Holden workers go on strike

[Express]

Originally Posted by trublu

Well if the bosses are worth every cent as you say then fair enough but don't bag the workers if they are lucky enough to get a generous pay out, after all these CEO's & Executives approved these EBA's

The workers are only fighting what they have won over the years & remember this it is not the redundancy package causing GMH ceasing production.

I haven’t written anything bagging Unions, I kept my thoughts on them to myself. I just pointed out in response to your post that CEO’s & Executive staff are entitled to earn whatever they sell themselves for.

As far as the employees fighting for their agree entitlements, so they should, that is their right.

If it stays in dispute then the courts will sort it out.

The courts approach will be less emotional. They’ll try and determine if the existing contact is deemed fair and balanced for both parties, whether the contract was coerced by either party and so on.

Good legal representation will tell someone trying to break a contract that no contract is binding, where legal counsel for the other side will tell you the opposite. That’s what the courts are for, to sort it out.

Further, no-one would be silly enough to think redundancy packages were the cause of GMH’s problems. Redundancy comes into play when the horse has already bolted.




.

[BroadyFord]

Continuing...

[Franco Cozzo]

I dont know about you guys but getting 200 people to cooperate and agree on walking out is a pretty damn good team.

We couldn't come to an agreement with 15 people at work over when we wanted to push an EBA through and it all turned to ****.

[brettv]

companies don't just give conditions away the
workers would have to fight or give something
up for what they have today, and have every
right to stand up for what is theirs.

[tweeked]

You make a deal you should stick to it.

Having said that - this sort of deal and its short sightedness is one of the reasons why businesses now avoid investing in manufacturing here. Over a years pay is a joke. Put yourself in the position of business for a moment. If the business is not working out in AU then (already a bad situation) then it will cost 3 times more to get out (it gets even worse). A business should not trade when the cost of getting out exceeds the value that is left, so that point is reached earlier.

A greedy deal does not benefit employees in the long run.

But the current workers should insist on getting what they signed up for - a deal is a deal.

[ute83]

I think some of you blokes don't understand redundancy. It doesn't cost the company anything while they are in business, only when they want to get rid of workers or in this case close up shop. The average worker will never see a cent while they stay in a job with the same company. That's why most workplaces use natural attrition to whittle down their workforce. Unions negotiate high redundancy payments as a disincentive for companies to lower their numbers not as a benefit for the worker when things are normal

[GASWAGON]

Might be wise for the remaining 30 to just take the 52 weeks and get the hell outta there before they get nothing at all? Move on and NEVER buy a GM product again.

Then let Holden employ some very unskilled workers to finish the V6's off.?

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by ute83

I think some of you blokes don't understand redundancy. It doesn't cost the company anything while they are in business, only when they want to get rid of workers or in this case close up shop. The average worker will never see a cent while they stay in a job with the same company. That's why most workplaces use natural attrition to whittle down their workforce. Unions negotiate high redundancy payments as a disincentive for companies to lower their numbers not as a benefit for the worker when things are normal

Understand it fully - but you need to realise that when a business is deciding to invest issues like this are taken into account. Business needs flexibility to invest, and so if place A makes it hard to restructure to survive(redundancy is one way) and place B doesnt, where do you think the jobs go?

You are also a touch wrong about it not costing anything. We make a provision for redundancy in some areas of our business where we supply services to businesses that if they leave us - that worker will be needed to be made redundant (if they qualify) when the work is gone. Although we do not pay it week by week, that money is paid into a seperate account and so is accrued as an expese in simple terms. A good business does this - that way if that time comes the money is there and the worker gets their entitlements immediately.

Dont get me wrong I believe in redundancy, but figures of 3 or 4 weeks for every year of service uncapped are over the top.

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by kolski

Well said merc, these people bagging the workers obviously have no idea & are not in the industry and dont know the meaning of EBA.

Hahahaha... oh god spin another one.

No idea, **** I have an idea and it's called a salary. What's that, its when I start work I get paid this much, no matter how many hours I work.

Any entitlements are spelled out in there, holidays and redundancies are based on whats set by the Australian Government.

Be bloody effen grateful you can bargain with what you get when you work and don't have to sign a salary, where you can (and will) be made to work whatever hours on the same rate with no penalties.

[fte50]

Originally Posted by tweeked

You are also a touch wrong about it not costing anything. We make a provision for redundancy in some areas of our business where we supply services to businesses that if they leave us - that worker will be needed to be made redundant (if they qualify) when the work is gone. Although we do not pay it week by week, that money is paid into a seperate account and so is accrued as an expese in simple terms. A good business does this .

Correct, but just as good business does this, remember the fact the employees also have this consideration factored in to their hourly rate, as well as various other conditions.
So if for example you were offered a pay rise without the current redundancy provision obviously it would be higher than a situation where it exists.

What next, strip workers of all their sickies as well in case they might one day be used ??

Everyone acknowledges it is a tough situation to be in, however the multinationals don't have to pay a cent of it (closure costs) had they been committed to Australian Manufacturing - at the end of the day this is corporate/shareholder greed gone mad with the view to manufacturing in a basically free 3rd world nation in the name of higher profits.
Those who think Ford or any company closing has done the right thing by its employees / communities think again - it was Ford who didn't allow Australia to build/invest in a suitable product for our times and shifting market segment - after all Australia has the experience to build world class cars !

[GASWAGON]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

Hahahaha... oh god spin another one.

No idea, **** I have an idea and it's called a salary. What's that, its when I start work I get paid this much, no matter how many hours I work.

Any entitlements are spelled out in there, holidays and redundancies are based on whats set by the Australian Government.

Be bloody effen grateful you can bargain with what you get when you work and don't have to sign a salary, where you can (and will) be made to work whatever hours on the same rate with no penalties.

If Holden wanted to pay salaries they should have said so years ago, but they did'nt, instead they signed an EBA agreement that legally entitles workers to be paid at said redundency package.

They cannot go and move the goal posts because they have bitten off more than they can chew and borrowed endless amounts of tax payers money to keep the company running!

And how come the CEO's get to rake it in but the poor workers have to take salary packages and be forced to work overtime everyday for nothing?

[fte50]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

Hahahaha... oh god spin another one.

No idea, **** I have an idea and it's called a salary. What's that, its when I start work I get paid this much, no matter how many hours I work.

Any entitlements are spelled out in there, holidays and redundancies are based on whats set by the Australian Government.

Be bloody effen grateful you can bargain with what you get when you work and don't have to sign a salary, where you can (and will) be made to work whatever hours on the same rate with no penalties.

And working for a salary is your choice, just as everybody has one, irrespective though you have accepted those conditions /entitlements and would be peed if they were overturned.

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by fte50

What next, strip workers of all their sickies as well in case they might one day be used ??

not at all - i was only answering the "it doesnt cost anything" comment

If you see my previous post, I am in favour of the payouts as they were promised

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by fte50

And working for a salary is your choice, just as everybody has one, irrespective though you have accepted those conditions /entitlements and would be peed if they were overturned.

The only reason I accepted it was because out of nearly 400 jobs I applied for this was the only one I got an interview for.

And trust me, I have the same entitlements as a junior at McDonalds. Except they probably get paid overtime and leave loading, which I don't.

[buickman]

[QUOTE=
Dont get me wrong I believe in redundancy, but figures of 3 or 4 weeks for every year of service uncapped are over the top.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's over the top some of these older employees that have been there for 20 + years might walk out with about $80,000 but a lot would have families still at home, homes to pay off and their chances might be slim trying to find another job competing against younger people even if they skill up and also depression could set in as they most likely have never had to do a CV for a long time. Most would have to join an agency to have any chance of employment.
Also take into account most will walk out with under $40,000 it might sound great but it can disappear fast for some that have never seen that type of money in one lump sum.

[GASWAGON]

Originally Posted by buickman

I don't think it's over the top some of these older employees that have been there for 20 + years might walk out with about $80,000 but a lot would have families still at home, homes to pay off and their chances might be slim trying to find another job competing against younger people even if they skill up and also depression could set in as they most likely have never had to do a CV for a long time. Most would have to join an agency to have any chance of employment.
Also take into account most will walk out with under $40,000 it might sound great but it can disappear fast for some that have never seen that type of money in one lump sum.

Just did a two night Forklift LO license... An older bloke 55 was made redundent after 18 yrs service on 60k plus car to make way for a younger employee....

He was owed 12 weeks and they tried not to pay him for it....he had to take it to court.....

The CEO was pulling 500k and the son of the CEO was pulling 350K...The account 220k....

This poor man is working casual labour jobs and whatever else he can get and luckily his wife is permanantly employed.....for now!

[b0son]

Originally Posted by buickman

I don't think it's over the top some of these older employees that have been there for 20 + years might walk out with about $80,000 but a lot would have families still at home, homes to pay off and their chances might be slim trying to find another job

One could argue that they should be sensible, and not live beyond their means (and that includes having enough savings to cover the event of a loss of employment). Provisions like redundancy, long service leave and superannuation simply pass the buck to the employer to make sure you have something stashed away. Little wonder employers outsource.

Also take into account most will walk out with under $40,000 it might sound great but it can disappear fast for some that have never seen that type of money in one lump sum.

Lack of personal responsibility is the employer's problem how exactly?

[fte50]

Originally Posted by b0son

One could argue that they should be sensible, and not live beyond their means (and that includes having enough savings to cover the event of a loss of employment). Provisions like redundancy, long service leave and superannuation simply pass the buck to the employer to make sure you have something stashed away. Little wonder employers outsource.



Lack of personal responsibility is the employer's problem how exactly?

This isn't about passing the buck, personal responsibility, nor about how people choose to live, however it is everything to do with making these multinational giants accountable for the negative impacts their decisions of closure or job termination place on the employees, families, communities and nations that have contributed to their success and supported them through good and bad since manufacturing began.

As a fellow taxpaying Australian I for example would be beyond ****ed off to know Ford / Holden would only have to pay a mediocre redundancy only to have our welfare system then topping these people up.
The fact is the auto industry is a specialised field, it will take the majority of these workers more than 1 year to find "real employment" and with a redundancy package they are not entitled to welfare payments - so in short money is going out but not getting returned.

For everything in life there is consequences a plenty, for employers redundancy just happens to be another.

[Bossxr8]

The key wording I noticed from the posted article above is "under a plan PROPOSED by the company".

Game, set and match right there. The plan obviously has not been negotiated and approved so it's not worth the paper it's written on, so for Holden to now turn around and try to use this proposed plan is beyond a joke, until you remember this is a division of GM who consider business ethics to be something that doesn't apply to them.

[Express]

Originally Posted by fte50

....... however it is everything to do with making these multinational giants accountable for the negative impacts their decisions of closure or job termination place on the employees, families, communities and nations that have contributed to their success and supported them through good and bad since manufacturing began.

And the moral of this story is?

Don’t accept employment opportunities from any multinationals.
And only support products made by a home handy man.

Oh and don't let Governments and Unions interfere in matters that may also effect your employment.

Originally Posted by fte50

As a fellow taxpaying Australian I for example would be beyond ****ed off to know Ford / Holden would only have to pay a mediocre redundancy only to have our welfare system then topping these people up.
The fact is the auto industry is a specialised field, it will take the majority of these workers more than 1 year to find "real employment" and with a redundancy package they are not entitled to welfare payments - so in short money is going out but not getting returned.

And how are these specialised people most of whom work on a production line any different to the thousands upon thousands of other employees who suffer redundancy?

Do they have different financial commitments, do their families require different support, do they suffer different health and stress problems due to unemployment, do they take longer to re-employ, do they need different retraining and are they treated different when competing against younger job seekers.

Talk to a lot of people over 40 who have lost their job and you’ll find the answer is no.



This thread is about these employees being paid what was agreed to in an EBA.

Outside of that they are no better or less and don't deserve any more considerations than any other Australian employees who lose their jobs.



.

[fte50]

Originally Posted by Express

And the moral of this story is?

Don’t accept employment opportunities from any multinationals.
And only support products made by a home handy man.

Oh and don't let Governments and Unions interfere in matters that may also effect your employment.

And how are these specialised people most of whom work on a production line any different to the thousands upon thousands of other employees who suffer redundancy?

Do they have different financial commitments, do their families require different support, do they suffer different health and stress problems due to unemployment, do they take longer to re-employ, do they need different retraining and are they treated different when competing against younger job seekers.

Talk to a lot of people over 40 who have lost their job and you’ll find the answer is no.

This thread is about these employees being paid what was agreed to in an EBA.

Outside of that they are no better or less and don't deserve any more considerations than any other Australian employees who lose their jobs.
.

If you grasp the context, the moral of the story is clear and was a reply to a statement, it has nothing to do with refusing work from multinationals.

You are correct in your reference to the other many Australians faced in the same situation, however I never made any admission that others are less or no less significant.
As you so clearly put it though "This thread is about these employees being paid what was agreed to in an EBA" - just seems some people cant fathom the importance of honouring a contract , for better or worse.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Problem is most people here probably haven't worked in the same situation for a dodgy company out to shaft its workers, so they haven't been involved with a union before or worked under an EBA..

All they see is the media's portrayal of unions.

Remember its an AGREEMENT between the employees and employer, the employer is trying to worm their way out of what they agreed to.

To the people who think its unions who caused our manufacturing problems, would you work for the same rates as the production line workers in Ford Thailand?

Wages are high because we have a high standard of living and the costs associated with it. I see lots of people complaining about unions and their conditions but not many offering to lose their 4 weeks paid annual leave or their paid sick leave, or paid qualifications, or company liability when you damage something belonging to a customer, or the unfair dismissal laws, superannuation etc.

What I find hilarious is these CEOs of big companies want to cut penalty rates, remove OH&S legislation because it costs too much money, then they give themselves HUGE payrises, its all about taking from the little guy.

Manufacturing in the USA is going out too (to a lesser degree) and they have much lower wages and conditions. Talk to the people serving in the US defence forces and you'll find out why they are there instead of living in poverty on their piddly minimum wage, and even then they get rolled on $$$. My cousin got back from Afghanistan and had a bit to do with the boys from the USA, and that was what he mentioned, or they go through the army because they cant afford higher education.

The same thing will happen to Ford Thailand and China, a day will come where they will demand higher wages and conditions across the board and then the manufacturers will pull out from there for the same reasons. When that is we don't know, but it will happen and the manufacturers will move onto the next 3rd world country. Hell, China is even trying to weed out corruption in its government, so something is happening.

Unfortunately we need tarriffs to be on a level playing field, as much as I hate limiting choice, but its too late now. If you work in a dead end field like I do or the manufacturing people do, skill up before you have no job, thats what I'm doing.

A little ashamed it had to be all spelled out here. It's been covered an awe full lot lately.

Also...I heard on the radio a few days ago that Holden had sacked 2 or 3 hundred more.....I'm assuming this is what led to these breakdowns.
They said there's only like 3000ish Holden workers left now....seems a bit low

Oh yeah....and where's all the clowns who said Holden was going down swinging yep they're doin a great job by the looks of it. With all this justified bad media I'd wouldn't be surprised if GM couldn't sell anything in a few years the way they run things. It seems to just get worse!!

[GASWAGON]

I predicted when they first said they were closing that it may even happen next year or 2015.....At least Ford are'nt on the hook for so much borrowed governement money and seem to be much more stable in the accounting area....

Look at what GM did in the U.S they nearly went broke in 08 and borrowed billions of u.s $. The worlds largets car maker nearly went bust!

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by EF_6

I predicted when they first said they were closing that it may even happen next year or 2015.....At least Ford are'nt on the hook for so much borrowed governement money and seem to be much more stable in the accounting area....

Look at what GM did in the U.S they nearly went broke in 08 and borrowed billions of u.s $. The worlds largets car maker nearly went bust!

Not nearly went bust, they did go bust.

Fords always had better accountants, hence why they dropped fairlane, wagon, base model v8s etc etc. there was no business case for the niche models so they were dropped.

On the other hand it's like Holden accountants met at the pub every Friday arvo and the conversations went something like this

Acc1" so what new models do we want?"
Acc2 " my mate trev reckons we need a four door 4wd ute, and he reckons all his mates want one too, so we better make them. We'll sell squillions trev reckons."
Acc1" done. We might as well do a wagon as well then?"
Acc2" yeah, oh and trev reckons a modern monaro 4wd would rock, cos his sisters boyfriend has one of those Rex things, and trev keeps getting beaten by it, so clearly we need to make something to beat it"
Acc1"how we gonna pay for all this?"
Acc2"simple, the govt will give us money cos we will tell them how Ozzie we will make them"

[ute83]

Originally Posted by tweeked

You are also a touch wrong about it not costing anything. We make a provision for redundancy in some areas of our business where we supply services to businesses that if they leave us - that worker will be needed to be made redundant (if they qualify) when the work is gone. Although we do not pay it week by week, that money is paid into a seperate account and so is accrued as an expese in simple terms. A good business does this - that way if that time comes the money is there and the worker gets their entitlements immediately.

Dont get me wrong I believe in redundancy, but figures of 3 or 4 weeks for every year of service uncapped are over the top.

In my workplace of approx 1000 people the workforce has been reduced by about 100 over the last few years without a single redundancy. Like I said natural attrition. Total cost to company, zilch. Companies that come into the country with the idea of shutting up shop should then negotiate capped severance pay. I for one don't know of any companies that open up here only to want to close down. There should be a big deterrents to not shut down and leave workers on the scrap heap.

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by ute83

In my workplace of approx 1000 people the workforce has been reduced by about 100 over the last few years without a single redundancy. Like I said natural attrition. Total cost to company, zilch. Companies that come into the country with the idea of shutting up shop should then negotiate capped severance pay. I for one don't know of any companies that open up here only to want to close down. There should be a big deterrents to not shut down and leave workers on the scrap heap.

Dont you see that those "deterrents" stop the companies starting in the first place?

If we encourage investment, there WOULD be other jobs to go to - and so big redundancies would not be required.

[tezxr8man]

Originally Posted by b0son

and inevitable offshoring....

they have contributed no doubt. they have there place but in some cases the industry in Australia is less competitive because of them.
It's a fine line

[GASWAGON]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

Not nearly went bust, they did go bust.

Fords always had better accountants, hence why they dropped fairlane, wagon, base model v8s etc etc. there was no business case for the niche models so they were dropped.

On the other hand it's like Holden accountants met at the pub every Friday arvo and the conversations went something like this

Acc1" so what new models do we want?"
Acc2 " my mate trev reckons we need a four door 4wd ute, and he reckons all his mates want one too, so we better make them. We'll sell squillions trev reckons."
Acc1" done. We might as well do a wagon as well then?"
Acc2" yeah, oh and trev reckons a modern monaro 4wd would rock, cos his sisters boyfriend has one of those Rex things, and trev keeps getting beaten by it, so clearly we need to make something to beat it"
Acc1"how we gonna pay for all this?"
Acc2"simple, the govt will give us money cos we will tell them how Ozzie we will make them"

LOL.....Nice one!

[eb2fairmont]

So would I. And rightly so. The changes to the EBA to allow for redundancy is really the workers doing themselves out of entitlements. Without redundancy the figures are only on paper only and don't account for retirement etc.

[JG34JA]

wrongwaynorris, post of the year