Our latest scheme for getting casual Workers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frantic

Again repeat- read my post NOTHING TO DO WITH UNION.
Higher staff turnover with "a standup fight "being threatened so they can go back on the dole is a reasonable indicator of issues, with pay springing to mind if the dole is more attractive.:angel:
My family has worked both ends of the spectrum from the upper management of a very large company to new home sales .then with me working both union and non union jobs and 24/7 shift work. You see a high turnover in certain jobs depending upon the economy and other factors but usually the first thing they offer when poaching a person is more $$$$ with conditions talked about later. As Brian said both my parents where poached , with both returning to their old employers,one with far better (national corporate manager)and one on the same conditions, but both for the same reason, the new manager was a Wayne , last name Kerr. This manager type caused a mass exodus at both places and the end result was both companies with Wayne's for managers was a large loss of business and in both cases an eventual closure of Aussie division other was bankruptcy.
Now getting back on subject as I don't know about dole, can they only partially reduce payments for peak workloads like Eian's situation, fruit pickets etc or do they cut then have to re-do all the paperwork each time casual work slows.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nugge t

frantic the manager’s name is of no relevance unless you are trying to make a personal attack.

If you are going to quote people, please try to understand what was said..

"Nearly had a stand up fight on the footpath with one guy who was demanding to be sacked and me refusing!!!!!!!"

I am not sure how me refusing to sack someone who has a 38hr a week job paying above award, but who wants to go back on the dole is an illustration of poor employment practices.

How you can possibly support people refusing to work when they have the opportunity is beyond me but I am not going to debate you, again. There are more productive ways to waste my time.

---

You missed the point nugge t; no one was named. Wayne Kerr=******. :Thump:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V8Ian

You missed the point nugge t; no one was named. Wayne Kerr=******. :Thump:

---

Been a 4wd forum just call him Pajero :D

or, politically correct - "owner operator".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V8Ian

You missed the point nugge t; no one was named. Wayne Kerr=******. :Thump:

---

I am fully aware of the connection thank you. If you were aware of the names of the people involved you might understand.:Thump:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Kerr"]Wayne Kerr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nugge t

When we were using employment agencies who were placing unemployed we had a massive turn over..and that was AFTER we screened out the druggies.

65% would take a day off in the first week hoping they would be sacked. We would employ them as 38hr casuals but they would tell Centrelink they were only getting 3 days. They would then take off 1 or 2 days a week until they were sacked and then go straight back on the dole.

Nearly had a stand up fight on the footpath with one guy who was demanding to be sacked and me refusing!!!!!!!

The bottom line is that the incentive to work has to be greater than the reward for not working. It was amazing how eager Indian students were to work as they had no fall back position. And before frantic jumps on the union bandwagon....they were paid exactly the same wages and had exactly the same conditions as the Aussies or anyone else. Ironically because of our bonus sytem, they earned more than the Aussies because they worked harder!

---

Only person named in this thread is in red;)
For about 4 years up until 2011 I worked as a casual as well as full time and the turnover rate was nothing like 65% amongst the unemployed and agency blokes with the casual unemployed and agency blokes who got moved over to the company books working up to the companies limit of overtime regularly. The turnover was when a person either found a full time job elsewhere OR was given a permanent job ,firstly on day shift then on a crew. When I worked for TNT the Aussie casuals who where unemployed where doing as much overtime as was allowed and was the same situation, they didn't try to get sacked but only moved on if they got a better job. Maybe it's a Qld thing but to me a 65% turnover rate is a sign of issues.
If it's more attractive to be on the dole than working there for not 1 but 65% of the casual employees, yes IMHO there could be a few problems there;)
When Howard got kicked in 07 and Julia/ Kevin last time by 55% there where problems. You've had 65% say they'd rather be unemployed than work there but there are no issues:D
Secondly the pajero's ( thanks chucaro:D) I spoke about where either state or national managers. Simple example 8 sales staff rotating through same sites do you sack the top 2 or bottom performers, in my families case they sacked 1 and my father 2 as they where not in "outside " deals with the managers, like having wives clean the display sites paid 5times going rate;) or other outside investments together, that division went from most profitable to biggest loser and shut down . In another place where the pajero in charge cut sales commission to fund his horse racing , and so the sales staff left for better paying jobs and place went bankrupt.

Ean's first post mentions casuals leaving as soon as they find something better. This is normal with casuals. The employer is using them to fill temporary positions and motivated workers will be looking for permanent work. Most employers who use a lot of casual labour show little loyalty to their workers so really can't expect any loyalty in return. Ean's experiences with backpackers is interesting. In horticultural areas of Queensland they are regarded as saviours of the industry as locals generally will not work for the miserable amounts paid by cockies for harvest labour. The local young bucks like having a floating population of toothsome North European blondes on tap.

There are three types of employment in industrial law.

Full-time work is work at full hours on four or more days per week. It is paid at minimum award rates and attracts award conditions like overtime, penalty rates, sick leave, annual leave, leave loading, long service leave.

Part time work is work conducted on less than four full days/ 32 hours per week and attracts normal award conditions as per full time work.

Casual work is conducted on any number of days/hours but the worker is called in on an ad hoc basis as work is available. Award conditions are replaced by a higher hourly rate. I believe that nowadays a casual worker has to be offered full time work if employed continuously as a casual for a designated time.

As far as Centrelink and Newstart Allowance is concerned, a casual worker's benefit status is still current whilst performing casual work. The earnings declared (not always, or not fully, unfortunately) will reduce the amount paid by Centrelink. If the earnings preclude payment for three consecutive fortnights then the client is considered employed and the record is cancelled.

frantic there was an ammendment in the next post which you obviously chose to ignore.

There was a name mentioned, Wayne, so please be accurate.

Hell you obvously know my business better than anyone. All were working 38 hours at above award so it wasn't about getting more hours, it was more about actually getting hours as opposed to sitting home smoking weed on the dole. Did I tell you that the 65% reduced to 5% when we ceased employing unemployed Aussies and started employing Indians and Indian students. Sickies also decreased to non existent and productivity increased. Drugs are a now a non issue.

I mention that the Indian employees earned more than the previous employees as our bonus system rewards higher productivity but you must have missed that. This would indicate to an unbiased person that it was not the system that was not working. but hell you know it better then me.

The End

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nugge t

.................................................. ..............
The End

---

:banana::banana::arms::arms::clap2:

As much as iI do not want to continue there are 2 reasons to make a last post.

One is correct another error by frantic who claims I had a 65% staff turn which then formed the basis of his analysis as to why I am such a crook employer.

what i actually said was...

"65% would take a day off in the first week hoping they would be sacked."

There is a significant difference which is probably lost on him.

In the interest of forum harmony I will refrain from passing an uniformed analysis of his fitness as an employee.

The other is to give a second digit salute to the last poster.