Anyway though, that's not why I decided to post today (or I found a few minutes during the first lunch break I've had in about 2 weeks)... And it's about the Work Choices legislation that the Howard government has put in place. I must let you know, that what I am about to say comes from a COMPLETELY lay persons perspective, meaning that my source(s) are the media, largely from people for and against the new legislation. But I think that the points are valid because I assume that the majority of voters are in my shoes, ie not about to read the actual document etc. I am also not taking sides because I don't know what the opposition has proposed.
From my limited understanding, Work Choices gives the employee the right to bargain for better working conditions with their employer on an individual basis, and also the removal of unfair dismissal laws. This gets around the Union movements. BUT, the opposition has asked what is there in place to stop the employer from screwing over the employee by first firing them (removal of unfair dismissal laws) and then offering them their same jobs at a lower wage with reduced benefits etc? I think that this is a fair question. The opposition has made several TV adds with this effect, where there is a woman who is being forced to work overtime despite not having to previously because she is taking care of the kids. You know the type of ad, a sob story. But the question is put forth.
To combat this, the Howard administration has done a big media campaign in favor of the Work Choices legislation saying that people under 18 won't be ripped off by employers because they will need the parent or guardian's signature on the contract as well... And that adult workers will still have holidays, overtime pay etc etc... Pretty much saying that "It's the law" for employers to abide by the working contract. But (me and Rebecca) don't really see how this answers the questions put forth by the opposition: Can you be fired and then asked to sign a contract for lower wages etc?
By saying that a kid can't get ripped off because a parent needs to approve the contract prior blindsides the issue. If the employer is offering a really low wage, and the parent doesn't like it, the kid doesn't work, and the employer will eventually find someone who will fill the role. So some kid, somewhere gets to work at this crap wage because it was a job. In a capitalist society, doesn't the employer hire the worker who'll accept the lower wage. But then this leaves the kid who didn't take the job, out of a job, and making no money as opposed to a little bit.
I guess simply what I'm trying to say is that of course an employer has honour a contract, "it's the law" but with the contents of the contract under no legislation, who's to stop an employer from offering sub-standard working conditions within the contract.
I think that this model works well where there is a large surplus of jobs, but as soon as you get more than one person vying for the same job, the wages and working conditions are pushed down because it is in the employers best (profit-wise) interests to hire the person who'll accept the lowest wage.
I anyone knows more about this system, please feel free to comment on it, as I may be wrong, but this question is in the heads of a lot of people and could mean a loss for the Howard government in the upcoming election.
In all fairness though, the official web-site for Work Choices is HERE, and the offical web-site against Work Choices is HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment