no IR for Family First
The gap between the federal government and Family First widens as Family First senator Steve Fielding states that he will vote against the IR changes because they do not protect overtime and public holidays, thereby undermining the family life. This of course puts the ball firmly in the court of everybody’s favourite court jester, Barnaby Joyce. Barnaby, who is rapidly becoming the most annoying independent MP to actually be a part of the coalition, is being urged by unions to vote against the changes.
Interestingly, I read an article recently about how Fielding and Joyce have both been assigned offices in the equivalent of the basement of parliament house - at the far end of the building. I imagine that the carpet is nonetheless wearing thin on the path to those offices.
I am watching with interest as to how the IR war plays out. It seems clear that those in low-skilled jobs who are easily replaced are the ones most at risk from this sort of “bargaining” and the repeal of unfair dismissal laws. It is inevitable that the bill will pass into law (if they can pass the terror legislation over the top of a coalition led committee recommendations, then this should be a cake walk). However, I can’t help but think that they are likely to dodge the bullet politically when the excrement hits the fan. With many workers remaining under awards which do not expire for another couple of years, the impact of the changes is unlikely to be immediate.
And yet it is worrying. I don’t work in the area but I was giving some advice to a small manufacturing company a while ago which was considering a corporate restructure. They asked if I knew anything about the changes, because they were hoping it would enable them to strip benefits from their employees so as to help their bottom line.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:02 am
Imagine politicians who allege they a christians who produce laws that will enable people to be tempted to reduce conditions!
Obviously no-one has ever done a bible study on Amos,micah, Hoseah etc
December 1st, 2005 at 10:28 am
The government clearly thought that Family First would be easier to deal with than the Dems so they wheeled out the Family Impact Statement promise, which they promptly dumped as soon as they were in office.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:07 am
“that will enable peple to be tempted to reduce conditions”
what does that mean?
the rev
December 1st, 2005 at 11:35 am
it means employers will be tempted to reduce workers conditions.
Politically social conservatives will oppose this.
I don’t think howard realises this
December 1st, 2005 at 11:52 am
I think employers are all ready tempted to do this, its called greed, I hope the government of the people will not allow this to be compromised, but I suspect they will.
Power corrupts, the rich get richer the poor get poorer
the rev
December 1st, 2005 at 1:23 pm
incorrect assumption.
greed is actually not good for either the captialist system as a whole or a company.
In essence if you desire too much money you invest in questionable projects.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:47 pm
homer, my experience is not good as far as asking you to back up your assertions - you seem to generally ignore such questions.
however i’m going to try anyway
can you please tell me why it is that you think that “if you desire too much money you invest in questionable projects”, and why it is that “greed is actually not good for either the capitalist system as a whole or a company”?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Yes it is incorrect to assume that greed motivates people to lower the wages and benefits of workers to increase profit margins, it might be spite, hatred, or just plain meaness. But, I think I will stick with my assumption, as incorrect as it may seem, it actually makes sense in a weird sort of logical way.
the rev
December 1st, 2005 at 2:37 pm
Here are some amusing contributions at the news.com.au website from employees and employers about their worst bosses, and their worst workers.
Bad boss stories
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17401338-37435,00.html
Bad employee stories
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17424157-37435,00.html
Lance.
December 1st, 2005 at 8:05 pm
My dearest Bec, Try reading Kindleberger classic book on bubbles. Trvor Sykers the bold Riders (?) is a good
OZ book.
bubbles eventuate when people have greed in their nostrils.
What usually eventuates after one is a depression ( see 1890’s and 1930’s for OZ) or even a severe recession ( the recession we had to have).
People go after ‘easy’ money and eventually the roundabout stops.
The Banks in the late 80s were a good example of greed overcoming sound analysis with their assets accelerating , in property, which came back to hit their bottom lines very hard.
The funny thing is it always comes around.
December 1st, 2005 at 8:24 pm
What does that have to do with employers screwing over their employees? Why would they do this for any reason other than greed?
the rev
December 2nd, 2005 at 9:16 am
its the same motivation Rev.
Short-termism is always bad for business.
The same factor that makes a person reduce conditions for workers which means he sees them as expenses not assets will invest in questionable projects because of ‘exceptional’ returns.
risk/reward is what capitalism is all about unfortunately these type of people forget about risk
December 2nd, 2005 at 10:34 am
Thanks dan for raising the issue.The debate shows a number of things:Fielding is a whole lot smarter than santa barnaby.
Heres the scene- say to your boss I’m not prepared to work on xmas day(one of the “iconic” days!) unless I’m paid penalty rates; you’re fired(less than a 100 in the workplace);OK I’ll take you to court - min $30000!As with telstra poor old barnaby has been sold a pup.
But the debate raises wider issues which need debate:for example whether or not you agree with church leaders there has been a serious attempt to link theology and the workplace.Secondly,many of the churches which are now major employers took their responsibilities seriously and made their views known(the church we belong to dan refrained).And finally when politicians stand and proclaim their faith on “family” and “antiabortion” and other “personal” morality and ethical issues they need to be challenged particularly those in govt who supported the intro of nearly 2000 pages of legislation and explanatory docs,a week for the community to respond and then gagged deabte as hundreds of ammendments were intro in the dying hours of parliament.There are other dimensions which a disciple cant ignore. Not too much of love,righteousness and the kingdom there.
December 2nd, 2005 at 11:48 am
Homer, your analysis is flawed. You suggest that greed only equates with “short term” money making. But why are these speculative short term ventures not ultimately in the interest of the company/business - because they impact on long term money making.
The for profit corporation in particular is an entity which is required to work towards profit. The failure to do so can make directors liable for breach of their duties. The only function of the board of directors is (when you boil it right down) to make money for the company. I would said that long term greed is still greed.
This is why the change in regulation can be so important. Corporations (in particular) are required to exploit the regulation in whatever makes the best economic outcome. Partnerships and smaller businesses are required to do the same in order to compete - and the market races to the lowest common denominator position. Now, we may agree or disagree that this change is a good thing for the economy but there can be no argument that employers will use the legislation to advance their economic interests in favour of the interests of the employees.
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:24 pm
No Dan, maximising profits is not synomous with greed.
It when a company ( or workers going for wages for that matter) go beyond that when trouble starts.
That is why we in essense get recessions and then recoveries.
the lower common denominator doesn’t make sense because if the firm isthat labour intensive it shouldn’t be in Australia it should be in China.
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Homer, I don’t appreciate patronising people at any time.
I appreciate them even less when they can’t actually back up their arguments.
Do you know about Starbucks peppering policy? If so, explain how that has worked to the detriment of Starbucks.
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:26 pm
ever sso sorry Bec when did I do that.
The only ting I know about Starbucks is thay don’t make much money in Australia because we appreciate good coffee!
December 2nd, 2005 at 2:26 pm
“My dearest Bec, Try reading Kindleberger classic book on bubbles”……did you really not mean that to be patronising??!
I first became familiar with Starbucks policies via Naomi Klein’s “No Logo”. Now I know you’ll think this is a left-wing text, but I disagree.
I actually think Klein came up with quite a new way of looking at things (and I liked it at the time because it was a very ‘geographical’ approach, and I’m a geography grad). In the US (I think I read that Australian law prevents such practices), Starbucks “invades” a new area by basically opening as many stores as it can, purposefully flooding the market The do so knowing that some will go under, but the corporate structure ensures that it’s the little guys that run the stores that lose out, not “Starbucks” per se. The loss of a few Starbucks stores here and there doesn’t hurt Starbucks proper, and all the other family-owned businesses are closed down due to flooding the market and competition.
As I said, I think I remember reading that this wasn’t possible in Australia for legal reasons - ie re: franchises etc.
In this case greed seems to have worked for Starbucks.
It seems to have worked for Nike too - despite appalling conditions in many factories (I know, I know, they just contract wiht those factories and they don’t have any control over the conditions…I don’t buy that!), they’re doing pretty well!
December 2nd, 2005 at 2:37 pm
It wasn’t meant to so apolgoies for the writing style but it is a very good if old book. It does show what comes round goes round.
Starbucks coffee isn’t that good and people in australia were used to better coffee however in the USA they aren’t.
December 2nd, 2005 at 3:23 pm
Bec,
I have just read a very goo paper by john Humphreys from the Centre for Independent Studies.
It is called Perpectives on Tax Reform CIS policy monograph 70 and he goes into the machinations of the minimum wage we were talking about recetly . He has plenty of references I have read previously.
A good one to read and only just out.
Only about 27 pages
December 2nd, 2005 at 3:34 pm
not generally a fan of the Centre for Right Wing Studies Homer.
Surely you coulda figured that out!!
I’ve read and still read loads of their papers. I can’t say I generally find myself persuaded by their conclusions OR methodologies.
December 2nd, 2005 at 3:36 pm
sorry Homer, just saw your first post (at #19). No worries.
I don’t think that taste in coffee in anyway excuses business policies that exploit power.
That’s like saying that it makes it ok to have bad business practices, because oh hey, you’ll fail if you have a bad product.
December 2nd, 2005 at 3:41 pm
Didn’t think you would like the conclusions but john gives up to date research re minmum wages
December 5th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
As a CIS associate (who has been published twice through them), I will vouch for their extremely high intellectual standards! It is no mistake that they have had bipartisan engagement and support on several issues. In fact, it is really the only think tank in the country that has attracted more than a modicum of interest from all sides of politics (bar the marginal Greens and the ALP Left).
June 9th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
For anyone interested on the Central Coast:
http://gregtheexplorer.wordpress.com/2006/06/09/your-rights-at-work/
Cafe Conversation Sunday 18th - Youir Rights at Work - Does God think they’re worth fighting for?
June 9th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
I just read this thread and must agree with many of Homer’s arguments.
In my role working for the corporate regulator, investigating and prosecuting breaches of the corporations law and general criminal laws, I have often seen how greed works to the detriment of society and to the detriment of our financial markets. In fact, we found that greed was one factor which lead otherwise clever people to put aside prudence and take unnecessary risks. Of course, the risks we looked at were those that ended up in their money being stolen by unscrupulous people. That does the system no good whatsoever. Hence, ASIC’s line “If it looks too good to be true, it probably is”.
Also, the short termism argument is an important one in terms of the understanding the obligations of company directors. Dan rightly points out that, technically, the ultimate obligation of company directors is to the shareholders. Usually, what the shareholders require is profit. It is not right, however, to assume that :
a) greed always leads to maximised profit (for the reasons stated above); or
b) profit is the only goal of shareholders and therefore the only obligation of directors.
Our society has further expectations of companies. In return for the privileges accorded to a company allowed to operate in this jurisidiction, we expect them to operate with some degree of social responsibility. Just ask James Hardie if that isn’t true! Short termism caused its directors to make decisions to maximise profit (by avoiding responsibility to pay out mesothelioma claimants) that, ultimately, came back to bite them. It became a financial nightmare for James Hardie, affecting its share price negatively, as well is its image within the community, because the Australian community was not prepared to allow its greed to operate to avoid legal/ethical obligations to former employees injured while working for the company.
Unfortunately, short termism in public companies is often manifest in decisions to maximise the share price. Sometimes directors even cross the line and act illegally in order to maximise the share price. Illegal activity (such as not making full disclosure of price sensitive information) may have a wider impact than just on the company itself. It damages investor confidence in the integrity of our financial markets. Without investor confidence, Australia cannot attract investment. So, ultimately, the Australian financial markets depend on company directors acting with integrity and not allowing greed to have full reign.
Further, the share price is not always a true indication of the health of a company. Decisions to take a hit on share price in order to ensure the longevity and productivity of a company require a medium to long term view. Again, the Australian community needs companies that are productive, not like many of the dot-com companies. We all remember how speculative investment in the dot-coms came crashing down and, ultimately, a recession in many western countries.
Homer is spot on in saying that companies need to view their employees as assets, not liabilities. Those that treat employees with respect and loyalty breed respect and loyalty in return. Failing to do so can result in significant costs as a result of absences, sickness, lack of productivity and staff turnover - all very expensive. Yet, still some employers can’t see this. Hence the need for IR laws that restrain the greed and ignorance of some.