when I was I did not post. John puts a lot of work into this blog and his directions should be respected for that reason.
Recently, you have resorted to specifically calling me derogative names, which for you is not usual. I bag most people and ideologies tongue in cheek and in a general sense (Iam not racist, I just hate nearly everybody) ,but I try to avoid bagging people specifically. Although sometime it does not come out that way. With Chris O’Idiot it is different as he has directly attacked me several times before, so I decided to fend of his bullying by only retorting the vile words he used on me first.; scum like him would be put on their arse in the real world very quickly.
Alice, I do not think I have specifically called you anything derogatory (that I can remember). I have had run ins with nearly everyone here, even Terje and his gun laws, nuclear position and other LDP stuff that I do not agree with, but hey there are billions of people with just as many points of view, so there is not much point worrying to much about their ‘views’, but if they want to infringe or impose on your freedom, standard of living or way of life, that is another matter.
Sure, there is an ideological divide between me and most people who blog here. That is because I left school at 14 and as such I did not get corrupted in the indoctrination centres. Some people might call me ignorant, but I feel I am an independent thinker who likes to question virtually everything. (especially the smoke and mirrors that is politics and economics as it is preached around here)
Someone has to sort the crap from clay, especially when most people follow consensuses like lemmings.
Linky poo: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-business/china-to-buy-a70b-of-australian-coal-20100206-njko.html
“Mining magnate Clive Palmer says his company has secured Australia’s biggest export deal with a $US60 billion ($A69.39 billion) agreement to sell coal to China…creating 7,500 direct jobs and 50,000 to 60,000 indirect jobs…More than 100 million extra tonnes of coal could be exported every year from Queensland with a total of $25 billion of new projects under consideration by the state government.”
Leave it to the private sector to get things moving :).
@Tony G
I recall Thomas Gray the words of :
To each his suff’rings; all are men,
Condemn’d alike to groan,—
The tender for another’s pain,
Th’ unfeeling for his own.
Yet ah! why should they know their fate,
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies?
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
’T is folly to be wise.
@Rationalist
How is China the private sector?
@Dork
yeah! except…
@gerard
still gerard – they buy their stuff at our shop.
Australians aren’t paying taxes to pay for this investment so by my definition it is the private sector :). Clive Palmer is a real mover and shaker in the modern Australian economy :).
@Tin Tin
That would be a Wunch then.
don’t ever let reality get in the way of your definitions, Rationalist.
@gerard
Irrelevant of semantics, it means a lot of Australians will become more prosperous and wealthy in the private sector and more Chinese will have access to more energy which will improve their standard of living.
Irrelevant of semantics, it means that
Clive Palmerthe Chinese government is a real mover and shaker in the modern Australian economy, without which none of this would be happening. Just pointing out that the entire premise of your “linky poo” was crap, as per usual.Terje
Haggling it not always an option for an employee. One of our boys was working in a fish and chippie for some extra pocket money and was given a shift on a Tuesday night despite previously advising the employer he couldn’t work Tuesdays because of soccer training.
His reward for haggling was the sack. That’s fine for him it was only pocket money after all, however it might be different for someone who is relying on a job to support themselves or a family.
Y’all are missing the point.
The kids WANTED to work a shift, the employer WANTED them to work that shift. The law prohibits this.
The kid’s jobs were eliminated by the new award provisions.
@Rationalist
Following your logic the Australian government is private sector too because Chinese taxpayers aren’t paying for it.
Sdfc – if it makes way for somebody that really does need the job then on balance it may be a good outcome. Of course I’d agree that it is very slack if the employer explicitly promised no shifts on Tuesdays. I’m not trying to be crass but that is the bottom line.
@Steve at the Pub
Nonsense. You are doing tendentious causal ellipsis. The kids job was “eliminated” by the determination of the employer not to pay him for the ordinary time specifed by the award. Perhaps the employer didn’t think it was worth it and will now do whatever work the kid was going to do himself.
That is a perfectly reasonable outcome, as the kid can now get a better job or at worst do something better with his time after school (his homework? socialising? Sport? chores at home?) and the employer will have a leaner operation and a better return on his investment. Everyone is a winner.
@ Fran Barlow
Nonsense yourself.
The kid’s jobs were for 1.5 hours only.
New award provisions made this illegal.
Ergo, the jobs were eliminated by the new award provisions.
Simple.
Reasonable outcome? If you consider a kid losing a job, & a business losing an employee to be “reasonable”.
There’s a very timely article in response to attempts by the Government and various commentators such as Bernard Salt to scapegoat older people for the Goverenment’s anticipated financial problems. The arrticle “Cost of housing and cost of dependency in Australia” of 6 Feb 10 by Sheila Newman shows that, in comparision to the elderly, the property ‘industry’ is a far greater burden on the rest of us.
By having caused the hyperinflation of housing costs in the last generation, they have literally driven many Australians into poverty, most of all welfare recipients including pensioners. Many, even previously prosperous Australians describe theri predicament as ‘slavery’ as a result of the inflation of housing costs.
Terje the bottom line is that the bargaining power between an employer and an employee is not always equal, especially for those workers whose skills are not particularly highly valued by the market.
@ sdfc, and the bargaining power isn’t always with the employer, especially for those who require skills that are in shortage, or are in a geographic area of acute labour shortage.
That aside, it is not an issue in the matter raised by Terje. Employer and employees were both perfectly happy with the bargain, until the new award stepped in & made the bargain illegal.
@Steve at the Pub
The kid hasn’t lost a job so much as gained an opportunity to do something better. A reasonable outcome. If he/she uses the time to study a bit harder or to improve his or her fitness, that will be worth a lot more than the net advantage of 90 minutes work however many times each week it was.
Just checking out the quote thingy Steve.
I agree on the face of it that case is reveals a huge flaw in the legislation but in this case we are talking about after school work after all. It becomes a little more complicated when we deal with adults and ascertaining who isn’t and who is being exploited.
Do I know the answer? No.
My comment was in response to Terje’s about haggling.
Left wing centralised bureaucracies encouraging the youth of the nation to abandon an honest job and take up burdensome humanities subjects to become socialised academics in public institutions.
It is effective policy to squeeze the work ethic out of the youth at a young age, setting them up to aim low in a poorly paid public sector or educational role.
Rationalist I believe this country will not achieve greatness until every kiddie has their own coal boiler. That 100 million tonnes is peanuts compared to China’s annual consumption of 2,500 mt. China leaned on Vietnam to send it coal til they squeaked now they are casting their net wider. Could there be a problem?
@Hermit
Looking good: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/USEIA_world_coal_projection.jpg
Fran – the kid has lost a job and an opportunity. It is one thing to accept this as the price of your prefered regulation, it is quite another to dress it up as a good outcome. It simply isn’t.
@Fran Barlow
“The kid hasn’t lost a job so much as gained an opportunity to do something better.”
Disguised broken window fallacy.
The kids had obviously decided that the job WAS the better option out of all their choices. That they can now do their second-best option is not an optimal outcome – it’s a net loss to society.