Work+Choices

__What were the main tenets of Work Choices? Why was it so controversial?__  One of the main tenets or ideas of work choices includes the ability to tailor an agreement between you and your boss to suit your needs, allowing flexability. This was controversial in the sence that, many people working in a similar occupations may not have been able to construct an agreement which was as flexible and ideal. Although flexability comes as a response to work choices, this felxability is usually only for the employers, who gain the abilty to work their employees for longer amouns of time, reduce their overtime and send workers home when no work is available. Work choices allow some employees to determine their start and finishing times, but this is a controversial point. Although thieir working hours may be shortened, the productivity of the employees must remain at the same level. This can often lead to employees becoming over worked. - Gabby :) The tenets of work choices is basically being able to make agreements between you and your boss to allow you to choose your hours or things similar to that, this creates an understanding between you and your boss. This was controversial in a way because not all employers were allowing there employees the same flexability. With employees choosing there own hours which often are shortened they have to do the same amount of work in less time which can cause employees to be over worked and this is mainly what was so controversial about work choices.

-phillie <3

From article [|The work choices bill and its critics.] http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5115794/The-work-choices-bill-and.html

Article Excerpt TWO THINGS are particularly disappointing about recent commentary in response to the release of the government's Work Choices bill. The first is the lack of balance in the academic "discussion", and the second is the rather poor level of the criticism that has been levelled against the bill generally. One gets the feeling that in a desperate flurry to try and find something (anything!) to criticise, the bottom of the barrel is well and truly being scraped.

Many of the criticisms of the bill are misleading. There has been little effort by academic critics to show that there are two sides to debates about many aspects of the bill. One would have hoped that academic (and other) critics--most of whom are lawyers--would have followed the tenets of their craft and presented all of the precedents to the court of public opinion and only then attempted to discredit those that did not suit their case. Instead, there has been a consistent failure even to attempt to engage with the arguments in favour of some of the reforms in the bill, and a rhetorical presentation of very narrow sets of facts, buffered with a great number of untested assumptions or crudely stated and inaccurate presumptions, meant clearly to demonise even quite unexceptionable aspects of the bill.

What follows is an examination of some of the critics and criticism of the Work Choices bill reported by Workplace Express over a week in late October and early November.

ONE OF THE MAJOR criticisms is that it is a further attempt to erode unions' power. But it should be no great revelation that a non-Labor government would want to limit the power of organisations that are, in its view, becoming increasingly anachronistic.

An example of this criticism can be found in a short piece by Monash academic Anthony Forsythe, who made the claim that Work Choices did not deliver flexibility or workplace-based solutions to industrial disputes because it further restricted when unions could be involved in those disputes.

The simple fact is that under the old system, unions could interfere in workplace disputes as a party even if they had no members in that workplace at all--at a minimum all they needed was the right to have as a member at least one employee. So unions could (and did) intervene in workplaces where no one at all (not the employer, and not a single employee) wanted them to.

The argument that in certain circumstances a body whom no one wants involved should not be allowed to be involved, then, is not really in favour of a reduction of flexibility--it is a freeing up of a situation to allow the parties to come to an agreement they actually agree on. This is not skewing the bargaining process in favour of employers. The changes in Work Choices are extensions of the restrictions that are meant to limit things like this--and yes, they are restrictions on unions' powers, but in the light of the above they take on a different appearance.

There is a debate to be had, still, on how inequality of bargaining power (if such an imbalance exists) should be addressed in workplace negotiations, but the criticisms levelled by Forsythe paint a misleading picture of a complex situation.

It is not a particularly important criticism to make that union powers will be weakened by the...  Work choices have caused a lot of controversy among employees when it celebrated its one year anniversary. Many of the workers have experienced unfair dismissal, reduced work conditions and been coerced into individual agreements, while employers had complained of the lack of information about Work Choices. This is not what they had in mind, they wanted a fairer environment to work, and instead this is what they received.  Hundreds of calls were made to the Fair Go Queensland Advisory Service and Wageline with more than 700 claims of pay rip offs being made and forwarded to the Office of Workplace Services during the first year. Mr Mickel said Queensland had legislated to protect young workers and public servants and ordered an inquiry into gender pay equity and an Industrial Relations Commission review of the new laws, as well as setting up the info lines. But is he really doing what he promised? http://www.dtrdi.qld.gov.au/dsdweb/v3/guis/templates/content/gui_cue_cntnhtml.cfm?id=51073

It seems that the work choice unions are coming to and end but ACTU President Sharan Burrow today said: ” Work Choices is far from dead and AWAs are far from gone.”  Tens of thousands of workers will be left stranded on work contracts that strip them of penalty rates, overtime and public holiday pay with no compensation, despite Prime Minister John Howard's move to soften his controversial WorkChoices laws.  Pathetic effort, no wonder the Work choice is so controversial the main ideas don’t work!  -Kate one of the main tenets were to hand all employers the ability to dictate wages and conditions, and the gradual destruction of the right to bargain collectively. Australian Fair Pay and Condition Standard matters still required to be included in all employment conditions:


 * Hours of work.
 * Minimum rates of pay.
 * Annual leave, including two weeks cashing out option.
 * Personal/carers leave entitlements.
 * Parental leave.

Entitlements to public holidays, notice of termination and long service leave also contained in other parts of the Workplace Relations Act.

The Coalition will also now require all collective agreements, and all individual agreements covering employees earning less than $75,000 a year, to be tested against the list of protected award conditions, including:


 * Penalty rates.
 * Shift/overtime rates.
 * Allowances.
 * Leave loadings.
 * Public holiday entitlements.
 * Rest breaks.
 * Incentive-based payments/bonuses.

These are to be “assessed through a fairness test that will guarantee that entitlements are not traded off without adequate compensation”.

Agreements will still operate from date of lodgement but will be subject to assessment through the fairness test process carried out by the Workplace Authority.

Unfair dismissal access will continue to be limited to employees in businesses employing more than 100 employees, and then only available after a six-month qualifying period.

The good times are not just set to keep rolling – they are set to significantly improve. In the last few weeks, several surveys have reported that business expectations for growth in sales and profits are up. Now the Dunn & Bradstreet business expectations survey predicts more good news. Expectations for growth in profits, employment and inventories for the September quarter 2007 is positive for the first time in five quarters. Also expectations for growth in sales and capital investments have taken a strong upswing. Better still, factors that have been putting pressure on businesses, including inflation and petrol prices, are beginning to ease. And if Treasurer Peter Costello wants to gee-up businesses even more, then tomorrow’s budget will give him the opportunity. Almost half of the executives indicate that reducing company tax rates would have a significant positive impact on their business. In further signs that inflationary pressure is easing, only 50% of executives anticipate higher selling prices in the September quarter than a year earlier. http://www.smartcompany.com.au/Free-Articles/The-Briefing/IR-brings-left-and-right-into-centre-Tax-cuts-wanted-broadband-direction-needed-but-will-budget-deliver-Bank-mergers-a-turnoff-Inner-city-trends-push.html T o m
 * Good times may get better**