![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, for a change, the Iz decided to do something instead of just ranting. Any of you folks can guess just what a supreme effort it was for this insidious serpent to resort to using a certain pronoun. Most nasty and tricksy indeed. But with a bit of effort, we managed to get there in the end
I am writing to express my concern about the proposed industrial relations laws. At present I work in a field where employees have no bargaining power and are heavily reliant on evening and weekend penalty rates in order to compensate for the low basic wage.
At present our employer has taken on several overseas trainees at very low wages and is giving them most of the shifts attracting the higher penalty rates. They are also working many double shifts. Many of the regular staff have lost hours due to this and when they complain are told "That's just the way it is. If you don't like it you can go somewhere else"
In effect, people are too scared to stand up for rights while they still have them. Once the new laws come in, the recent refusal by some of us to do night shifts that we were rostered on to do with no consultation at all may result in us being sacked. There will be a culture of fear and self censorship and no one will dare raise issues of occupational health and saftety.
Another consequence of the drastic reduction of unfair dismissal protection which has been hardly discussed is the effect it has workers who want to buy a house or have children. These are such long term commitments. With no job security at all in future, it is possible that banks may refuse to make loans to those working in places with less than 100 employees or may compensate for the increased risk by higher interest rates or lower loan amounts. This and the removal of shift penalties makes it even harder for lower paid workers to enter the housing market than it is already.
The devious averaging out the 38 hour working week over the year is also an insidious means of removing overtime. While most employers - out of enlightened self interest (if not common decency) would not expect their workers to clock up 76 hours for 25 weeks of the year and then no hours at all for the remaining 27 weeks (will the Tax office also allow averaging of hours over the entire year?)the fact that it remains a possibility means that some one some where will try it.
Those employers who do not resort to such tactics will be undercut by those that do in a race to the bottom.
Thanking you for your consideration of my submission
(Thank God for the Internet thinks Izzie. It may not do any good but at least we got it sent. If we had to go through the ritual of writing the damn thing, putting it in an envelope and finding a post box - Christmas would be come and gone and nothing done)
Oh and for any other Aussies who want to add their 30 silver sickles worth - here is the Portkey to the Site.
I am writing to express my concern about the proposed industrial relations laws. At present I work in a field where employees have no bargaining power and are heavily reliant on evening and weekend penalty rates in order to compensate for the low basic wage.
At present our employer has taken on several overseas trainees at very low wages and is giving them most of the shifts attracting the higher penalty rates. They are also working many double shifts. Many of the regular staff have lost hours due to this and when they complain are told "That's just the way it is. If you don't like it you can go somewhere else"
In effect, people are too scared to stand up for rights while they still have them. Once the new laws come in, the recent refusal by some of us to do night shifts that we were rostered on to do with no consultation at all may result in us being sacked. There will be a culture of fear and self censorship and no one will dare raise issues of occupational health and saftety.
Another consequence of the drastic reduction of unfair dismissal protection which has been hardly discussed is the effect it has workers who want to buy a house or have children. These are such long term commitments. With no job security at all in future, it is possible that banks may refuse to make loans to those working in places with less than 100 employees or may compensate for the increased risk by higher interest rates or lower loan amounts. This and the removal of shift penalties makes it even harder for lower paid workers to enter the housing market than it is already.
The devious averaging out the 38 hour working week over the year is also an insidious means of removing overtime. While most employers - out of enlightened self interest (if not common decency) would not expect their workers to clock up 76 hours for 25 weeks of the year and then no hours at all for the remaining 27 weeks (will the Tax office also allow averaging of hours over the entire year?)the fact that it remains a possibility means that some one some where will try it.
Those employers who do not resort to such tactics will be undercut by those that do in a race to the bottom.
Thanking you for your consideration of my submission
(Thank God for the Internet thinks Izzie. It may not do any good but at least we got it sent. If we had to go through the ritual of writing the damn thing, putting it in an envelope and finding a post box - Christmas would be come and gone and nothing done)
Oh and for any other Aussies who want to add their 30 silver sickles worth - here is the Portkey to the Site.
