Tampilkan postingan dengan label employer. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label employer. Tampilkan semua postingan

Minggu, 11 Juli 2010

The Labor Government Should Regulate to Reduce Casual Contracts

Why doesn't Labor really help workers? The present government brought in a new employment system but it still allows companies to employ people on a casual basis. This pillar of John Howard's Work Choices continues. While employers can retain the services of people casually unions have no power to protect them. A recent example is a person employed permanently by Coles. The manager told the worker he was stupid and tried to press him into leaving voluntarily. When the downcast worker refused he was put on a casual contract and the hours offered per week diminished to such a low level that he had to find work elsewhere to feed himself.

Casual employees are supposed to be paid a higher hourly rate to cover annual leave, bank holidays and paid sick days, yet there are no clear laws setting such rates. The contract is really a bond for employers to "use" cheap labor. It ties the worker, not the employer.

Those working in shops are largely on casual contracts, 44 per cent. If laws gave them the choice these workers would jump at secure employment. Companies benefit financially from this system. The amount of labor required to meet market demand can be controlled absolutely. As demand falls so hours offered for work is reduced. This is heaven for companies with a tight profit margin such as retail. Companies say they would pay for holidays and sick leave if they could. This is an admission that they "do not" pay.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rabu, 24 Februari 2010

Australia Will Only Let Professionals Stay

Australia is planning to introduce new laws that will discriminate against skilled people in "ordinary" occupations such as motor mechanics and school teachers. It will favor those with high academic degrees like university professors and architects. It is not that Australia really needs these people. The country is finding a way of keeping immigrants out.

In the past there have been drives to get more doctors to work in rural areas. But what do they do when they have been here a few years? They move to the cities. Engineers are in short supply worldwide, so there is no opportunity of attracting them. Education systems in most countries have stopped students learning engineering due to wrong public policies. Societies are overloaded with people trying to work in finance.

The Australian Government has had several high level complaints about the changes to immigration. People have spent a lot of money and have been patient waiting in line to be accepted. "The new policies will favour applicants who score highly in an English language test" and it will give people "who are eligible to migrate a better chance of gaining employment." This has been said about past schemes.

If you are a blue collar worker Australia doesn't want you, full stop. This is despite the mining industry crying out for welders.

Cherry Louise Thurgill from England said Australia was an easy place to get into. Now all that has changed. She believes Australia is doing the right thing putting forward the case of England as being an example of leaving the door open too wide for too long. New people from overseas push wage rates down. Things are good for employers but not for paid workers.

Australia claims that people already with jobs in other countries will be attracted, not just those with recent qualifications. This is absolute rubbish. There is no evidence to support this view. Why would a person leave a good job as a doctor in a major hospital overseas to work in the bush where life is tough, dull and expensive.

There is a solution - pay people higher wage rates for working in the bush. Rural mechanics for example already charge more for their services than city mechanics. Competition in cities drives the price down. Many country towns have one car repair shop. Either pay or walk. Surely medical people should expect more, as well.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .