🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 29 May 1996 05:06:52 GMT, bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd
Felsche) wrote:

>In <31a99a7d.5233026@news.m.iinet.net.au>
>   drwho@iinet.net.au (Anthony Kidd) writes:
>
>>On Mon, 27 May 1996 03:06:28 GMT, bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd
>>Felsche) wrote:
>
>>>In <31a85d41.21229782@news.m.iinet.net.au>
>>>   drwho@iinet.net.au (Anthony Kidd) writes:
>>                                  <snip doctor>

                                       <snip doctor>
>Taxes! Minimum allowances, etc. Last I heard (about 2 years ago), it
>costs $20,000 a year to employ somebody, before you pay them a single
>cent.

I still miss the point here Bernd.

Taxes. Are you saying the employer pays the tax for each employee he
or her may employ in advance?.....And if he or her looses that
employee during the year,they have done there doe?.....As this is a
new one on me.

Minimum allowances?.......Such as what?

This would not stop a employer keeping  a good tradesperson as that
so called $20,000 would just resume with the next employee,they
employ.

I think that example you gave,does not add up in my industry.

                                       <snip doctor>
>Or as bad! :-)

My employee has said if I look after him. He will look after me,and he
never meant cabbage. He meant he will keep me employed.
>
>If the employer can ensure that a job gets done right the first time
>by hiring competent people so that re-work is unnecessary, then the
>better tradespeople will be able to demand more, because they are worth
>much more.

In a perfect world. I would say yes.

>
>This is as much consumer-driver, as trades-driven. One thing which the
>unions can do, which may be asking a bit much, but is nevertheless
>worth mentioning; is to educate the consumers to expect high standards
>of quality. This forces the providers of services and equipment to take
>more care or to bear increased losses from rectification work.

The standard on construction jobs is much higher than the cottage
industry. The unions have no say in the cottage industry as the
employee are none union members.They are also on "pbs" and
only pay 20% tax.

 If you have bought a new house, Have you ever wondered why your
gutters on your home is flacking?

Beacause these so called tradespeople are one coat wonders. They
never put galvanised primer on first. All they do is put one or two
coats of gloss acrylic or gloss enamel. Same goes for inside your
home. 

I would never get a cottage painter to paint my house.

In short, the standard of work on "none union jobs" is far worse than
union jobs.

Unions helping consumers. The unions have for years been telling paint
manufactors to tell the public in detail the dangers of paint and want
all paint tins to come with a "chem-alert" sheets . To tell consumers
the damage paint can cause to them. There are some warnings on
paint tins but not alot of detail.

The last time the unions pushed for workers on cottage work to be on
real wages and have a choice to be in the union. The cottage Industry
put out adverts on t.v showing two union workers who look like hitmen
and telling the consumer this is what will happen if the union are
allowed in the cottage industry. So maybe have a word to the housing
company's.

                                          <snip doctor>

>Not if you increase expectations of affordable excellence in
>workmanship.  It need not take any longer to do a job well if you know
>what you're doing, but even if it does, then the extra time spent is
>far less than the cost of having to do it twice!

In the old days you could take your time to do a good job,but nowadays
the industry is so cut throat a employee cannot do a good a job as he
or she would like. A job is done so that it can just pass and not done
as it should be done. As the employer would make no profit and would
be out of business in a week.

Most consumers go for the cheapest quote.
>
>If you think of yourself as a commodity, then you will be treated
>as one.


                                 <snip doctor>

>There are crooked bosses in every "game".
>
>Consider that the union (perhaps not deliberately) deals with the
>workers as a commodity in much the same way as the employer; and you
>pay your union to do it to you! :-) The union sets the rate based
>on what it thinks you're worth, or rather, what the average is worth.
>[In practice, it's a little different; the rate is set based on
>industry averages, profitability of employers, etc.]
>
>There is a role for unions in defining minimum conditions for
>many workplaces, but they should not IMHO impose the same conditions
>on those who opt out because they believe that they can get a better
>deal. Neither should employers be permitted to force employees to
>accept conditions below the minimum.

As long as everyone has a choice. I just hope they do have a choice.
>
>Workplace agreements work when employees (their unions) and their
>employers recognize that employees are not a commodity.
>-- 
>Bernd Felsche {speaking for himself}
>MetaPro Systems Pty Ltd, 130 Fauntleroy Avenue,
>Redcliffe, Western Australia 6104
>Phone: +61 9 479 3722    Fax: +61 9 479 3720

Bye
Anthony :)