Via RED RAG

Cameron Meadows a worker who appears in the WorkChoices advertisement, said he was misled into believing the ads were about health and safety. There is no health and safety message in these ads, in fact the changes the government is proposing are a direct threat to a worker’s mental health, as they will be forced to negotiate a work/life balance.

A spokesman for the Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews says the worker signed a release so his image could be used in an advertising campaign. Andrew’s position is therefore ‘no rights, you signed, fuck off.’
This is indicative of the spirit and intent of WorkChoices.

If this is how the government does business under current legislation, how much more common will the phrase “worker feels used and underpaid” become?

Image from here

Former Veterans Affairs Minister Danna Vale has a novel, bold plan. She wants to bring Gallipoli to Australia, replicated in a memorial park on Victoria’s Mornington Peninsula.

"[But you could re-create the site] for educational opportunities for young children and schools to visit, and for veterans to have as a memorial site at appropriate occasions." – Danna Vale.

I’m amazed that the PM is against her idea. This from a man who is flogging WorkChoices, which will not guarentee the Anzac day (or christmas) public holiday. Under HoWARd’s WorkChoices, the reality of Australians taking a long weekend is as fake as Gallipoli Victoria would be.

Let’s put on our disruptive patterns, be inspired by the Anzac spirit and defeat the enemy sneakily parading as WorkChoices.

 
Image from here  

How does HoWARd deal with hundreds of frontline workers including Nurses, Firefighters, Police and Teachers protesting against his IR changes outside a business lunch at Wollongong today?
He ignores them.

"It’s indicative of John Howard’s priority in life that when John Howard comes to Wollongong he refuses to meet a delegation of emergency service workers.  [These are] people who work seven days a week, 365 days a year, doing some of the hardest slog to keep this community going." -Firefighters’ union Illawarra secretary Mark Paloff.

Image from here  

From today’s Age,

"Q. HOW can a worker have any bargaining power with their employer if the employer can sack them at will? It seems that if the employee doesn’t accept the terms, the employer can simply find someone who will. How does the employee or job candidate hold any power in the negotiation?"

"A. ULTIMATELY, a worker’s bargaining power is their power to quit. You will have power in the negotiation if the employer fears losing you and having to find someone else who would give less value for money.
That could become more significant in the long term as the job market tightens. But it will be mainly in big cities, and for younger, childless workers with less to lose in gambling on finding a new job.
It is illegal for employers to sack workers for refusing to sign an agreement. In law, you are able to say no.
If you are sacked, you can go to the Industrial Relations Commission to seek reinstatement, but it can only mediate. In the end, sacked workers can enforce the law only by a costly court case. Few have tried.
The Government will offer sacked workers up to $4000 of legal advice to explore their options if the commission says their claim has merit. But that would not pay for the court case."

Our WorkChoices are related to how much value for money we represent.  Will a scale be set up to assign points to these values?

1. No children under five = 10 bonus points.  
2. Not caring for elderly parent = 15 bonus points
3. Stay at home partner = 20 bonus points
4. No dependents = 50 bonus points
5. Union member = 5 negative points     

Our WurkRites™ come down to the right to quit.

My Sociology lecturer liked to say,

"the rich are also free to rummage through the garbage bins for food…"  

Image from here   

Today HoWARd and Andrews released feel-good ads and information regarding ‘WorkChoices – A New Workplace Relations System’

Deep down in the document is a worrying paragraph for an old cynic like me.

“Unfair dismissal laws cost Australian workers jobs. That is why the Australian Government will exempt businesses that employ up to and including 100 employees from unfair dismissal laws. In a business with more than 100 employees, an employee must work six months before they are able to claim unfair dismissal.”

Most full time positions have a period of probation usually lasting 12 weeks. It represents a reasonable timeframe for an employee to decide if the employer is right for them and vice versa. If I was a probationer do I interpret WorkChoices as advocating for probation to be extended to more than 12 weeks? Or does it mean that a probation period will not be worth the stress and uncertainty that it can so often be as at the end of 12 weeks an offer of permanent employment is no guarantee of ongoing employment. Only at the completion of six months can WorkChoices cover a worker new to the enterprise.

Will we be seeing a new form of casual worker? The worker who is employed with the expectation of permanent employment, works diligently for 23.5 weeks and then is “let go.” I wonder what the financial, physical and mental health implications of a fair dismissal might be?

I would rather the government spend the reported $12 million $15 million $40 million $55 million the WorkChoices advertising campaign is going to cost on mental health services for all the physically and psychologically hurt workers of today (and no doubt) the future.

Workchoices is skewed toward the employer and against the employee.
I suspect HoWARd subscribes to the Henry Ford school of logic,

“Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black”