No hidden danger lurking in the Fair Work decision

Hanzel says:

10:27am | 02/02/12

Indeed, this is exactly what’s happening in Europe. The leftist parties created all these high paying government, 9 day a forthnight jobs which they could never afford to maintain, and now the jobs are being cut in the name of austerity. People are responding more and more violently because they had grown accustomed to the cushy lifestyle of a government professional. But the left will just blame the cutters and won’t take responsibility for it was them who provided the false hope in the first place.

Noni says:

11:23am | 02/02/12

You’ll find it amusing until you too, become in need of the support services that the community sector provides.

The whole penis vs vagina value system you have going on isn’t applicable here.  Equity is.  Community workers have gone nearly 15 years without any real increase in their wage.  Community workers are paid up to 40% less than the equivalent job in the public and private sectors.  Coordinating a community service might pay a tertiary educated worker about $40,000 pa.  Yes, that’s right, even school receptionists get paid more.  This wage decision will give a real increase of about 2% pa over 8 years to community workers. Whoopee Doo.

Community workers look after all the people in society that Australia wants to forget about (until they too, need support): drug and alcohol workers, homeless support, youth workers, child protection, mental health workers, domestic violence workers, community development workers.  They’re Australian heroes and deserve to be remunerated fairly.

MarkS says:

11:47am | 02/02/12

Three things will happen. New funding in this area will be announced, more money the pollies will say, but the services will be cut. More taxes will be raised & other services in other areas will quietly be cut.

Everybody will lose out so some people who could have been paid more if they were willing to change jobs can be paid more without changing jobs.

So why where they unwilling to change jobs? One can only assume that there are non money advantages to their jobs they wished to retain. So now they get to keep their cake & eat ours as well.

Erick says:

11:49am | 02/02/12

@Noni - It isn’t Tim who has a “penis-vagina thing going”.

It’s the author of this story, and the union movement, which have made the issue all about gender - when it should be about the value of work.

As Tim has pointed out, there is a very real gender gap in the workplace, where over 90% of people who are killed at their jobs are men.

Why doesn’t the union movement raise the Death Gap as a gender issue? Unions are driven by political correctness, and are thus becoming less and less relevant to workers.

This is reflected in their declining membership.

Tim says:

11:51am | 02/02/12

Noni,
I’m not the one who brought gender into this, your “heroes” are. You need to face the fact that people who choose to go into low paying jobs because they’re satisfying, shouldn’t then come back and whinge because theyre low paying.
A tertiary qualified janitor is still a janitor.

Borderer says:

12:07pm | 02/02/12

I think he was making the point that the gender shouldn’t be an issue in making the decision yet a very big deal was made out of it in this case.
Why are we making decisions based on gender, isn’t that sexism in the true sense of the word?
The decision to increase the wages in the sector should have been about addressing the issues of the jobs being underpaid but it seems to have been hijacked.

Tubesteak says:

12:25pm | 02/02/12

Noni
If they can earn more in the private sector then they should go and work in the private sector. Lack of labour supply will force up the wage if the government wants to fill the positions.

Or you could just privatise the entire sector and make it profit-based. That gets around the whole “we think we’re valuable even though we don’t generate any money so pay us more” thing.

Chris says:

01:24pm | 02/02/12

I am a director of a community day care centre run entirely by fundraising and fees. The staff are wonderful… and all the board members would love to double the salary of each one of them - probably triple.
However, the money has to come from somewhere. Staff salaries account for more than 70% of our budget so a 10% increase in salaries means a 7% increase in total costs which can only be covered by a 7% increase child care fees (as we try to balance the books each year so as to ensure the on-going viability of the service - in any case, the entity is not able to take on debt). If fees go up too much then we end up being forced to charge just as much as the corporate-run child care centres and at this point the social contract starts to break down meaning parents start to feel less obliged to donate their time meaning we need to hire administrative staff (all done by volunteers now - and professional and disciplined volunteers are hard to find - there are plenty of muppets) meaning costs go up etc etc the cycle goes on and there is a chance the model would collapse.

Many community organisations exist to provide some kind of service - they do not exist to provide employment…. most are skint for cash anyway… but the goal of running these things is that you spend as little as possible on yourself and as much as possible providing whatever service you actually exist to provide…

This is a huge backwards step for community organisations… it shifts their focus away from their area of service delivery and onto the careers of the employees. Those that survive will end up resembling many of the NGOs which I suspect have long since stopped providing a service and now exist only as marketing machines designed to gather cash to feed their corporate-backends (call me a cynic)

subotic says:

01:36pm | 02/02/12

I deserve more pay because I AM a vagina.

Least, that’s what every one calls me here. Not as nicely as that, but it’s all the same thing….

Noni says:

02:03pm | 02/02/12

@Tim I absolutely agree (Re: The Death Gap). There is a federation for the ADF.  They should be the ones raising hell about ‘the death gap’ and they should be the ones you ask.  The vague ‘unions’ claim misses the mark. It was one national union (and their state based counterparts), the ASU, who initially brought this claim to the fore because their members asked them to.  Sailors, soldiers and airmen need to do the same.  Sadly, most serving members won’t raise a fuss while they’re still serving and it’s left to ex service organizations with no funding and few staff to push this issue onto the national agenda.

@Tim Way to go.  I sincerely hope your wife or kids won’t need any early intervention, counselling, social work, drug/alcohol/mental health support and engagement in the community because your theories would put away with these workers and replace them with people who clean crap from the S bend.

@Tubesteak You seem to be under the impression that the government has a say in the employment in the NGO sector.  It doesn’t.  They have a chunk of money.  They put out a tender.  The 3rd Sector bids.  Whoever wins, gets to spend the money as they see fit.  The problem lays with everyone thinking they can pay peanuts and not get monkeys.  With the massive brain drain in the sector because of poor wages, we’d be lucky to get out of this decade with the sector intact.  What will Australia do without all these workers?  The public sector would be under immense pressure - police couldn’t call the social workers for help with a client; medical staff couldn’t call the mental health services for support; hospitals couldn’t call the child protection agencies for support; schools couldn’t call drug or alcohol support services.  They’re all run by the third sector.  Just a teensy bit of appreciation for these workers would be appropriate right about now.

Noni says:

02:50pm | 02/02/12

@Chris Umm, you have the wrong industry. This won’t affect child care workers or organisations, even if they’re community based. Wrong Award, wrong industry. 

You also might want to look at the fact the government already massively subsidises childcare, in the form or child care benefit and child care rebate.

Bev says:

02:53pm | 02/02/12

Noni says:03:03pm | 02/02/12
@Tim Way to go.  I sincerely hope your wife or kids won’t need any early intervention, counselling, social work, drug/alcohol/mental health support and engagement in the community

Do you realize you just proved Erik’s (and others) point that men are mostly invisible except as units of production.  We are so used to talking about women and children and ignoring men that it just slips off the tongue.  I am sure you didn’t mean it that way but perhaps @Tim may need the services you talk of on day.

Bev says:

03:09pm | 02/02/12

Noni says:12:23pm | 02/02/12

Who do you think are by far the greater users of these services?

In our travels we are observing increasing numbers of old men moving around and/or living in caravan parks.  True they are there for a variety of reason , some of their own making. They die there (2 last trip) leaving the police and the caravan park operator to sort it out.  There are little or no services/help for them.  I have never seen a woman living like this as there are an enormous number of services she can plug into.

Miss Demeanor says:

06:23pm | 02/02/12

So would you wipe an old man’s bum for $15 an hour?

Bev says:

06:37pm | 02/02/12

Miss Demeanor says:07:23pm | 02/02/12

So would you wipe an old man’s bum for $15 an hour?
I suggest you check on ratios male/female in care to see whose bum you will wipe?

acotrel says:

09:09pm | 02/02/12

In the Melbourne CBD construction site s on 2001, there was a workplace death every two weeks on average. Due to a minor near miss which could have been catastrophic, Worksafe demanded that the workers perform their JSAs prior t o doing any work.  It’s not rocket science but prior t o that the risk taking idiots were blundering in where angels fear to tread !  These days three unions cooperate t o do the JSAs, and the employer cops an unfunded productivit y gain ! THe male workplace deaths are about risk taking - big balls are dangerous !

badrinath says:

10:28am | 03/02/12

Actually Eric the vagina platform was used to make it possible to get the increase. It was a necessary tactic. I work in the industry, I work well above 50 hours a week (and am poorly paid for my efforts - have not complained about it but am stoked that I will be more fairly paid for the huge effort i put into my work), as my duties are needs based and I cannot tell a disabled kid to wait till monday before I assist them with their issues - they are not clients in the commercial sense. Oh, and I don’t have a vagina.

Mate you can’t just repel all changes that don’t help mostly men because of your personal bloody agenda. The women (mostly) that I work with are doing incredible work (which one day your wrinkly old arse will be requiring) with huge unpaid, or unfairly remunerated hours. They are dissempowered, undervalued and their situation need not be belittled and politicised by the likes of you. Actual equality is about -equality- I support many issues you bring up because it is a fair call, it is about time you found the wisdom to support more than just your own inclinations if you do stand for a fair world, or are you just fighting for some sort of mantopia?

And Timmy, how smart a bloke are you actually claiming that people who do work with meaning and purpose that brings some satisfaction should accept less pay. Well thought out stuff wonder boy. You keep letting your self-involved worldview inform your understanding of other peoples reality and express that inability to empathise.

Erick says:

10:47am | 03/02/12

@badrinath - I don’t object to giving pay rises to people who deserve higher pay because of the work they do. That is fair and reasonable.

I do object to the idea that some people should get pay rises simply because they are women (or men, for that matter). That’s sexism.

Kylie says:

10:28am | 02/02/12

Jf i work in community services. I am not less qualified than the majority of my male counterparts and more qualified than most. I have not had nor do I plan to have an extended break in my career and I can guarantee you I do not work shorter hours than anyone else. Yet if I were working for government or private enterprise in the same role with the same responsibilities as I have now I would be earning aprox $15,000 more than I am at the moment.

That said the author is silly for making this about equal pay for women. Men in community services earn less than their counterparts in government and private enterprise as well.

TV watcher says:

10:41am | 02/02/12

“Yet if I were working for government or private enterprise in the same role with the same responsibilities as I have now I would be earning aprox $15,000 more than I am at the moment.”

There’s your answer. Go for it.

Tim says:

10:46am | 02/02/12

Kylie,
It begs the question why you wouldn’t go work for the government or private enterprise?
Or are there other non-monetary benefits to your job?

jf says:

11:07am | 02/02/12

Kylie says:11:28am | 02/02/12

“Yet if I were working for government or private enterprise in the same role with the same responsibilities as I have now I would be earning aprox $15,000 more than I am at the moment.”

http://www.seek.com.au/

Away you go.

“Men in community services earn less than their counterparts in government and private enterprise as well.”

Which was my point.

Mark G says:

11:14am | 02/02/12

“Jf i work in community services. I am not less qualified than the majority of my male counterparts and more qualified than most.”

Kylie,

You missed the point of what JF was saying. Let me give you an example of the rational.

1. There is a higher percentage of male doctors than female ones.
2. There is a higher percentage of female nurses than male ones.
3. Nurses get paid less than doctors.
4. Nursing is seen in the general community as women’s work.
5. Nurses in many cases work the same hours as doctors.

From the four points above you could easily deduce that nurses are paid less simply because the profession is seen as women’s work because all else is equal. The follow on deduction is that Nurses deserve a pay rise to bring their wages up to that of doctors. The point missed is that doctors get paid more because they are more qualified in the medical field and are in a highly professionalised occupation that required years of academic study that only a relatively small number of people will be suitable for. That not to say the nursing isn’t a highly professionalized occupation (it is) but not when compared to doctors. Comparing nurses to doctors is not comparing apples with apples.

The argument about women’s work in this case is a ridiculous one for the same reason. The amount someone gets paid in an industry should always be determined by two things. 1. the labour market (how many people are available and qualified vs the demand for workers) and 2. The level of education and professionalization required (ie unskilled, semi skilled, skilled or highly skilled). Pay packs should NEVER be determined on emotive arguments of discrimination, how hard someone thinks they work or how many family pressures they have. That is what is making employers shudder.

VVS says:

11:21am | 02/02/12

And Kylie just got the dose of common sense she clearly needed…

Noni says:

11:26am | 02/02/12

Re: Working in the public/private sectors.  It’s easy to be flippant and tell people to move to employment within the public and private sectors if they want more money.  But how then will you address the brain drain and severe hemorrhaging that the third sector has been enduring over the past decade?  Who will provide service and support to the community? 

As it stands, this real increase of about 2% per year over 8 years will still leave community workers behind their public and private sector counterparts.  They’re not whinging though.  Community workers will still work for less.  The gap has shrunk though, and that’s a good thing.

Noni says:

11:28am | 02/02/12

Re: Working in the public/private sectors.  It’s easy to be flippant and tell people to move to employment within the public and private sectors if they want more money.  But how then will you address the brain drain and severe hemorrhaging that the third sector has been enduring over the past decade?  Who will provide service and support to the community? 

As it stands, this real increase of about 2% per year over 8 years will still leave community workers behind their public and private sector counterparts.  They’re not whinging though.  Community workers will still work for less.  The gap has shrunk though, and that’s a good thing.

MarkS says:

11:40am | 02/02/12

@Kylie
“That said the author is silly for making this about equal pay for women. Men in community services earn less than their counterparts in government and private enterprise as well. “

The problem is the case succeeded on the basis of it being about equal pay for woman. So a silly case succeeded, sure no danger there!

The dishonestly & sexist discrimination of this argument can be shown by looking at jobs dominated by males that can be proven to be even more under paid. The defence force, sure there are woman but the fact of the matter is it is still dominated by males. They are very much underpaid, what they gain among other non-money rewards is a strong social standing & comradeship.

It can be easily proven that defence force members are unpaid by looking at what happens when private enterprise competes for the same skill set & willingness to work in extreme conditions. The Navy is unable to crew its submarines because the miners are willing to pay $100,000’s more than the Navy.

The simple fact of the matter is that on the open job market, the wage that one would have to pay somebody to accept what defence force members accept is around $200,000 plus. But it will be a long cold day in hell before the argument that men are gender discriminated against becouse of their service in the ADF & require a large pay raise is run or won.

Kylie says:

11:48am | 02/02/12

@ TV watcher I am considering it. I have to weigh that against the loyalty that I owe the organisation that work for has employed me and has paid for me to attend training (on occassion interstate as I work in a remote area).
@ Tim it begs the question why doesn’t everyone who works in community services do this? I do like where I work. The people are dedicated and believe in what they are doing. The general manager is dedicated to providing a great service for our participants. Our participants have a say in the how the organisation works and the services they need. Why shouldn’t I be receiving the same pay as someone with the same qualifications doing the same work?

I am considering leaving my job for a better paying government/private sector one. I have a friend working for state government doing the same work with the same qualifications as me, she is paid more. NGO’s can’t afford to pay their workers more as the government doesn’t provide enough funding. Yet they have enough to pay their own workers more?

It’s a decision I am going to have to make in the near future (i hope to be able to buy my own house).

Also the pay rises were initially supposed to be phased in over 3 years, then it became 6 now it is 8.

jf says:

11:52am | 02/02/12

“The amount someone gets paid in an industry should always be determined by two things. 1. the labour market (how many people are available and qualified vs the demand for workers) and 2. The level of education and professionalization required (ie unskilled, semi skilled, skilled or highly skilled).”

I’ll add risk to this.

Consider three plumbers, all with equivalent experience and qualifications. They could be male or female - after all, females are flocking to dig ditches and kleen out blocked up dunnies. But I digress.

Plumber no. 1 works for the state government. He/she works 37.5 hours per week which is typically between 9 and 5 (and is paid over-time if they exceed that), has generous sick, family and personal leave provisions, has job security, has all their tools and resources provided, is paid whether there is work or not and so on.

Plumber no. 2 works for a private firm. He/she has a theoretical working week of 40 hours but frequently works more, has limited sick leave, usually owns a lot of their own tools, risks losing hours or their job if their employer’s fortunes suffer, doesn’t have access to the HR resources and benefits paid by the government.

Plumber no. 3 starts their own business. They not only don’t earn any money of there is no work on but have to continue to meet business expenses including their employee’s wages, don’t get paid if they are sick, don’t get paid if they take annual leave, have no access to any government benefits, have to spend enormous hours on paperwork (most of it due to over-regulation of their industry and small business). 

Who should be paid more?

n_dude says:

11:53am | 02/02/12

Agreed jf. I am not sure why gender has anything to do with fair wages (which I believe the dissenting judge in this case raised). I think if we are to operate in a free market then we should let the market decide the value of these jobs.

@Kylie - prettty much the majority of govt jobs pay less than the private sector. However govt employees get other non-monetary benefits such as flexi-time, regulated work hours and generous pension schemes.

Kylie says:

12:34pm | 02/02/12

@ Mark G
I agree with you wage should not be determined by emotive disrcimination argumetns but on merit. My case is not doctors vs nurses, I do understand the point you were trying to make. The point you missed is I have the same qualifications and experience. I know because I know the people working government roles doing the exact same work as me, they completed the same post grad university courses. Also I have been looking at changing jobs and looking at wages in other sectors. I know what my skills, education and qualifications could demand elsewhere.

.I think you need to learn about how community organisations are funded. Yes to some degree supply vs. demand is involved. There is increasing demand for many of the services my organisation provides yet their is high staff turnover because of the wage issue, which can impact on service delivery.

Why doesn’t my organisation pay more? because we receive the mojority of the funding for our services from the government and despite having demonstrated this (in reports we are required to produce to justify our funding) funding can be cut based on the whim of the government at the time.

As I have already said, I am considering leaving over to be paid more.

@ Noni, thanks i don’t think that people in private enterprise understand how community organistions are funded and the challenges of the sector.

@JF thanks but I am already aware of SEEK, have been looking http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/jobs/, http://jobs.qld.gov.au/ and other gov websites are great as well

jf says:

01:12pm | 02/02/12

o   Kylie says:
“ I know what my skills, education and qualifications could demand elsewhere.”
So why are you working where you are? You are either an idiot (which I don’t believe) or you get some reward other than financial compensation from working where you are that you would not get elsewhere.
“@JF thanks but I am already aware of SEEK, have been looking http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/jobs/, http://jobs.qld.gov.au/ and other gov websites are great as well”

Ain’t the free market grand?

Although I do look forward to your next post whingeing about the deficiencies of your next role vis a vis your current one. It will start “whilst I get paid more, ...”

Kylie says:

02:05pm | 02/02/12

@ jf there’s no need to be rude. as I stated I am looking for other work either you or an idiot (which I don’t believe) or you didn’t read my post fully. I stated my reasons for working where I do. Quite frankly, I believe work environment counts for a lot and I do feel I owe my workplace that outdated concept of loyalty for what they have invested in trainning me. fortuneately I am able to live on my wage. Though as I stated I would like to be able to afford a house. I know many people who would love to keep working in teh community sector but have had to leave for financial reasons.

As I said loyalty counts for a lot and I want to put back into the organisation what I feel they have given me. When i do gain a different job, I shall be sure to find your posts in a punch article and let you know how I am doing as you seem interested.

You are right, there are trade offs. My current workplace has a great culture and environment, hence my loyalty to them. Yes the free market is “Grand”

SimonFromLakemba says:

02:20pm | 02/02/12

@jf

“Plumber no. 3 starts their own business. They not only don’t earn any money of there is no work on but have to continue to meet business expenses including their employee’s wages, don’t get paid if they are sick, don’t get paid if they take annual leave, have no access to any government benefits, have to spend enormous hours on paperwork (most of it due to over-regulation of their industry and small business).  “

Thats so much crap. Not sure about you, but I know a lot of plumbers earning a motza whilst owning their own companies. You forgot to add taking home the profit, I’m sure they wouldn’t give their plumbers more % of profit if revenue increased. Could easily convert this to a tiler, I know one who owns a Ferrari while owning his own company. Name a trade in Australia where there is no work at the moment? be hard pressed to find it.

Generally the guy working for the private firm would earn more, people working for the government in trades earn less more often then not.

jf says:

02:44pm | 02/02/12

Kylie says:11:28am | 02/02/12

I was intending to be rude. I am just cynical of people who make comments about being able to earn “aprox $15,000 more” if they were to work in the private sector, particularly without acknowledging the relative merits and rewards from their existing employer.

I might as well whinge about the massive hours I have to work when my business is strong without acknowledging the revenue from it.

May I suggest that you grow a callous if you move into the private sector. People may be rather more frank that you are used to - yet another apparent benefit of your existing role.

As to a house, like you, early in my career I couldn’t buy the house I wanted in the area I wanted. However, even early-ish in my career I could have managed to buy a house if I was prepared to compromise.

Just as with jobs, there are pros and cons of alternative courses of action.

Good luck with the job hunt, your career and the house hunt. Sincerely

jf says:

02:55pm | 02/02/12

SimonFromLakemba says:03:20pm | 02/02/12

“Thats so much crap. Not sure about you, but I know a lot of plumbers earning a motza whilst owning their own companies.”

So do I. Do you really think that I said that self-employed plumbers never own a motza instead of saying that they don’t get paid if they don’t get work? If so, read what I said again.

“You forgot to add taking home the profit”

That’s my point. They do stand to get well rewarded if things work out. They also stand to go stone-motherless broke of things don’t work out. However, there is in guarantee. If they break their leg on day one of the business, they are stuffed. If the property industry slumps, they’re in trouble. 

The risk of going stone-motherless broke is the risk I was referring to and why they are entitled to have the potential to earn more than their colleagues with safe, secure jobs.

“Could easily convert this to a tiler”

Yes you could. I was intending to illustrate that someone who takes the risk of working for themselves should be entitled to have the potential for greater reward than someone doesn’t.

I don’t think you are disagreeing with that.

“Name a trade in Australia where there is no work at the moment? be hard pressed to find it.”

Apart from the fact that that is absolute BS, try any regional centre. However, if it is so good, all those employed plumbers are perfectly entitled to set up, go out on their own and bring in the dough. Why do you think they don’t?

“Generally the guy working for the private firm would earn more, people working for the government in trades earn less more often then not.”

Yes. Do you understand why now?

jf says:

03:23pm | 02/02/12

jf says:03:44pm | 02/02/12

“I was intending to be rude.”

Sorry, wasn’t. I meant wasn’t intending to be rude.

Mattb says:

03:25pm | 02/02/12

Jf

Its a crap example in relation to the article your providing here but I take it that your implying that plumber 3 should be paid the most. If so, ICB, just because you start your own business doesnt make you some sort of guru that deserves accolades and a higher rate of income. What your suggesting is that even if plumber 3 is the crapiest plumber out of the three because he started his own business that instantly guarantees him a higher income.

I’ll tell you which of the three should earn the most, the most skilled and astute one. And that isn’t always the one who starts up his own company and works for himself.

And if plumber 3 wants to winge jf, well - http://www.seek.com.au

SimonFromLakemba says:

03:32pm | 02/02/12

@jf

Thanks for the reply.

All have their pros and cons as you say so nice reply to Kylie.

jf says:

04:23pm | 02/02/12

Mattb says:04:25pm | 02/02/12

“just because you start your own business doesnt make you some sort of guru that deserves accolades and a higher rate of income.”

No it doesn’t. The potential (you note I say potential) for a greater reward is for the risk you take on when you give all of those benefits of being employed to start a business.

“What your suggesting is that even if plumber 3 is the crapiest plumber out of the three because he started his own business that instantly guarantees him a higher income.”

Not at all. In fact quite the opposite. That is the point. If they are crappy, they won’t get work and they won’t make any money. On the other hand, if they work for the public service and are crappy, lazy and disruptive, they still get to draw in income. Even if they work for a private employer they have the industrial relations system to protect them.

Thanks for further illustrating my point though. 

“I’ll tell you which of the three should earn the most, the most skilled and astute one.”

Once again, potential. As I said right at the start, let’s assume that they are all equally skilled (and astute if you like). Under that scenario, I would expect that the self-employed plumber would have the potential (note that word again) to earn more because of the additional risk they take in being self-employed and because of the benefits they give up.

Are you really saying that (all things being equal) an employed plumber should earn more than what a self-employed plumber could earn and still enjoy all the benefits of employment?

“And if plumber 3 wants to winge jf, well - http://www.seek.com.au”

Jolly good. Except I’m not a plumber. I own my own business and I’m not complaining about my income. In fact, I’m very happy. As are my employees. After all, I’m sure that they all know the URL for http://www.seek.com.au.

jf says:

05:04pm | 02/02/12

SimonFromLakemba says:04:32pm | 02/02/12

“Thanks for the reply.”

It’s always a pleasure. Whenever I get into a discussion with you I am overcome with the urge to open a beer.

simonfromLakemba says:

05:51pm | 02/02/12

@jf

Not sure how to take it, but thanks?

Just too often on the punch its generally a contest of who can reach the bottom first instead of arguing points on there merits.

badrinath says:

10:34am | 03/02/12

yep jf, from what i read it is really all about you.

TheJohn says:

10:27am | 02/02/12

Feminism has always been based on bullshet.
If you look at civil rights movements, homosexual movements, feminist movements, atheist movements, all funded and supported by communists, all claiming oppression by the west. 

The communists are always trying to undermine western society against each other so that in the end communism is brought upon the world. This why we always here the mantra’s “Racism is a problem” “Homophobia” “Female Rights” “Gay Marriage” “The evils of the crusades”

This constant bombardment of these mantra’s is to condition society to a world view that is entirely fictional. Hollywood and the Music industry then reinforces these views also. Western society lives in marxist delusions.

jf says:

10:28am | 02/02/12

AdamC says:10:53am | 02/02/12

“Oh, and BTW, your members getting a pay rise is not equivalent or comparable to the American civil rights struggle. Grow up.”

Steady on AdamC. All the big fights have been fought and won by truly courageous, selfless people. Don’t put a dampner on today’s activist’s struggle for relevance.

SimonFromLakemba says:

10:35am | 02/02/12

“This is especially so as the Churches and NGOs who are the main employers in the community services space are hardly money-obsessed capitalists or rapacious corporations fixated on cost-cutting at the expense of service quality”

No the church is a terrific organisation not obsessed with money!

Tim the Toolman says:

11:23am | 02/02/12

“atheist movements,”

I’m eligible for funding from the commies?!  Why isn’t this ever discussed at atheist meetings I attend?!

AdamC says:

11:59am | 02/02/12

TheJohn, you seem to see a cospiracy. I see only malice, stupidity and the search for status and privilege. That has been enough so far.

JF, well, Fair Work has certainly helped to make Sally McManus and her colleagues more relevant to their prospective members.

Simon, oh dear, off-topic Christian-bashing. And I thought you were one of the good ones.

James1 says:

12:00pm | 02/02/12

I had no idea I was so oppressed by the west because I am an atheist.  Here I was thinking I had the freedom to worship any god or none, while all the time I am being oppressed.

Hey everyone, I’m being oppressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!  Lucky the communists are looking out for my interests.

SimonFromLakemba says:

02:24pm | 02/02/12

@AdamC

Off topic Christian bashing? “This is especially so as the Churches” um hello…..

Now you dont want me to provide links showing how much pastors earn do you? or the church in General.

Fezzbo says:

02:30pm | 02/02/12

@ James1

Bloody Peasant!!!

Wynston Cruso says:

03:03pm | 02/02/12

James1 you really do need to attend our meetings more often.

Bev says:

03:26pm | 02/02/12

AdamC says:10:53am | 02/02/12
now any industry sector with a majority of chicks in the ranks would be dumb not to at least try on a genital-based pay claim
Community care nurses are already rattling the can claiming they should be payed the same as nurses working in hospitals.

What happened in the Whitlam should be required reading.  Union A claimed (n), then union B claimed they should get (n+)because they were more deserving than A, then union C claimed they were more deserving than B and should get (n++).  So the leap frogging went on. It left Australia in a economic mess. If not curbed I can see history repeating it’s self.

AdamC says:

03:48pm | 02/02/12

Bev, I think you are entirely correct. After all, Fair Work has just legitimised the notion that wages should bear no relation to the supply of and demand for labour in the relevant industry. I suspect political sob stories of various kinds will now find their way into a lot of wage claims in future. The gender composition argument will, of course, be the most popular, where it can be feasibly raised.

Simon, so, from a comment about the ridiculousness of setting wages based not on market value but on genitals, you manage to pull out a tangential reference to Churches not being profit making corporations? (Which they aren’t, BTW.)

It’s nice to know you’re not obsessed or anything!

Bev says:

04:40pm | 02/02/12

AdamC says:04:48pm | 02/02/12

Yep the Sunshine harvester deal in1906? Got the whole industrial court/union mess off the ground We did not see sense until the 1970’s.  Unfortunately the fast moving modern economy just is not that forgiving.

KH says:

11:38am | 02/02/12

When you pass a human head through a significantly smaller opening, after months of other miscellenous problems, and followed by months of recovery, you can claim more time off work too.

LoveFest says:

11:57am | 02/02/12

@KH - that should be taken as sick leave.

TheJohn says:

10:16am | 02/02/12

It’s the Marxists, the Berlin wall might have fallen, but these little red snakes are still in our governments, media and university’s undermining, dividing it, causing infighting in western culture.

Tim says:

10:24am | 02/02/12

Welcome to feminist logic where up is down and down is obviously a sign of patriarchal oppression.

jf says:

10:42am | 02/02/12

Paying for carers (amongst other things) is not at odds with capitalism.

Swarley says:

11:11am | 02/02/12

“Paying for carers (amongst other things) is not at odds with capitalism.”

Ok….who said it was?  I said paying people more when they’re not generating more wealth is at odds with capitalism.  That’s a very different thing to what you’re trying to say I said (which is an odd thing to do when all someone has to do is scroll up to see what I actually said).

Rose says:

11:52am | 02/02/12

A community worker who is able to assist someone to re-engage in society, and possibly employment is generating wealth. A community worker who is able to assist the elderly to remain in their own home may not be specifically generating wealth but they are saving government funds. A community worker is able to assist a prisoner to rehabilitate, or some one with drug or alcohol issues to overcome them, is both generating wealth and saving government funds.
Just because it’s not a straight buy/sell sort of transaction doesn’t mean it doesn’t generate wealth for the nation.

TChong says:

12:31pm | 02/02/12

swarley
Congrats for pointing out the true moral underpinnings of capitalism,
It stinks.
the John
keep up senator McCarthys good work,,and let us know how many commies work for The State Dept.
Dont forget a quick check under the bed for any red.
Rose
the ideology of many punters at this site is so extreme, that a caring society, that actually values Community workers, is considered too bizarre for some to even comprehend .
I wonder what these same would do, if they ever found themselves in need , one day.

Trevor says:

01:04pm | 02/02/12

Ooooh, best not offend capitalism!

The new religion.

Swarley says:

02:46pm | 02/02/12

“Just because it’s not a straight buy/sell sort of transaction doesn’t mean it doesn’t generate wealth for the nation.”

Are they doing 40% more of this from now on?

Bev says:

04:03pm | 02/02/12

Rose says:12:52pm | 02/02/12

I take your point but see my post above.
Bev says:04:09pm | 02/02/12

A community worker is able to assist a prisoner to rehabilitate

Well lets look who is getting services here.
From:
Juveniles in detention
in Australia, 1981–2008

“There has been a 31 percent decline in the number of male juveniles detained since 1981 and a 70 percent decline in the number of female
juveniles detained over the same period.”

“diversionary measures and other programs to reduce juveniles’ contact with the criminal justice system may have disproportionately impacted on females and been more successful in keeping female juveniles out of detention than male juveniles.”

Yet during roughly the same period:

“In Queensland, for instance, from 1987 to 1994 there was a 64% increase in young women appearing before the children’s courts for criminal offences, compared to just a 2% increase for young men over the same period.”

So where are the services going?

fml says:

11:50am | 02/02/12

I counter act by saying the Marxist international banking cartel dark cult is nothing more than a creation by the Christian, white, male western world used as an attempt to gain even more power!

But everyone knows the christian, white male licks the boots of the reptilian overlords anyway, what does boot polish taste like john?

TheJohn says:

12:37pm | 02/02/12

fml

Why would white people create an ideology to destroy their own culture, race, nation and religion? Why would a white people want to create abomination such as the soviet union? fml, you don’t know history. Soviet Union was foreign and minority creation, an alien mindset not belonging to the west.It’s not surprise that the communist system has been nearly entirely wiped off western lands for it’s anti-white sentiment, anti-christian ideology

James1 says:

01:37pm | 02/02/12

Under capitalism, man exploits man.  Under communism, it is the other way around.

subotic says:

01:38pm | 02/02/12

I for one welcome our new reptillian overlords….

TChong says:

01:38pm | 02/02/12

The john
Which side you stooging for ?
extreme Right ,pretending to be extreme Lefty out to burn Conservatives?
No matter , no one but a troll could possibly post shite like you have.
ICBS
But do post more, its funny
(but do stay in character, otherwise it can get confusin.)

fml says:

01:39pm | 02/02/12

Nope, pretty sure the Bolsheviks were Caucasian.

Why would they? well, if they created such an institution, which had little to no discernible effect upon themselves, then attribute all that is ill in the world to the ethnic minorities, they can rile up the angry middle class to rise up and cleanse those pesky minorities and consolidate power! What was it that Goerring said? 

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger”

Revolution 101, subchapter ethnic cleansing. Sounds about right to me.

And no, communism is a western ideology. Most of the eastern civilisations have had a form of traditionally theological/monarchical tyranny.

Fiona says:

03:44pm | 02/02/12

Why, so they can do the hard job of lifting boxes???
Men are already teachers or nurses. They don’t tend to teach in primary school, but they do teach. I’ve worked with male nurses and they tend to gravitate towards emergency, ICU and theatre and tend to go for management asap. It might help when other men stop thinking a man is gay for going into nursing.

John the Zombie says:

04:27pm | 02/02/12

Fiona compared in numbers males a minority in teaching and nursing.  Your arguement is like saying hey there are women in engineering so that is ok but this is not true. There are schemes set out to help women get into the engineering fields so your arguement is already flawed there. By your arguement these schemes should be abolished as women are already in the engineering field. Wasnt the recent young Australian of the year winner a women who was trying to get women to go into engineering. My arguement here is that men should also be acknowledge for working in this industry. The reading of the article makes it seem like no men work at all in the industries. Second point I am making is that in industries were men are the minority why not have the same schemes set up to try to get men into these industries as like those set up to get women into male dominated industries. Can i ask why men dont tend to teach in primary school? Even in high school (note my younger brother is in high school now) the split is baiscally 70:30 between female and male teachers. To me this is unequal and should be addressed. I am all for women going into industries that are male dominated but I ask the same should be applied for femal dominated industries. Since you work as a nurse/health care in your industry can I ask what the split is. Tell me how many male nurses there are to female nurses?

To answer your question I worked in one of the industries that are women dominted and the other men and I were required to do the heavy stuff. We were the ones who had to put stock away and also carry the heavy stuff. Also in this industry we worked with clients who were a little violent. Guess who would deal with these clients. Well yes again the men did. Everytime I worked this job I would be asked to swap rooms because the women did not want to deal with the client as they had a tendacy to been violent. So it was send the men in and alot of the time I would have to do the job myself as the women would not even touch the person. Ever tried lifting a 95kg + without a hoist by yourself Fiona. I have and I did it on many occasions

Fiona says:

10:45pm | 02/02/12

That was a very long reply John.
I agree that men should be encouraged to join the ranks of us nurses and teachers, but believe it or not, we pick things up and put them away on the shifts that men don’t work, along with dealing with the agressive clients or visitors when the men aren’t around. As for lifting 90+ kgs, you know you shouldnt be doing that.  Your experience with your female colleagues is unfortunate, but it doesn’t mean it happens at every place. Most male nurses I’ve worked with are lazy bastards, who sat at the computer most of the shift while their female team member did the majority of the work, but that’s just one workplace. In maternity, the male midwives were very hard workers, because they really wanted to be there. I don’t think these examples are indicative of all hospital wards.
The team I work with ATM is 30 women to 1 man, the last about 30women to 3 men. I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make with that. I’ve known a few women that work in male dominated jobs (electrician, heavy truck drivers, one in the mines, engineering for example) and they had to do the hard yards to get into them too. They got no special treatment.

Zeta says:

10:30am | 02/02/12

Kind of shows how out of touch the Union movement is. Video shops are closing down because of online content everyday, you’d be hard pressed to find one to get a membership at, let alone one to work in.

SimonFromLakemba says:

10:42am | 02/02/12

It is possible bit highly unlikely. They would have to work 8hrs a day and 6 days a week and not be taxed.

I’m all for the Unions but they are slowly loosing their pull in the real world. This article is crap to be honest, they pay rise was more to do more with bringing the people into the same line as the same workers who are in Government jobs doing the same work.

fml says:

02:03pm | 02/02/12

Zeta,

What about digital unions? Fighting for the rights of the dimensionally challenged?

Dont they deserve equal pay to their 3 dimensional counterparts?

Mark G says:

11:20am | 02/02/12

“With a 40% payrise, I’d reckon there would be the danger of unemployment for 1 in 3 of those support roles.  Which would mean a 50% increase in workload.  It would likely be achieved by not hiring extra staff over the forward projections over 8 years.”

The big problem is how do you get a 50% increase in workload for a carer. The government regulates how many carers need to be around per disabled person. You can’t have one person looking after three, instead of the usual one.

Ian1 says:

11:48am | 02/02/12

@Mark G - yep, that’s the problem for sure.

I would imagine it means a future government will be forced to alter regulations to alter care ratios, either that or find increased funding from something else.  Tax increases most likely.  Or altering the department so that there are more front line staff carers, and fewer bureaucrats administering them.  That’s what I hear is going to have to happen in hospitals if we don’t want more people dead as a result of too many paper pushers, too few doctors.

One thing is for sure, it’s going to create hurt somewhere along the line.

Bev says:

01:09pm | 02/02/12

Agreed.
This could backfire as Government and private supplier of care find that they have to cut back on services because costs spiral upwards.  Caring staff lose (less jobs) and the cared lose as services evaporate.  Bob Hawke negotiated large changes to aboriginal stockmen. At the time it was hailed as a win for equity. Then end result was making many cattle farming operations unviable and the aboriginal stockmen losing their jobs in droves.  Nobody won.

Bev says:

04:32pm | 02/02/12

Ian1 says:12:48pm | 02/02/12

@Mark G - yep, that’s the problem for sure.

Or altering the department so that there are more front line staff carers, and fewer bureaucrats administering them.

Bureaucracies never shrink (well hardly ever) they just grow.  If you run out of money the frontline workers get the chop so the budget balances.

Gladys says:

10:39am | 02/02/12

Jangie MarkS, that is harsh. I’m no feminist but I think women/mothers settle for lower paying jobs because it gives them the time they need with their families.

I just tried going back into the workforce after 3 years of working at home for myself, and I had no sympathy from the people I worked with that after I did my day with them I did another day’s work at home.

I think women choose jobs that they can do standing on their heads so they can do them quickly, get home and get back to work.

Where I disagree with you is that female dominated sectors are paid less, not because they are worth less, but because they are less likely to demand more. They just want the extra $$$ to make ends meet.

And I don’t agree with McMannus. Riddout is right. If a woman wants more money, she should up skill, sacrifice being at home more and do the hours.

Because that’s what men do.

Tom says:

03:41pm | 02/02/12

Gold, Zeta. “Unions are self perpetuating anger machines”.

St. Michael says:

04:39pm | 02/02/12

You are not funny today, Zeta.  And that frightens me.

Ando says:

11:09am | 02/02/12

Its obviously the nature of the industry rather than because they are predominately female. Maybe hairdressers should get an increase as well ,that would also help reduce the gap.

Erick says:

11:42am | 02/02/12

The union movement in Australia is anti-male. That’s one of the reasons it is so small, and still declining.

MarkS says:

12:02pm | 02/02/12

Don’t worry about higher taxes mate, after all money goes on trees. We will just print more. Wut you say Hyper Inflation. Ok maybe we should just borrow it, wut Greece… my head hurts.

St. Michael says:

04:37pm | 02/02/12

@ MarkS: note there that hyperinflation usually comes after the borrowing, not before.

St. Michael says:

11:32am | 02/02/12

Pity that with the consequential mass sackings due to unaffordability you won’t be able to enjoy it.

Tim says:

11:56am | 02/02/12

One should be wondering why you use words you don’t know the meaning of.

Walt says:

11:58am | 02/02/12

Its obvious that you do not have to pay for these increases John. If you were an employer I bet you would be happy to find the extra thousands needed to pay for this, andgo without yourself.

Erick says:

11:59am | 02/02/12

@John - How is it “misogyny” to want equal rights for men and women?

fml says:

01:43pm | 02/02/12

Erick,

Its misogyny when women ask for equal pay and you see it as an attack on men.

St. Michael says:

02:47pm | 02/02/12

@ fml: it’s not equal pay for women when said women want more than men are earning.

Erick says:

02:49pm | 02/02/12

@fml - Women have had equal pay for many decades now. It is illegal to pay women less than men for the same work - as it should be.

You seem to be stuck in the distant past.This is 2012, not 1912. Do try to keep up.

RyaN says:

03:13pm | 02/02/12

@John: I expect you will be apologising to Erick for your outrageous comment!

Jexter says:

03:10pm | 02/02/12

Well said. As a former carer now client I’ve seen an atrocious exploitation of staff from NGO’s and an exploitation of Clients. Theft from Clients houses (not mine) Exploitation of vulnerable people who can’t care for themselves up to and including physical abuse and neglect. Good caring people have left the private sector due to wages and working conditions heading to the govt jobs. In their private sector place cheap unskilled, unqualified and often unacceptable staff are then hired leaving clients at risk.  It’s a sad reality if you want good people you have to pay for it and hopefully this long neglected area gets a well deserved boost in quality of living to both Carer and Client.

St. Michael says:

04:41pm | 02/02/12

Not upset.  Merely resigned to the fact that either those workers are going to get subtantially increased workloads due to the sackings that follow on these wage increases, or that the entire country is going to be taxed more to pay for it.  Or both.

Bev says:

02:41pm | 02/02/12

heralding this as some sort of feminist win is laughable

Except it was present to FWA as exactly that. Seems you didn’t read the article.

Subi says:

03:59pm | 02/02/12

You are showing extreme ignorance here. I work for an NGO and the majority of the workforce have postgraduate qualifications. It’s also an area where men and women work tirelessly for the benefit of others. The payrise is overdue.

Noni says:

04:04pm | 02/02/12

BS.  I too put myself through university for 4 years. Except, working in the community sector, even though I was managing the community development of an entire region (200k+ ppl) I was only receiving $40k wage (unlike the entry level $55k of a teacher). I was also volunteering in that role for one day a week so that the job could get done.  Quit whinging.  Community workers haven’t had a pay rise for 15 years. You have one every 2 years.

Fiona says:

03:38pm | 02/02/12

Steve I work with various NGOs in my role and the work you lot do is great and very necessary, but still unfortunately undervalued and largely invisible. While it is a largely female dominated area, the guys I’ve worked with are just as great and you all deserve this.
I wish it wasn’t framed as a fair pay for women because it’s for a sector and because of some of the comments posted above.