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”

"Above all, abortion was a personal issue.  I mean these things in the end ought to be matters between individuals and medical advisers." – John HoWARd.

The Democrats, specifically their leader senator Lyn Allison is not alone in her request to have Mifepristone made available to Australian women outside the current arrangement which involves a direct request to the Health Minister Tony "too many abortions" Abbott.

Respected obstetrician Professor Caroline de Costa of James Cook University has come out in support of the proposal saying that legalising the drug would overcome the inequities Australian women faced in getting abortions.

"For many women the privacy and relative lack of invasion compared to a surgical abortion is something they appreciate. It is critical for many women in rural areas and women in some ethnic groups whose access to surgical abortion is limited."

Mifepristone, formerly known as RU-486, is a synthetic steroid that can be used to bring on a miscarriage when taken in conjunction with prostaglandins, hormone-like substances, until about the ninth week of pregnancy. Whereas surgical abortion involves a general anaesthetic and a stay in hospital, with mifepristone women can take the pill and recover in their homes.

Two men are standing squarely in the way of choice for thousands of women. They are senator Ron Boswell (Nationals) and senator Steve Fielding (Family First).

Image from here

Our Prime Minister has, in two paragraphs, revealed exactly how very little he knows or cares about Industrial Relations law in the sense of a non-hostile work environment. Speaking in Perth, Howard said

“I was able to talk in detail about the weaknesses of the present unfair dismissal laws and how they’re a burden on small business in particular, how they discourage small business from employing staff and how they really make a lot of hard-working staff in small firms cranky.”

“If you’re living in a small business environment and you’ve got five or eight people in an office or workshop and one of them is a pain in the neck and making life difficult for everybody else, it’s the workers, in many cases, more than the boss that would like to see the back of him.”

In a workplace there is always going to be a level of diversity within staff. In fact many workplaces celebrate and respect EEO principles.

In this one sentence HoWARd has shown us how he really thinks and how stuck in his thinking he is. A slip-up for a usually slick operator.

HoWARd, as an employer, would take no responsibly for the decision that the selection panel made or for their lack of/due diligence in checking qualifications or contacting referees. He would take no responsibility for a probation period and the sorts of issues that are often sorted out in that time via flexibility on both sides. He lacks the imagination for his workplace developing a mentoring program (similar to what happens in a trade). He would do nothing to foster esprit de corps and probably thinks it is unnecessary. HoWARd, uninspiring, unethical and likely illegal in his management style.

HoWARd probably doesn’t like the following paragraph protecting workers from bullying and harassment in his Public Service,

“Employers have to take all reasonably practicable steps to protect the health and safety of employees at work under the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment)Act 1991. An employer who fails to take reasonably practicable precautions to prevent workplace harassment from occurring, or who fails to deal promptly and effectively with any complaint of harassment, may be in breach of an employer’s duty of care to employees. – Australian Government, Australian Public Service Commission.”

HoWARd’s statement would be defined as workplace harassment under current OH&S legislation.

Ex-IRC judge Paul Munro puts it best,

“If there’s any unfair dismissal going on in this country at present it’s the PM’s dismissal of an institution that has served the country well.”

Image from here