IR litmus test that never happened
The Cowra meatworks case has proved to be a frustration. Initially, 29 were fired, and 20 jobs were on offer, with salaries of $200 a week less. Unions were up in arms, and the case got heaps of publicity. It was going to be the first test on the interpretation of the new Laws. The company had more than 100 staff, so theoretically, they shouldn't be able to fire without reason.
Then Kevin Andrews sent in Officers from the Workplace Advocate. Suddenly, a few hours later, the company reversed it's position - the jobs were to stay (although the pay packets were to be re-negotiated.
What is frustrating, is that Kevin Andrews refuses to say whether the actions would have been allowed under the new system. Moreover, the case never went to court for the laws to be properly interpreted. We still don't know just what is possible for employers.
A the heart of this, is that there is a potential for companies to site "Operational Reasons" for termination, if they have more that 100 workers. Now, what defines operational reasons? There is no clear information from the goverment on this - rather they say "you can't just sack workers willy-nilly". Thats not a whole heap of comfort. And who will question a company as to what the exact 'Operational Reasons' are? Certainly, initially, there will be a great deal of media scrutiny, but once the fuss dies down - who is watching the companies?
I have read many comments by those on the SMH opinion posts, saying that if you are a good worker, you're fine. You'll only go if your not good. These people must be living with their heads up their butts. You might be an excellent worker in a company of less that 100. But you disagree with your boss. How long do you think you will last, if the boss decides he doesn't like the way you are interfering with his power structure? Sure - economic conditions are good now - so it is true that it is a worker' market. But we don't make policy to suit current conditions only. Should there be an economic crash, this will really bite. And after a precedent of such high profit levels, companies will be under pressure to maintain these. Culling workers is an easy way of restoring profit.
Then Kevin Andrews sent in Officers from the Workplace Advocate. Suddenly, a few hours later, the company reversed it's position - the jobs were to stay (although the pay packets were to be re-negotiated.
What is frustrating, is that Kevin Andrews refuses to say whether the actions would have been allowed under the new system. Moreover, the case never went to court for the laws to be properly interpreted. We still don't know just what is possible for employers.
A the heart of this, is that there is a potential for companies to site "Operational Reasons" for termination, if they have more that 100 workers. Now, what defines operational reasons? There is no clear information from the goverment on this - rather they say "you can't just sack workers willy-nilly". Thats not a whole heap of comfort. And who will question a company as to what the exact 'Operational Reasons' are? Certainly, initially, there will be a great deal of media scrutiny, but once the fuss dies down - who is watching the companies?
I have read many comments by those on the SMH opinion posts, saying that if you are a good worker, you're fine. You'll only go if your not good. These people must be living with their heads up their butts. You might be an excellent worker in a company of less that 100. But you disagree with your boss. How long do you think you will last, if the boss decides he doesn't like the way you are interfering with his power structure? Sure - economic conditions are good now - so it is true that it is a worker' market. But we don't make policy to suit current conditions only. Should there be an economic crash, this will really bite. And after a precedent of such high profit levels, companies will be under pressure to maintain these. Culling workers is an easy way of restoring profit.
Post a Comment