CASE STUDIES: IMMATURITY, IGNORANCE, DEVALUING HUMAN CAPITAL AND GLIMPSES OF EXCELLENCE
Case Studies
"Workers walk away from bad bosses, March 29, 2007 01:29pm"
"EVERYONE'S worked for a bad boss at some point in their career, but it seems the tables are turning, with employees increasingly walking out on maddening managers.
A survey has found 82 per cent of office workers have quit a job rather than put up with an outrageous boss.
Chandler Macleod's Recruitment Solutions general manager Lorraine Christopher said with the unemployment rate at a 32-year low, companies needed to start training their managers.
Over 75 per cent of survey respondents claimed they'd knock back a job with better pay if the manager had a poor reputation.
Ms Christopher said the survey proved "people don't leave organisations, they leave bad bosses''.
”This study should serve as a timely wake-up call for organisations,'' she said. “Businesses simply can't afford to overlook any employee.''
The survey of 233 office workers found more than 26 per cent claimed their boss never facilitated career development, almost
20 per cent reported a complete lack of regular and honest feedback and more than half said their manger did not
always keep their word or provide leadership." (Source: News.com.au)
A large number of Australian employers do not seem to disregard, perhaps not know about or do not
understand the concept of
human capital.
|
Australian unionism revitalised
The Australian government has passed a set of legislation euphemistically (spin) titled Work Choices.
These legislative provisions have exposed the core of vacuous rhetoric that employers around Australia use to describe their human resource practice.
The responsible Minister, Kevin Andrews has risked his political career on this legislation. He will lose it. Not only is his seat in parliament at risk, along with
many of his colleagues, so too is his personal integrity and reputation.
Kevin Andrews professes Catholic values. He will be judged accordingly and on
current assessment his Catholic peers seem not to be impressed with Cardinal Pell being a solid critic of the
Work Choices legislation. The legislation has exposed and unleashed the fools and
callous among Australian employers,
who were once kept in check by unions, state and federally regulated awards and laws.
The Minister heads up a Department which has been exposed by the
Australian Productivity Commission
and the Auditor General for its propensity to manipulate statistics. The Department of Workplace Relations
does not have a reputation for integrity or quality public sector management.
In amongst the myriad of convoluted, complicated and incomprehensible raft of regulations and cant,
are provisions aimed at neutering the Australian Trade Union movement.
The Australian government of John Howard, populated by Ministers of his choosing, does not have a strong record demonstrating an ability to read and predict the future. Far from neutering the union movement the legislation will actually lead to a reinvigoration of the membership. Women will join the unions because they are most at risk under the heavy handed approach engineered, and implemented, by Minister for Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews. The government presumption is that the younger workforce of today is predisposed towards individualism, risk and adventurism. The problem is that they are not and the older members of society are returning to employment.
The government has a glaring hypocrisy. It claims that the changes will increase productivity and open up the
labour market to great expansion. Within its own public service agencies
there are hundreds of collective bargain employment
agreements in place with more being negotiated.
The public service is not rushing to test the new system.
The government also thought managers would like to oversee individual contracts rather than just have one document. That again is a miscalculation. The final miscalculation is that the Commonwealth legislation will withstand the High Court challenge being mounted by the states starting Thursday 3rd May, 2006. I think that the Work Choices legislation will not pass the constitutional test. Large segments of the act may be struck down by the High Court. The
Australian Constitution
specifies the Commonwealth government's powers under the corporation provisions. One might read the document as referring more to the regulatory regime of how corporations might behave and what "commercial" and "criminal" laws might be applicable rather than how they should employ people? The Constitution also sets a limitation in industrial relations powers to conciliation and arbitration. The High Court is actually the only defender the citizenry has left in Australia, against the excesses of the multiple political executives of the nation, particularly the executive cabinet of the Australian government.
Inflammatory language, rhetoric and adversarial behaviour that is destructive, ignorant
and debilitating
The Howard government has instituted a new set of Workplace laws, based on the federal government's constitutional powers. There is much debate and criticism regarding these laws. One perspective that has not been debated is level of maturity, and the characteristics, of Australia's employers. The reaction is many has been to interpret that they have open slather to sack employees or to rearrange their employment to less favourable conditions. The epitome of the lack of maturity, regard for talent and the methodology of valuing employee skill is the
Cowra Meatworks case.
In April 2006 twenty nine people were sacked and then offered their jobs back at $200.00 per week, lesser wages. This irrational action, in the face of laws that state this is illegal, arises due to the collective efforts of many people. Their individual contributions, during ten years of the Howard government, add up to a dysfunctional system of their direct making. It is an adversarial system of human resource policy and thinking that instead of adding value and enhancing the nation brings out the worst elements. These forces are in the ascendancy under John Howard's "Backward Australia" plan.
First, and foremost, it arises from the immaturity of Australia's senior political figures and their intemperate words and constant carping. For many years the conservative parties have shrilled about unfair dismissal laws and their impact on the economy. This has become the central theme. It is a constant whining. How the laws are limiting to small business and to productivity. Whining from people who have a constant need to blame someone or something. There is no research or evidence of this. Secondly the environment has been electrified by the zealous, and ill thought, out pursuit and persecution of unions, as the architects of evil. Interestingly politicians see no similar evil in their own political machinery.
At the forefront of the belittling, whining, and smart arsed insults, has been the former Minister for Workplace Relations, Mr. Tony Abbott. When he was in the portfolio he created the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Its primary function is to investigate, threaten and punish. It emulates its creator. It is a thuggish model of public policy, belligerent and of questionable worth. It entrenches an "adversarial cancer" in our approach to human resources management and employment issues. It exists to demonise, and to prosecute, and companies, who do things that the federal government does not like. The Commission is backed up by a policy that states companies will not be eligible for federal government contracts if they do not obey the federal government's view of how things should operate. True there is corruption and collusion in the building industry, thuggery and violence. True there is an ignorance in the building construction union leadership that has created the tension and hostility. This is largely due to their limited education and factional control where the not so articulate and reasoning in the industry, gain, and hang on to, union office. The federal government has fuelled this hostility. The approach of "political thuggery" is on both sides with wild cat behaviour on the part of the unions and blunt instruments of legislative power on the part of the government. This use of blunt instruments is one of the trademarks of the Howard government. Lacking the ability of persuasive argument, well researched and thought out debate, they resort to intimidation. This role model is adopted by quite a few people in Australian enterprises. Particularly those prone to exploitation.
Employer Associations' leadership has further entrenched the hostility, demarcation and
gladiatorial style
of the approach to human relations management in Australia.
Management is merely copying thes tyle of Australia's politicians.
Senior business figures have continually pushed the Australian government for
removal of
unfair dismissal
and the right to restructure (fire, downgrade or demote) for
operational reasons.
The federal government legislation does not define what "operational reasons" are.
The constant attacks on employment security and career prospects, and introduction of management decided employment flexibility, are aided, and abetted, by human resource practitioners in the larger companies, such as Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank, Australia Post, the National Australia Bank,
the Australian Wheat Board, the federal government agencies and many many more enterprises. There is no consideration of the national interest and the
development of human capital
in Australia by such short sighted and myopic
policies developed, engineered and rammed hom by corporate executives. It could be argued that too many highly paid executives are semi - literate in human behavioural and
management theory.
They appear to believe that they operate in vacuums, affected only by the world that they know or have identified.
There is a permeating view in many of the larger organisations that their arrogance and decisions cannot, and should not, be challenged.
The organisation is a shaping influence on behaviour and belief.
Particularly sophistiacted organisations with strong managerial and human capital systems.
Employees, particularly middle managers are programmed to ape the mantra and often engage in sycophantic emulation of their bosses
intimidating views and their own inexperienced, or substandard, notions of control, and management of people,
over any other form of
getting the best
out of their human assets.
They are very good at spouting the rhetoric and the latest theory, to their peers and the sometimes to public at large.
The organisation employs lawyers, and human resource advisory, and employment, agencies to ensure domination of
the "acceptable employee and management modus operandi" and the cultural fit. They
manage risk
and cultural fit. These two
managerial dynamics
have
taken on a greater importance than the actual skill and ability of employees and they stifle innovation and creativity.
The "managerial class" frame the workplace laws and give effect at each level of implementation moving their corrsove ideology into government.
This threatens the public interest as Departmental Secretaries and senior Ministers, and advisers, come to believe that the private sector
models, particularly competition and risk management and the shedding of accountability, have currency and application in the public sector.
"The new breed personifies qualities the Howard Government plans to enshrine
in controversial legislation now before Parliament, fundamentally changing the nature and
mission of the Public Service. They are managerialists and economic rationalists with a mixture of
public-sector and private-sector experience. They are believers in radically smaller government, where most government
services are delivered by private operators and where the "red tape" of accountability is kept to a minimum." (Source: The Axemen Cometh
The Sydney Morning Herald, November 1, 1997.)
In the federal government the laws around employment are influenced and some might say even drafted by external entities e.g. the law frim Feeehills.
Within every large organisation it appears that managerial and human resource practioner
(airheads)
populate the structures and have taken over policy and action at the highest level.
Among their weapons of culture shaping and control are the
psychological tests,
tools that have no proven foundation of accuracy or worth other than for
management legal fairness and other similarly inspired gobbly gook. These are products sold by snake oil purveyors to be swallowed by the gullible.
A worrying trend is the infiltration of airhead management, and fad theory, practices within Australia's public services. At the federal level, Immigration, Customs, Taxation,
Foreign Affairs and Trade - to name but a few. At the state and territory levels, education, health, transport and utilities.
Ministers are displaying their poor administrative, judgemental, rational and communication abilities almost every day. Senior advisers activley interfere in the adminstration and activities of the
public services at federal, state and territory levels.
Examine the responses of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mark Vaile, at the Cole Enquiry into the Australian Wheat Board. The Minister was too absorbed in trying to learn his job and it was not his responsibility anyway. Weak kneed he blamed someone else and whined. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, showed us his smug and arrogant side, stating that he never read international diplomatic cables except when he ran out of things to read on the plane. These two do not bother to read the material provided by spy agencies, intelligence sources and the large staff complement operating overseas. What a waste of money then and why have them if these two, and others in Ministerial offices and departments, cannot be bothered with what they send in. This is an example of jow people in senior roles view the work of others. Downer tells us that when he did bother to read one he dismissed the assertions because they were written by a "low level Captain". What a supercilious, class oriented and arrogant little man Downer shows himself to be.
The highly paid Ministerial advisory staff in the offices of the Prime Minister and the other Ministers, seem to have
never thought about the consequences.
The Australian public service does not push the point because
the Minister may become annoyed. What were the sources of information, and advice,
that the Prime Minister, and these two senior Ministers, used to inform their cabinet colleagues about the international ramifications?
They seem tio have turned a blind eye to the implications of the
Work Choices policies and legislation in the hands of many Australian employers?
It would seem that they were very selective.
Why should employers, particularly many seemingly incapable of
reading and deciphering legislation or learning the
art of human resource management behave any differently?
The media advisers to the Ministers, add to the climate of misrepresentation and confusion.
The should tutor the Minister Andrews, on the power of words.
We find the nation engaged yet again in adversarial behaviour and with demarcated
hostility. Kevin Andrews, the Minister for Workplace Relations, contributes to a gross
waste of time and resources. The Work Choices legislation is a public statement of
ignorance of human resources management. The government is ably assisted in this regard by the various employer associations
who place short sighted ideology and profit before stable and
reliable planning and implementation. The nation's policy and action
is framed on short term, selfish business objectives. Why does the Minister for Workplace Relations appear
surprised by the
emerging state of affairs
that has come about?
Perhaps Australian management could take a leaf out of American practices and
entertain their customers like this
in Australia. There are employers in the nation who are similar in their views about what employees might do to please customers. We prostitute so much in Australians society why not go all the way.
What do the federal government rules say about
exploiting peple in sheltered workshops?
Probably nothing because that is a welfare issue and not real employment. Governments and certain business interests can demonise trade unions but when it comes down to it the creation of
workplace inspectors and a massive government bureaucracy
will never replace the good work of those in
Australian trade union representatives
dedicated to the welfare of others. The Minister for Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, and like minded others, prefer to belittle and denigrate their contribution whilst egotistically self applauding his, and the government's own, efforts and views. These are such good qualities in our senior public leaders that so many want to emulate them.
On Monday the 10th, and Tuesday 11th, of April, 2006, the Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and the Foreign Minister, both provided an insight
into the level of competency in their own management of their portfolios and that of their senior staff. Ignoring the "pass the parcel" antics and lapses of memory, the underlying theme was one of incompetence on the
part of all parties. Cables were sent many times from the USA to the Ministries pointing to large scale corruption by the Australian Wheat Board
in its dealings with Iraq during United Nations sanctions and the invasion. The Minister did not read them or cannot recall them and the staff were not astute enough to
discern the future implications. Thus the task of ensuring that the matter of incompetence is addressed falls to the titular head of the
Australian Public Service (APS), Dr. Peter Shergold who can only deal with the bureaucracy and not the performance of Ministers.
The Prime Minister will not deal with the incompetence of his Ministers for there are no managerial or public interest standards set for the people whom he unilaterally chooses
to appoint into these roles.
It has been apparent for sometime that the pool of talent upon which the APS draws is shrinking. Director roles are being filled by people who are inexperienced and
of lesser ability than the older public servants who have left the ranks. Australia got in this mess through a failure of people who are paid to do a job, not doing it.
It was not that they did it clumsily or that they were instructed not to do it. It was simply that they are incapable of performing the roles for which they are employed. Dr. Shergold has the unenviable and challenging task of rebuilding large
parts of the public sector human capacity.
If you spent time inside recruitment companies and saw how many of them treated their staff, the
limited backgrounds, and experiences, of some of the recruiters that interview you
you might want to sue them for misrepresentation. Peole of early thirties are holding themselves out to be experts. One wonders why companies would employ their services such as advising on human resource matters when they are incapable of running their own
human resources productively and have such limited, and narrow, experience and expertise. You might want to interview the company's call centre staff to get an idea of their own practices
before you chose to contract the company to advise and guide you. Many of the well known enterprises
are simply appalling in their draconian and often childish styles of management of people. Particularly those that adopt
the US model of staff motivation through fear and oppressive micro management.
Recruitment companies are literally a dime a dozen on the sidewalk. They have an association and code of practice that seeks to give them some legitimacy and dress them up as competent.
The implication is that if they follow this code they are exemplary service providers. They tout the expertise of their staff. They are effectively call centres, listing jobs like a real estate agent.
A large number of recruitment companies engage in misrepresentation, breaching the trade practices act every day.
They misrepresent their products and services. On balance what they claim and offer is often not deliverable.
The hype does not match the performance. Their advertisements are too often misleading, the jobs, in a lot of cases, are non existent and
their smooth talking banter is nothing more than rhetoric that they learnt in rote school.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ignores their behaviour.
It is a world of cons. A con by the applicant and a con by the agency.
Day after day I have sat and read resumes that include qualifications that read like some
primary school credential. Short courses offered up as credible education and training, deliver in house within businesses that have trouble justifying the quality of their product let alone
their training. Applicants who were simply too lazy, or did not have the opportunity, to further their education. They have grasped at the
quick fix courses offered up under the Australian Training Framework. Courses of little substance and duration deliver by "nationally accredited training institutions", private and state owned Training and
Further Education Institutions. These are shallow competency based courses with assessment that is not based on a rigorous content, mind taxing puzzles and substance. However they are like locusts plagues across the Australia nation devouring the foundation of our education.
One must question the capacity of the person who offers them up as credentials supporting an application for employment beyond anything other than for things such as fork lift driving.
In comes the short listed applicant to be interviewed by someone whose life experience is measured in days not decades. It is no wonder that
the recruitment industry is held in such low esteem. Add the experience, knowledge, ineptitude, and questionable ability, of the interviewer, who themselves come late to work and are unreliable, to the
misrepresentations of the company on its web site, and in the brochure, and the industry is quite contemptible.
Creeping into the Australian lexicon, and operation, are the spurious, and
questionable practices employed in the United States of the America, the bastion of sleaze marketing and misrepresentation which lauds the employment practices of Wal Mart.
Put your resume on one of the many job boards, that promise employers will come flocking to read the document and see how many hits you get. It is laughable on one hand but
of greater import when you realise that it is quite dishonest.
The purveyors of hollow promises are playing with peoples' sensibilities, hopes and aspirations. Having
studied and worked with recruiters I find none are reliable or as qualified as they claim. They are the used car sales people of human aspiration and dreams.
They emulate other purveyors of dishonesty and trickery, namely Australia's politicians. Like the companies that exploit candidates and employers, with drivelling justifications as to why one should
use a recruiter, senior politicians exploit the gullible and also manipulate through misrepresentation. The difference being that the politician purportedly is there to serve the
public interest. Like the recruitment companies that infest Australia's landscape, Australia's government is about glossy advertisements, smoke and mirrors without much substance and result.
It is not about Australia's human capital and talent. The world of "work choices" in Australia is not a quality product, experience or environment. It is far from world best practice whatever that might be.
Hardly a week goes by that senior politician does not cause one to question their maturity.
Take for example Kevin Andrews, the federal Minister. He says on radio that the new laws introduced by him permit an employer to sack someone
from their livelihood on a "personality difference". This is an immature and reckless statement hardly worthy of a senior figure in politics.
One can always consider the adage - pay peanuts and you get a monkey but he is not paid peanuts and one assumes he is not a monkey. Though he does dance to pretty common ideology that drones on and on with raucous effect.
The Minister ought to be aware that as very senior member of the
Australian government cabinet words can be weapons. However history shows that he, and his Ministerial colleagues, have little comprehension of their role and the onerous responsibility it brings.
Perhaps he is self absorbed with his place in history as the reformer of Australia's labour market.
Pity that it appears that he did not educate himself about Ministerial responsibility and
the power of language before he took his oath to serve or at least gave it some thought over his time in parliament.
The question is, who does he serve? The record shows that it is not the national interest.
Pity that he is not confronted more often about not being a role model that is worthwhile emulating and listening to.
As federal Minister for Workplace Relations he has taken the
government's mean, and tricky status, to a new dimension
when he released his Workplace Relations Amendment ct and the regulations
in March 2006. The act has been touted as a simplification for it seeks over time to abolish awards, the power of the
Australian Industrial Relations Commission, tribunals and union power neutering anyone who effectively opposes the government's will.
To propose with your employer that you include a provision for dealing with dismissal (calling it an unfair dismissal) in your employment contract is a criminal offence. The fines are in the tens of thousands.
To do anything to attempt to block the government's objectives, using freedom to contract, is a criminal offence, to
propose that people might belong, or not, to a union is a criminal offence.
What is criminal is that an elected, and paid public official, a Minister of the Crown can act against segments of the population in pursuit of an ideological
objective. What is criminal is the manner in which the Minister focuses denigration upon a particular segment of the nation's population.
Unions are legally incorporated bodies. If they go about their legal business in a manner that the Minister does like he and sanction them.
This is draconian piece of legislation with puerile and sanctimonious overtones. It is poorly framed, with some 1,500 pages of incomprehensible legalese with no complete copy to which one can refer. It is has 440 pages of regulations for employers and employee es and is
cross referenced to legislative
instruments
that will have little meaning to any who is not Kevin Andrews, not a lawyer and not one of the Departmental public servants who
produced this diatribe of pure targeted spite. Perhaps the ever bright neo conservatives in the Australian Business Council and Industry Group, can decipher it.
"Do as I tell you or you will pay", is the simple summary I discern of Kevin Andrew's contribution to public policy.
Rather than gather the nation to work together to growth, economic wealth and harmony the Howard govern met likes to conquer and divide, create division and make its perceived enemies pay.
These are mean people who have for years been kept in their bottles until the very stupid voting public
let the genies out to
bite them.
Australia has become meaner as a place to work and people who would want to migrate here should think carefully about that. There are companies, including some indicated below, who will
find Andrew's legislation the ants pants. They are not Australia's
leading employers or leading human resource lights, they are definitely not world best practice role models
in their field. This piece of foolhardy and reckless legislation will cause the fall of the government but worst, it will
damage the nation irreparably for it imbues hatred into legislation even though it is veiled and covered in velvet glove lies and misrepresentations.
On behalf of a corporation, covered under the legislation, I rang the Kevin Andrew's Department's hot line and asked a simple question,. If the legislation mandated a
maximum 38 hour week, but employees could demand reasonable extra hours. What did this mean? My client
currently demanded that staff work 40 hours per week. The Department adviser referred me to another service, Wageline. I net to their incomprehensible web site which has
state and territory and federal awards. I rang them, they could not tell me. They said the employer would have to pay overtime.
The employer (my client) disputed that and said that no consultancy in the world worked a 38 hour week. I was none the wiser after two hours of web crawling and
phone calls. Tis is not atypical of the Department under Kevin Andrew's administration. I have had previous experience wit their misrepresentations and propensity to waste the money and time of other people.
This is a hallmark of the Howard government, wasting the peoples' money in office and in dealing with people externally. When you deal with a member of the Howard government remember that they are first and foremost, their interests,
their objectives and their egos. They are not unique, labor state and territory ministers, and departmental heads, are similarly inclined.
There are few glimpses of excellence at Australia's Commonwealth Bank.
Shareholders of one of Australia's leading banks, a very large and prestigious corporation, might be lead to question the competency and ethics of the
board members, chief executive and senior managers particularly in relation to human resources expertise and strategy.
In the week of December 15, 2005, the bank was fined $750,000 in the federal court for breach of the
Workplace Relations Act. The bank had forced 250 people to resign and then reemployed them through
a third party company. These people were effectively devalued and robbed by the bank of fair payment for their abilities.
I think this is unconscionable conduct and shows that at this bank, employees are not the greatest asset.
Perhaps the Board and managers think they are. Austalian banks have been held in contempt by consumers for their charges and pursuit of greed coupled with branch closures and poor service delivery and it appears that
senior managers learn nothing and attract further ridicule and contempt. Perhaps the Board and the fool who made the decision to be
creative, should pay the fine and not the shareholders. The board and managers are likely to make another brilliant decision, costing shareholders more
money by appealing the judgement.
As if this were not enough the bank management compounded its poor record with another brilliant
idea, producing a "grooming handbook".
5 December 2005, Commonwealth Bank
"The Commonwealth Bank today said that the grooming guide that the Bank
had issued to its retail banking staff was intended as a guide only.
Hugh Harley, Group Executive, Retail Banking Services said that the
Bank is very proud of the way its staff present to work.
The grooming handbook was developed in conjunction with the new
corporate collection which was issued to staff in March of this year,
free of charge to staff serving customers directly. With the issue of
the new designer collection, staff had shown a keen interest in personal
presentational matters. The Bank has been holding workshops
for staff to show them the full potential of the
new attire and how to present it in the most professional manner.
In this context, the grooming guide had been developed, as a
guide only, to support any staff looking for additional information.
Response from staff to the new corporate collection has been
overwhelmingly positive. In particular, staff serving customers directly are very appreciative that they were given a high quality wardrobe free of any charge.
Mr Harley said, "The guidelines are just that - guidelines.
They should be seen in that context.
The guide was developed in response to staff interest in
personal presentation and I apologise to any staff who may have been
offended or who do not feel comfortable discussing such matters".
Australian bank apologises for grooming guide, 06/12/2005 14:13
CANBERRA (Reuters)
One of Australia's largest banks apologised on
Monday for a "grooming handbook" that suggested staff wear flesh-coloured
underwear and advised against shiny stockings because they make legs look fatter.
The grooming guide -- which also recommended that earrings should be no bigger than
a small coin and that women should wear no more than two rings on each
hand -- was given to retail banking staff at the Commonwealth Bank.
Do you bank with, and use the services of, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia? If so why?
|
Careers guides and news articles on human resources management
|
Endowing "superiority".
Work at Australia Post and be endowed with the status of "superior officer". On the ABC news at 6pm on Friday November 25, 2005, an Australia Post spokesperson said that
employees who were absent on the day that national protests occurred against the federal government's Work Choice legislative diatribe would be asked to explain their absence to "superior officers".
This is a particularly inspiring description of people in supervisory roles in one of Australia's largest public sector enterprises.
The Australian government finds nothing wrong with this.
Of course one can understand why they would not the actions of Australia Post substandard in management theory and practice,
when one looks at
the record of the Howard government,
and the record of
other government owned enterprises
and the people with whom,
the Australian government deals and appoints to represent it. The Australian government under John Howard's devalues people into econoic increments.
It is botba culpable, and a negligent government, in the administration of one of the largest enterprises in Australia, the
federal parliament and government. A litany of poor management, ignorance and questionable ethics taints it and
this permeates downwards to industry, and enterprise, as managers emulate the example.
John Howard, and his Ministers, have given a legal license to the
mistreatemnt of human capital, dressing it up as economic necessity under global competition imperatives.
Only the stupid, or semi-literate, the bigoted and those without vision of what we as a nation might be,
would accept the propositions of Howard's human capital strategies. The quality of leadership and lack of ability to create a national bonding towrads goals,
might explain why Australia does not achieve its full potential.
It seems also evident that Australia's full potential would not be achieved
under the federal labor opposition ranks, of 2006, given the quality of
leadership and ability, therein.
The Commonwealth Bank, Australia Post and other examples we see every day,
demonstrates that the nation (citizens, shareholders) allows people of limited ability to take the running in too many sectors.
What are the classifications of people at Australia Post other than "senior officer"? "Less than ordinary officer", "ordinary officer", "above ordinary", "extraordinary" and "superior"?
What description might the CEO, and Board, have for their
esteemed office and positions in this enlightened publicly owned corporation?
I fully support Australia Post, execute the people! How brazen, and treasonous, employees are to dare to exercise their democratic right to protest against the government.!
Not on the government's (public) dime indeed!
Why not, you unenlightened, despotic small minded lot in charge of Australia Post?
Why are you wallowing hypocrisy, is it to impress your political masters?
The Australian government has no qualms in spending $50M - $60M of our dime,
pushing its own agendas, ideology and flaky theories, through shallow, childish advertising.
which is short on substance and strong on
misrepresentation. If quality for the buck is a determinant, then government should consider not paying its creative agencies for producing much of the drivel that comes out.
If quality of human management in government enterprise and the public service is a goal then again it should consider what sort of talent it is employing to achieve this.
Enough frivolity and sarcasm. Those whom about I rant are not worthy of a second thought.
We know high minded objectives of the value of their employees, or anyone else outside their circle, are not to be found on the Australian government's agenda.
Now back to the government inspired hunt for those who challenged its authority. Imagine what anarchy would occur if employees were allowed equal time, rights and costs, to similarly argue, protest and
advertise their feelings about their employment future, conditions and rights.
What a pathetic, and mediocre, set of human management standards and responses have crept into our enterprise lexicon, courtesy of the "communications sopin doctor" and the mentality of
management. What poor role models Australia has, in its major enterprises, particularly
government owned business enterprises.
There is a gulf between the published mission statements and standards and the exposed face of modern enterprise.
Are we to suspect that the inquisition is alive and well in organisations like Australia Post and that people are imbued with class, status and traits of superiority through employment?
We cannot tell much about the
quality of how people are managed
in this government enterprise. The Human Resource governance document is of such depth as to almost overwhelm.
In terms of its primary goal, shareholder value, revenue and a change from its past it successful.
However apart from what we see at the counter it is, like all of the Howard government
enterprises
not really transparent
in terms of fullsome reporting, and being accountable to the people that own it, the Australian public.
It extols the standard rhetoric. Consistent with modern management practice human assets are not the most valued in the strategic business plan.
Talking to Australia Post's independent contractors, particularly in rural areas, one gets a sense of an organisational culture that is
impervious to humanity in regard to how it deals with people. It is said that Australia Post plays hard ball knowing that jobs are in short supply,
investment is high and contractors are thus locked in. A "slavery" style contracting process that is about minimising the returns on investments that contractors can make on their trucks, equipment, outgoing costs and labour.
They never know if their contracts will be renewed or if they will actually retain them during the
tenure of the one they have. They pay a five-figure performance bond and the return on their capital is less than 3%, if that. As petrol and costs rise it can overall become a negative.
Contractors need the cash flow. They rise at 3am and work in all conditions.
By comparison the "senior officers" earn six figures with no outgoings. A forensic examination of the Annual report gives clues as to what sort of organisation Australia Post is inside.
Bondage through fear and insecurity is one of the managerial tactics used by the less inspired, and mediocre, organisations in the globalised world of competitive work to control people.
At the counter staff are polite and efficient but none wear "superior officer" nametags. It is unlikely that
"superior officers" actually man the front line service delivery and nor are they likely to be responsible for the quality of service.
That is the task of those who will have to explain, and justify, themselves to "superior officers".
We might have a further window to the style from the media spokesperson's statements.
To determine where such cultures have been nurtured we can look at the quality of human policy, politicisation and penchant for
retribution, vengeance and payback
all hallmarks of the Howard government.
Such traits seem inherent in the performance profile of some senior ministers, ministerial staffers spreading this corrosively into senior public servants.
We might ponder what are the benchmarks, and merit criteria, for
appointment to public sector boards?
Australia Post is a placid organisation. It is never in the headlines for "bucking" the government line, unlike Telstra.
So as the senior officers of Australia Post, with the government's consent enquire into the unexplained absence we can be assured
that the use of fear, to control, is something that the Howard government admires and practices.
The only anomaly is why Howard, and his governjment troops, do not wear uniforms and boots?
|
The quality of human resource management practice is affected by the
quality, ethics and behaviour
of the politicians and high profile leaders, in our communities as well as by the
efficiency
of the operations of the public, or private sector,
enterprise itself and the quality of its decision makers and managers.
By Comparison to the examples above there are enlightened employers
There are not too many employers in Astralia who will take on the disabled and give them employment and self respect.
Disability Works Australia has identified these
more enlightened human capital practitioners.
Many people are defined predominantly by their work.
|
As sad as it may seem, for many work is status and the definition of their personality and being.
It has become the central feature of modern existence and the lines of
living and working
are blurred.
The hours of work, and intrusion into personal life have had different effects on peoples' opinions and
satisfaction.
Technology is a pervasive
instrument that allows the employer unfettered reach, anywhere, anytime.
Society is complex and the nature of our policy planning and organisational behaviour systems
have not kept up with advances in technology. Theories of human resource management abound yet our governments and many employers, .
can only visualise and promote archaic,and simplistic, workplace relations.
Extract: Give us a break: Australia is hard at work
By Tim Colebatch
Economics editor, Canberra
July 7, 2005
"Even with four weeks' annual leave,
Australians are already the hardest-worked citizens in the Western world.
We bear an average workload of 1855 hours a year - more than
workers in the United States, Japan or anywhere in Europe.
Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews wants his changes
to allow workers to swap two weeks of annual leave for money,
but in fact our four weeks is already in the lower half of Western leave levels.
Whether you look at annual leave, public holidays or total working hours,
comparison with other Western countries suggests Australian workers are
far from being the bludgers we think. Koreans aside, no Westerners spend more
time in the office, shop or factory than us.
In a book of statistics,
How Australia Compares, Sydney academic
Rodney Tiffen and Age columnist Ross Gittins
found that Australians have the longest working year of any
Western nation for which data is available.
Australians on average work 1855 hours a year, or 38.6 hours a
week if you assume they work 48 weeks a year. That Australia also
has the West's second highest rate of part-time workers, Tiffen and Gittins
add, "makes its position at the top of the league of hard workers even more remarkable".
(end extract)
The senior members of Australia's parliaments are career politicians who have
limited experience, knowledge and awareness.
Put simply the members of the Australian government are pontificating and some would say that they do it
without a clue. I cast no such aspersion. Ther must be some clues? They do, on the face of it, appear to be
producing legislation that is
unbalanced
Dear Kevin
"The Democrats opposed the Work Choices legislation
because it was unfair, unwise and there was no empirical economic justification
for the changes. Please feel free to visit the Democrats campaign page on the Work Choices Bill."
Democrats policy and media on the reforms
Kind regards
Kellie Caught
Workplace Relations Adviser
Senator Andrew Murray
Australian Parliament
This is a signifiant problem.
Politicians, governments, and many managers of human endeavour and labour
make decisions based on ideology, untested theories, outmoded ideas, concepts, policies and a lack of new ideas and strategies.
The Australian Labor party has, for years, claimed that the major failure in Australia's human capital planning is the lack of focus on training.
This is not the case.
The greatest problem that Australia faces is the immaturity of the policy and decision makers.
The mediocre planning of government, and industry, and the definition criteria and selection processes
in use. Despite a reality of an ever-lessening pool of experience, job advertisements, and selection practices, still focus on the proposition
that for a person to be successful in a job
they must have experience within that sector. The advertisements are cannibalistic, recycling people. One of the most tedious of advertisements are for consultants.
They invariably specify that applicants should ave experience with "top tier" firms and the "Big 4".
These are the organisatons that have been investigated for corruption and fraud worldwide. The best known firms have had to be broken upo to survive scandal.
The greatest commercial failures in the world involve companies that used the services of these firms. What is it with recruiters and employers that they are mesmerised by size and
and smooth marketing?
Playing it safe, there is little, if any, recognition of the possibility, and potential, of transferability of skills across sectors.
Much of this myopia has to do with Australian management, and consultants', aversion to risk, lack of knowledge and
the human trait of choosing people who relate on a personal level with their interviewer. The situation is further exacerbated by
the protectionist barriers maintained by professional associations.
It appears beyond the comprehension of those who make decisions that there are fundamental skills, which are generic.
Successful people in other sectors learn very quickly in new ones.
Additionally the quality of policy, and practice, in human resources management and the harnessing of talent
in Australia is closely linked to
ethics and leadership.
Qualities that may be severely
lacking in many areas of public and corporate life.
|
| International job market,
employment, work, news, associations and jobs services |
DOES AUSTRALIA NEED A BULLSHIT FILTER?
ACADEMICS EXAMINING THE FEDERAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CHANGES
Wednesday 16 November, 2005, one hundred and fifty (151) academics representing the majority of Australia's academic industrial relations expertise lodged
their submissions with the
Australian Senate enquiry into the Australian government's Work Choices
employment legislation.
They were not flattering in their critique.
Kevin Andrews, the Minister for Workplace Relations, responded when asked if he would take their criticisms and views on board,
that there was "no substitute for common sense" and that the legislation was evolutionary. Such is the quality and the measure of
the political debate and perhaps the intellectual capacity of the Minister.
On this statement we can be assured that the world is flat.
Common sense would imply that under
Minister Andrews' hand there would be little future for nonsensical and noncommon sense, research of any kind such as flying to the moon.
There is no proof offered to support the government's, Minister's, some industry associations' and employers' claims that these laws will enhance
Australia's
productivity.
There is no research, or supporting evidence, in the world. Thus the government must go
beyond the planet into the mystique.
The newly appointed Chair of the Fair Pay Commission, says that he will be taking his guidance from God
and one can see that under the Howard government, the dark ages of
Christian crusades, servitude of the masses to the princes, and kings, of government and enterprise is in the ascendancy.
Howard, and his cabal, seem to have a mistrust of intellectual enquiry, unless it is supportive of, and consistent with, their
myopic perceptions and beliefs. Some critiques argue that Howard has diminished Australia's intellectual institutions. There is nothing exceptionally intellectual, or factually robust, about the government's polices, actions and decisions.
The government has printed a very simplistic, almost childlike, booklet called Work Choices, a reader for the challenged public who might find it hard to decipher complex statements and claims. The booklet tells us much about the level of maturity of the Minister, the Department and the members of parliament who think that it is all worthwhile and substantial in its content. It states categorically that an employee's award will be protected
and that they may elect to stay on it.
What the booklet does not say is that the
legislation clearly states
that this option will apply only
to the date of expiry of the award and that it may not be renewed.
The employment arrangement will then revert to the five minimum conditions until, and if,
an Australian Workplace Agreement is negotiated and agreed. The government's publication misleads by omission. This is common tactic and this is its record.
On Tuesday 15 November 2005 a national day of protest is planned against the Australian government's proposed workplace, and employment, laws.
One can gain a sense of the level of maturity of the Australian government, public service managers and employers generally by how they are responding to this event. This is in essence a political protest by citizens
against the policy actions of their government. However it is being characterised by some politicians, by the public service and by employers and their associations as a strike".
This is puerile and demonstrates how immature we are as a nation in approaching human resource management and strategies. The media airways are filled with a crescendo of parroting.
Those who characterise the political protest as a strike demonstrate their inability to conceptualise the nature of a true democracy and the level of their maturity and ability to deliver strong and effective fair government. For them democracy is voting once every few years and keeping ones head down for the remainder so that the "people who are in charge" may have unfettered control. At every level of Australian society without challenge.
The federal public service has decided that an employee may not take leave to demonstrate their opinion of the proposed legislation.
How ignorant and what an interference with democratic rights and process! It is all very well for employers to engage in lobbying, and influencing, governments and to seek to get the legislation they want but is illegal for the ordinary employed person to do so.
Activism in politics is actively discouraged. According to the "power collective" employed people must put their (employer') interests first above public good, vibrant democracy and challenging debates.
The leaders of our nation, at so many levels of political and corporate life tend to be a narrow minded and self interested lot whose greed, corruption and desire to dictate has resulted in this piece of legislative crap being offered up as innovative and
visionary policy for the economic, and social wellbeing, of Australia.
The Australian government demonstrates that it has no innoavtive, or unqiue, ideas
reading human resource management practice and how it might create a cooperative society for the advancement of Australia.
It borrows its policies largely from a country with an obscenely rich ruling class where half the population is mired in poverty and slavery.
This is not surprising when one looks at the background, and pronouncements, of the policy makers in Australia's federal government
and how the Ministers of that government, and senior public servants, run the administration with little regard for
quality management practices.
The Australian government's proposals for employment laws is another sure
fired way to put barriers and impediments in the way of harnessing, and deploying, Australia's productive human resource talents.
Australian government television advertisements for the proposed changes to workplace relations, industrial relations and
employment in Australia are one line printed statements, a page of
print with boxed statements "protected by law" overlaid in the newspapers. Governments, and their media advisers,
treat the electorate as if they are only capable of understanding simplistic concepts.
These advertisements are to cost taxpayers around $45,000,000 - $50,000,000. One advertisement says that
Australia cannot afford the 130 separate pieces of legislation,
thousands of pages and six different jurisdictions.
On that logic Australian cannot afford the 10,000+ pages of taxation legislation, health legislation, education legislation and nine multijurisdictional systems that cover the federation.
The Prime Minister and Minister for Workplace Relations are often unable to articulate a
comprehensive, and cogent argument,to justify their presumptions and claims. They resort to printing their single sentence thoughts in the media.
Unlike them people within communities are able to pose
telling arguments for and against.
Now if it says that page could not be found it is because Fairfax has removed Margo's web diary, and Margo.
Seems she did not take kindly to interference in editorial freedom. You wil see a really nice statement on Fairfax's site.
But you can find Margo by entering "webdiary Australia" into Google.
Workplcae Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews, appears evasive and somewhat trite in his explanations.
when asked specific questions about legislation and policy debates.
He has no evidence or research to support his broad assertions and simplistic assumptions.
Of greater concern is the slapdash and manipulative approach of the
Australian government to important public policy issues and to shaping legislation. Everything hs to be rushed through.
Legislation is poorly articulated and conveyed by Ministers to the people drafting and there is some form of "thought transference process" negating the
need to clearly enunciate the intent.
The employment legislation is convoluted, conflicts with other pieces of federal and state laws and with the Australian Constitution.
The Prime Minister fatuously denies the obvious.
The Prime Minister states with conviction that certain Australian employment conditions are
protected by law. The advertisements are over printed with this statement.
When the fine print of the 800 or so pages of legislation, and regulations, are studied it can be seen that
the Prime Minister misrepresents and misleads the public.
The Australian government has a solid, and constant, record of misrepresentation on most contentious
public policy issues.
It is a government of expediency. The end justifies the means of the ideological pursuit.
There is no research or intensive investigation of their beliefs. The policies of the Australian government are too often
acts of faith without foundation merit. They feel it in their guts.
These political role models shape other decision makers and their influence can be seen
in the
decline in ethics, and standards, in Australia.
Compounding this is the decline of standards and expertise in the human resources industry as
the Australian workforce ages and more experienced practitioners leave to be replaced by people of narrow expertise, education and experience.
The growth in the market place of specialist human resource (employment, training and services) enterprises, and disappearing teaching of human resource (soft)
discipline in universities, leaves Australia exposed on many fronts. If you look at the membership of cabinets
of Australia's parliaments, and membership of boards, and the level of influence
exerted by those who might be described as human related practitioners in those places it is clear that a significant number of Australian decision makers hold little regard for these
disciplines preferring to take the advice, and guidance, of the hard core practitioners of economics, computing, finance and law.
In these places the human resources agenda is given token recognition. There is no
concerted national strategy, planning and cooperation between government and industry, beyond
simplistic concepts and self interests' protection. The process of participation and debate, communication and listening denotes extensive immaturity,
lack of expertise, vision and innovation
within key areas of Australian society. Much of what is published, government reports, committees, corporate vision and mission statements and such can be seen to be
hollow rhetoric. The most prominent examples being the Code of Conduct and Values of the Australian Public Service and the Big brand name audit, legal and consulting firms.
Australia desperately needs an organisation that can act as a "bullshit" filter, a role currently being undertaken by an overworked legal and court system in the absence of an investigative and
enquiring media which is also afflicted by the talent drain of an aging population.
|
On Sunday, 9 October 2005, the Prime Minister and the
federal Workplace Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews, held closed meetings with special interest groups to unveil the government's industrial relations and labour market reform intentions.
This is typical of how Australia's political leaders, particularly the Prime Minister and the federal government act. Though they are not alone in this. The state government of Steve Bracks, in Victoria, is as myopic, insular and ignorant in its own practices.
The Prime Minister in response to questions,
about the impact of proposals on the nation responded glibly that we should look to his record.
This is is standard response which is drivel. It is a response full of hubris
standing on a foundation of political sand.
Which record is that? The one where he, whilst in opposition, railed against Asian immigration?
The manner in which special interests receive consideration, and patronage,
and others do not?
Buying votes and pork barreling? Corrupt, and manipulative, practices
in managing the business our parliament? The record of exclusion and bigotry? The record of borrowed, and expediently jettisoned, ideas and policies?
The sneaky, and underhanded approach to government?
Or perchance the record of the government, and its senior personnel, and their manipulation, omission,
lies and deceit? Torturing refugees, deporting Australians?
Can we look to the doctored pictures of people in the ocean and the claims of the Prime Minister about children being thrown into the sea by their parents?
Or perhaps the existence of weapons of mass destruction,
the abandonment of Australian citizen, David Hicks, to torture, sexual deviancy and the inhumane practices of his captors?
Denigrating the courts and legal system?
Perhaps the Prime Minister is referring to the perpetrated falsehood that he and his government are responsible for economic prosperity in a global world where money market, commodity prices
and big business influences the outcome?
What record would he have us rely upon that is an indisputable fact of his time in office that
does not involve some element of deception, manipulation and degradation?
John Howard is unable to articulate a human resources policy, industrial relations system and a need for change
through trust and leadership. The Minister for Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews similarly lacks the ability and
no one in the Australian government of John Howard, at ministerial level, appears to want to answer questions honestly and in detail.
They must instead spend $50,000,000 and more on television and media advertising
using tricks, lies, misrepresentations and mass manipulation techniques. Howard has made squalour in government and art form.
|
Australia operates in an environment where political, and corporate deviance, is rife underpinned by adversarial and substandard political governance processes and systems.
There is lack of trust, evidence of very poor to criminal examples of
ethical behaviour,
by interests engaged in significant areas of the nation's economy and society.
The politicians, union officials, representative bodies of employers, legal and other powerful
interests have combined, and colluded, to create a system of self serving principles asnd operation
It is a corroded environment where self interest of one form or another
is placed before public interesta dn even human decncy. Collusion to create a cartel is illegal under the Trades
Practices Act. However the Trade Practices Act does not apply to our system of government, politics and power.
It does not help that there are six states
and a federal government, unable to create a common system of processes in the nation.
It is the opinion of the author that the Australian government's proposals for labor market reform and employment legal practices, are yet another example of
the lack of detail, consultation and open government in operation in Australia. They appear to be cobbled together from a hybrid of systems, and ideas, borrowed from the sources below in this article. For example there are commonalities with the
government's proposals and with Vietnam labour laws and other developing world countries as well as bits and pieces from the USA.
They are designed to limit third party intervention in the arena of employer and employee.
They are a determined effort, by the coalition parties, as always to put the aim of destroying union power before any other logic. They are the creation of the unimaginative and the unethical.
They are the work, ideas and propositions of people who are
left brain thinkers
and who appear to sneak about. They should be
treated with scepticism by the working people of the nation.
The Howard government proposals will fuel the poor record of harnessing Australia's human talent.
The successive federal Ministers who have held the portfolio of Employment and Workplace Relations have no discernible experience, or qualifications, in people management and human resources.
Yet they propose dramatic alteration and systems without any credible justification of substance.
The Prime Minister likes to refer to
productivity claiming that it will rise.
Is this true?
Is productivity the same as
workload?
The Australian government, particularly the Minister for Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, has no data and research to support such claims.
This apparently will be undertaken by the Fair Pay Commission. The new Chair of that Commission has stated that he will be assisted by God's advice to make his decisions. Will God's advice come by email. Letter or other mechanism to be recorded, in accordance with public record legislation?
This drivel is typical of the low standards exemplified in decision making and argument in Australia.
The Ministers of governments, not just the federal, prefer to fly on ideology and assumption.
""Libertarian policy prescriptions are based on just a few principles,
outwardly appealing in their seeming simplicity ...'simple rules for a complex world.'
The first ... is that social problems can be resolved by creating a market.
Are schools failing? Create a free market in education. Is there pollution or
waste of resources? Create a market in the resource or the right to pollute; ...
Is there a shortage of human organs for transplants? Let people sell their body parts.
Not enough babies for adoption? Allow people to sell their babies ... "
And with equal deftness, Aune fingers the trouble: "These principles of 'economic correctness'
are increasingly mouthed in the universities and especially in conservative think tanks, but
their obvious long-term implications may strike ordinary Americans as horribly cruel.
They need to hear this economic gibberish first-hand...
Free-market rhetoric is powerfully persuasive only to a certain kind of elite audience;
uncoupled from nationalist appeals...it begins to lose its power to motivate general
audiences in a positive way."
Aune goes on to focus closely on the rhetorical practices of several major libertarians:
the legal scholar Richard Posner, the novelist and Greenspan mentor Ayn Rand,
the philosopher Robert Nozick, and the polemicist Charles Murray. He shows how the
"realist style"of economic argument works, combining the definition of any "object,
person or relationship as a commodity"; reliance on quasi-logical argument; appeals
to irony (via reference to the "inevitable perversity of well-intentioned social programs");
failure to respond to opposing arguments (because "in real science, when fundamental questions
are settled, only cranks dispute them"); and perhaps
above all, the avoidance of empirical
investigation".
Such avoidance has been made an art form by the Howard government and its Ministers.
There is little research and no evidence for his claims
just manipulations and assumptions,
and there is no defineable relationship between productivity and the policies
espoused by John Howard, the government and the supporting business community. The eminent American economist
J.K Galbraith states categorically that there is
there is little solid evidence that high unemployment results from labor market rigidities
and that such policies have widened the gap between rich and poor.
Employment is an outcome of demand for goods and services. In the United States he calims that full employment is sustained by the tacit acceptance of
large scale poverty by the administration and the greedy in society.
Questionable claims and statements of disputable fact
The Prime Minister, whose qualifications by comparison are that he diod a law qualifiaction back in the sixties and progressed to become a wily politician,
is clearly misleading the Australian people when he categorically states that there is a positive relationship between the government's
legislative intentions and the liekly outcome effects on productivity. This view is challenged with deep research and experience in the USA and Canada.
"For decades, workers' wages were tied to productivity. The idea was simple:
When workers produce more either tangible products or services in an hour of work
than before, they are being more efficient and, usually, that means more profit
for a corporation. Historically, increased efficiency flowed to workers in the form
of higher wages.
Not anymore. The link between productivity gains and wages
has been broken." (Tom Paine, July 14, 2005)
The Prime Minister also claims that the government's policies will result in higher wages and more jobs.
"Empirical studies have concluded that, when we aggregate among all workers,
the labor supply curve is upward sloping and fairly steep (that is, labor supply
decisions are highly wage inelastic or insensitive to changes in the wage rate).
Stronger influences on labor supply come about with changes in population,
labor force participation rates (demographic changes) and immigration flows."
(Ruby, D. 2004)
The Australian government has proposed sweeping changes to Australia's employment laws using corporation powers within the
Australian Constitution based on false, or at best very questionable, premises in an environment that has deep problems arising from
a lack of complementary planning and action in other arenas of the economy and society and a failure to work in concert with the broader community.
If these proposals pass the parliament then the government will do untold damage to Australia's human potential and enshrine "employability" and "short term expediency" because they refuse to admit that the roots of the problem are broad and pervasive.
The Australian states currently operate their own industrial systems with the exception of Victoria.
It is highly unlikely that the Australian government will deeply research its policy, be open and transparent in looking at every angle before it seeks to shunt this legislative junk through Australia's parliament.
The Australian government has yet (at October 2005) to unveil comprehensive documentation of its planned changes to workplace relations and labour laws in Australia. It will do this at the last mi9nute in the last session of parliament before the end of the year.
It will deliberately limit public, and parliamentary, scrutiny. This is a reprehensible tactic and a degradation of Australia's parliament.
The government of John Howard, will care little for such concepts as vibrant parliamentary processes and democratic representation and debate. Most people believe that the government's numbers in the Senate render any
any notion of parliamentary representation as academic.
Based on statements to date by the Prime Minister, John Howard, and the Minister for Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews,
the government's justifications reflect an archaic view of "employer - labour" dynamics and practices.
They are economically framed and give employers control of human capital with little protection to those who do not have bargaining power.
The government will simply add to the failure to value Australia's human potential other than for its
"employability".
This narrow concept of peoples' value is also reflected within the government's Education and Training policy portfolio which continues the quick and nasty "competency approach" to education and training based on industry views of employability , which
has the effect of dumbing down Australia.
Engaging in adversarial games. consistent with history, the Australian Council of Trade Unions launched an $A8 million campaign in a preemptive
response to try and stymie the government's plans for labour market reforms. The media love this and it allows them to avoid having to do any deep investigation or analysis.
According to the commentators the ACTU caught the government by surprise and the media made much of this.
Poll surveys indicated in the week of 8 July 2005 that some 65% of the Australian population were skeptical even opposed to the
government's reform package. Of that 65% a large proportion were implacably opposed. The government's response was that the ACTU advertisements were misleading.
The government began what is expected to be its $A20 million advertising blitz on the 9th July, 2005. The debate is emotive and politically charged and it is highly likely that
gross misrepresentations, and distortion, will be undertaken by all of the adversarial parties involved.
The government claims productivity and other future benefits which cannot be quantified. Trust
is not a value that can be easily associated with such environments and it is always interesting how politicians ignore this fact.
They are generally not believed by people who are suspicious of motive and agenda. Thus they tend to stick to the faithful audience and rarely play to the
ambivalent, critical or objectionable audiences.
On Wednesday 13, July 2005 the media reported a survey which purported that 83% of business in Australia said that they had no intention
of hiring extra people. This was juxtaposed against the Prime Minister's claim that employment would be created.
Peter Hendy from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry claimed that 17% of business would employ extra people.
This he said correlated to some 200,000+ businesses. These are the type of broad-brush justifications and arguments that are used to colour the debate.
Add to them advertisemenst that are misleading and statements that are incorrect and there is reason to mistrust what the Prime Minister and senior Ministers say.
Much of their claims are fortune telling, some are meaningless and unprovable, each side counters. The NSW state government is sponsoring a discussion forum in Sydney for Thursday 14, July 2005 and that is also polarised. One business representative stated that he might be the only Christian in the
lion's den. Religion and state are coalescing. History demonstrates | |
Articles on Employment, Leadership and Ethics