Wesfarmers' Richard Goyder, the head of Australia's biggest private sector employer, told the forum that Mr Abbott should avoid taking a strong position on IR before the election due next year to allow him to make changes later.

"The political reality is there will be no return to Work Choices," Mr Goyder said.

"In fact, my preference would be that he doesn't stake a strong position before an election so he can deal with it after an election."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/abbott-told-to-keep-powder-dry-on-workplace-reform/story-fn59noo3-1226380951154


Should the neo cons take a sneaky path on IR reform and try and con workers?


Should workers take out insurance by voting Greens in the Senate.

____ wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:09am:

Wesfarmers' Richard Goyder, the head of Australia's biggest private sector employer, told the forum that Mr Abbott should avoid taking a strong position on IR before the election due next year to allow him to make changes later. .

I agree. A strong position on IR is very important ** following an election.
Australia is not a particularly good example on productivity metric comparison right now.

There is far too much red tape in removing a poorly performing worker.
There is a lack of ability to respond to market economics for the smaller and middle businesses.
There is a built-in mindset of entitlement in Australia that doesn't exist elsewhere.

I have mentioned elsewhere on here, when we ran a company wide productivity metric analysis across the world, Australia was worse performer in Asia Pacific and in the bottom 10 worldwide behind some of the European socialist minded nations.

Best performers were
United States (honestly)
Singapore
China
Japan
Saudi Arabia

They have a strong work ethic and a "no bullsh*t" attitude on poor performing employees.

In Saudi, a guy who performs badly can be fired that day, no matter how long his service.
In Australia, even if he has been there 3 months, we have to go down a 'oerformance plan', ' several warnings', 'has he been equipped with the tools necessary etc etc'.

It can be 4-5 months before we remove the Aussie in comparison.
Meanwhile his co-workers pick up the slack, frustration increases and productivity heads down the toilet.

That's how we see it in head office anyway.


** Edited to add a bit more clarity on my view.

Out of interest woody - where do you stand on it?

Are you self-employed to employee of a company?

I ask because I have never been self-employed and this may drive differences in opinion.

Quote:

"In fact, my preference would be that he doesn't stake a strong position before an election so he can deal with it after an election."

Yep ,slide in and then hit the workers, sooooooooooooooooooo Liberal, bloody ass holes.

skippy. wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:17am:

Quote: "In fact, my preference would be that he doesn't stake a strong position before an election so he can deal with it after an election." Yep ,slide in and then hit the workers, sooooooooooooooooooo Liberal, bloody ass holes.

That's the comment of the CEO of Wesfarmers.
He's not a politician, he's one of the most important people in Australian business.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:17am:

Out of interest woody - where do you stand on it? Are you self-employed to employee of a company? I ask because I have never been self-employed and this may drive differences in opinion.

Not of relevance to the discussion.

____ wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:24am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:17am: Out of interest woody - where do you stand on it? Are you self-employed to employee of a company? I ask because I have never been self-employed and this may drive differences in opinion. Not of relevance to the discussion.

yes it is.
People's views on workplace relations are formed by -

1) Their employer
2) Their type of work
3) Their employment status

I am a full time employee.
My father was a self-employed employee - he had a vastly different opinion to me on this subject.

Do you work?
It will influence your view.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:16am:

____ wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:09am: Wesfarmers' Richard Goyder, the head of Australia's biggest private sector employer, told the forum that Mr Abbott should avoid taking a strong position on IR before the election due next year to allow him to make changes later. . I agree. A strong position on IR is very important ** following an election. Australia is not a particularly good example on productivity metric comparison right now. There is far too much red tape in removing a poorly performing worker. There is a lack of ability to respond to market economics for the smaller and middle businesses. There is a built-in mindset of entitlement in Australia that doesn't exist elsewhere. I have mentioned elsewhere on here, when we ran a company wide productivity metric analysis across the world, Australia was worse performer in Asia Pacific and in the bottom 10 worldwide behind some of the European socialist minded nations. Best performers were United States (honestly) Singapore China Japan Saudi Arabia They have a strong work ethic and a "no bullsh*t" attitude on poor performing employees. In Saudi, a guy who performs badly can be fired that day, no matter how long his service. In Australia, even if he has been there 3 months, we have to go down a 'oerformance plan', ' several warnings', 'has he been equipped with the tools necessary etc etc'. It can be 4-5 months before we remove the Aussie in comparison. Meanwhile his co-workers pick up the slack, frustration increases and productivity heads down the toilet. That's how we see it in head office anyway. ** Edited to add a bit more clarity on my view.

So in the same vein as no carbon tax of the government I lead. You suggest the neo cons going to an election with an agenda of lying.

No I just don't think its ideal for the next election to be all about industrial relations.

It will allow Labor and the Unions again to engage in sh*t throwing to distract from their record of utter failure.

Industrial relations reform is important and needed - but I think it can wait until after the election and not be a distraction.

Andrei

Quote:

There is far too much red tape in removing a poorly performing worker.

One of the problems I have had with this is that I have found management to be atrocious at identifying poor performance.

They tend to label someone they do not like as a poor performer and will more likely promote an awful performer that they like.

Most staff reductions have no relationship to performance and in fact I find that the biggest driver of poor performance is very often management them self. When overall performance drops it is mostly due to managemant interference or changes.

skippy. wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:17am:

Quote: "In fact, my preference would be that he doesn't stake a strong position before an election so he can deal with it after an election." Yep ,slide in and then hit the workers, sooooooooooooooooooo Liberal, bloody ass holes.

Exactly what labor did dippy.

Juliar. "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead"

Swan. "No it's not possible that we're bringing in the carbon tax, that is a hysterically inaccurate claim being made by the Coalition."

So Labor, useless lying ass holes.

They tend to label someone they do not like as a poor performer and will more likely promote an awful performer that they like.


Oh, you poor possum.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:28am:

No I just don't think its ideal for the next election to be all about industrial relations. It will allow Labor and the Unions again to engage in sh*t throwing to distract from their record of utter failure. Industrial relations reform is important and needed - but I think it can wait until after the election and not be a distraction.

Abbott is in constant fear of taking a position on anything and so is setting himself up for being the centre of a witch hunt on many issues.

Better to go down on principle, rather than the way he is heading and dragging the coalition with him.

I have a strong belief Abbott will not win the next election and the beginning of the end is beginning for him.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:28am:

Andrei Quote: There is far too much red tape in removing a poorly performing worker. One of the problems I have had with this is that I have found management to be atrocious at identifying poor performance. They tend to label someone they do not like as a poor performer and will more likely promote an awful performer that they like. Most staff reductions have no relationship to performance and in fact I find that the biggest driver of poor performance is very often management them self. When overall performance drops it is mostly due to managemant interference or changes.

There's obviously cases of that I have no doubt but on the whole companies and management look to remove an employee based purely on poor performance.

I took over 3 months trying to remove an employee and in the end we had to re-structure and pay him out for retrenchment.
Handing that clown 2 weeks pay for every year service grates with me to this day.

So what happens in Australia is the way around it is to re-structure and re-hire in a different* role.
So you end up effectively rewarding poor performance.
See how it becomes a nonsense?

angeleyes wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:31am:

They tend to label someone they do not like as a poor performer and will more likely promote an awful performer that they like. Oh, you poor possum.

No the other way - I may have done it myself, we all think that the people we like are doing a good job - its just human nature.

angeleyes wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:29am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:17am: Quote: "In fact, my preference would be that he doesn't stake a strong position before an election so he can deal with it after an election." Yep ,slide in and then hit the workers, sooooooooooooooooooo Liberal, bloody ass holes. Exactly what labor did dippy. Juliar. "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" Swan. "No it's not possible that we're bringing in the carbon tax, that is a hysterically inaccurate claim being made by the Coalition." So Labor, useless lying ass holes.

Then you can not criticise Labor ,while your lot is planning to con the punters with the same approach.

If neo cons are planning to attack worker's conditions and wages during a major world turndown and pressures with cost of living ... they should front up and explain why profit for the clive palmers of the world is more important than the financial security of the majority of Australian voters.

The conservatives will in reality never take workchoices off the table - maybe a different name or no name but to think differently if you are a worker is naive in the extreme.

Employers don't want unfair dismissal penalty rates for week ends, Public holidays or night work and they are determined to have the ability to drive wages and conditions down.

Australia gave John Howard unfetted control and it took hin about five minutes to go directly to that position with workchoices even with his election commitment of no significant change to IR for the term in place.

Its rather ironic - if not hypocritical - to accuse the Libs of MAYBE/PERHAPS?POSSIBLY doing exactly what they did after the last election.

"There will be no workchoices under any government I lead"

Frankly, the union movement deserves what they get. The difference is that Abbott is a man of his word while Gillard's word is literally worthless. She lies without compunction to retain or obtain power.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:48am:

Its rather ironic - if not hypocritical - to accuse the Libs of MAYBE/PERHAPS?POSSIBLY doing exactly what they did after the last election. "There will be no workchoices under any government I lead" Frankly, the union movement deserves what they get. The difference is that Abbott is a man of his word while Gillard's word is literally worthless. She lies without compunction to retain or obtain power.

What about when it isn't written down?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:32am:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:28am: Andrei Quote: There is far too much red tape in removing a poorly performing worker. One of the problems I have had with this is that I have found management to be atrocious at identifying poor performance. They tend to label someone they do not like as a poor performer and will more likely promote an awful performer that they like. Most staff reductions have no relationship to performance and in fact I find that the biggest driver of poor performance is very often management them self. When overall performance drops it is mostly due to managemant interference or changes. There's obviously cases of that I have no doubt but on the whole companies and management look to remove an employee based purely on poor performance. I took over 3 months trying to remove an employee and in the end we had to re-structure and pay him out for retrenchment. Handing that clown 2 weeks pay for every year service grates with me to this day. So what happens in Australia is the way around it is to re-structure and re-hire in a different* role. So you end up effectively rewarding poor performance. See how it becomes a nonsense?

I would think that the odds are reasonably high that the guy you went to such an effort to get rid of was not really a poor performer.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:57am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:32am: Dnarever wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:28am: Andrei Quote: There is far too much red tape in removing a poorly performing worker. One of the problems I have had with this is that I have found management to be atrocious at identifying poor performance. They tend to label someone they do not like as a poor performer and will more likely promote an awful performer that they like. Most staff reductions have no relationship to performance and in fact I find that the biggest driver of poor performance is very often management them self. When overall performance drops it is mostly due to managemant interference or changes. There's obviously cases of that I have no doubt but on the whole companies and management look to remove an employee based purely on poor performance. I took over 3 months trying to remove an employee and in the end we had to re-structure and pay him out for retrenchment. Handing that clown 2 weeks pay for every year service grates with me to this day. So what happens in Australia is the way around it is to re-structure and re-hire in a different* role. So you end up effectively rewarding poor performance. See how it becomes a nonsense? I would think that the odds are reasonably high that the guy you went to such an effort to get rid of was not really a poor performer.

Incredibly insight there from someone not even in the company, let alone in our area?

And yeah the guy was utter sh*thouse.
Lazy bloke who would do the bare minimum and no more.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:36am:

angeleyes wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:31am: They tend to label someone they do not like as a poor performer and will more likely promote an awful performer that they like. Oh, you poor possum. No the other way - I may have done it myself, we all think that the people we like are doing a good job - its just human nature.

I think people who are doing a good job - are usually doing a good job.

The girl who last week worked back to 10pm to ensure we got our month report out to the execs on time is a good performer.

The guy who would p*ss off at 5 "because he doesn't get paid to stay back" that I had in Melbourne was not a good performer.

I didn't like him because of his work - I like her because of her work.
It's the old horse following cart scenario.

Work choices is best forgotten. In fact it should be illegal to mention it in case another govt get the idea to try to do it.

SOBi


For the absolute idiots that will point out some free speech BS i was joking

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 12:10pm:

Work choices is best forgotten. In fact it should be illegal to mention it in case another govt get the idea to try to do it. SOBi For the absolute idiots that will point out some free speech BS i was joking

Well Abbott has said there will be no workchoices. The only people who trouble with believeing him are the suckers who fell for Gillard 'no carbon tax' promise. bad luck, losers!

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 12:13pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 12:10pm: Work choices is best forgotten. In fact it should be illegal to mention it in case another govt get the idea to try to do it. SOB Well Abbott has said there will be no workchoices. The only people who trouble with believeing him are the suckers who fell for Gillard 'no carbon tax' promise. bad luck, losers!

Abbott is lying too. they are ALL liars. Its what they do.

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 12:13pm:

Well Abbott has said there will be no workchoices. The only people who trouble with believeing him are the suckers who fell for Gillard 'no carbon tax' promise. bad luck, losers!

And since he said that he and other government ministers and the business community have been pushing discussion on unfair dismisal, W/E rates, PH rates shift penalties etc. We won't have workchoices just all the conditions which came under it?

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 12:34pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 12:13pm: Well Abbott has said there will be no workchoices. The only people who trouble with believeing him are the suckers who fell for Gillard 'no carbon tax' promise. bad luck, losers! And since he said that he and other government ministers and the business community have been pushing discussion on unfair dismisal, W/E rates, PH rates shift penalties etc. We won't have workchoices just all the conditions which came under it?

All of which I support btw.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 12:07pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:36am: angeleyes wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:31am: They tend to label someone they do not like as a poor performer and will more likely promote an awful performer that they like. Oh, you poor possum. No the other way - I may have done it myself, we all think that the people we like are doing a good job - its just human nature. I think people who are doing a good job - are usually doing a good job. The girl who last week worked back to 10pm to ensure we got our month report out to the execs on time is a good performer. The guy who would p*ss off at 5 "because he doesn't get paid to stay back" that I had in Melbourne was not a good performer. I didn't like him because of his work - I like her because of her work. It's the old horse following cart scenario.

Expecting unpaid work is not an indication of performance.

People going home at the end of their paid work day is not an indication of poor performance.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 12:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 12:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 12:13pm: Well Abbott has said there will be no workchoices. The only people who trouble with believeing him are the suckers who fell for Gillard 'no carbon tax' promise. bad luck, losers! And since he said that he and other government ministers and the business community have been pushing discussion on unfair dismisal, W/E rates, PH rates shift penalties etc. We won't have workchoices just all the conditions which came under it? All of which I support btw.

As long as you would be happy to have Abbnott stand up prior to the next election and commit to the re introduction of workchoices I have no problem with your position.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 12:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 12:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 12:13pm: Well Abbott has said there will be no workchoices. The only people who trouble with believeing him are the suckers who fell for Gillard 'no carbon tax' promise. bad luck, losers! And since he said that he and other government ministers and the business community have been pushing discussion on unfair dismisal, W/E rates, PH rates shift penalties etc. We won't have workchoices just all the conditions which came under it? All of which I support btw.

Who cares - you arent even in australia. Yank attitudes are not aussie attitudes (mostly). oi oi oi!

SOB

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 12:07pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:36am: angeleyes wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:31am: They tend to label someone they do not like as a poor performer and will more likely promote an awful performer that they like. Oh, you poor possum. No the other way - I may have done it myself, we all think that the people we like are doing a good job - its just human nature. I think people who are doing a good job - are usually doing a good job. The girl who last week worked back to 10pm to ensure we got our month report out to the execs on time is a good performer. The guy who would p*ss off at 5 "because he doesn't get paid to stay back" that I had in Melbourne was not a good performer. I didn't like him because of his work - I like her because of her work. It's the old horse following cart scenario. Expecting unpaid work is not an indication of performance. People going home at the end of their paid work day is not an indication of poor performance.

In my line of work - we provide support services to the senior management.
We're not clock watchers 9-5. We need to be able to work to deadlines.

Walking out the door at 5, when there is sh*t to do is NOT a good employee.
Fact.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 12:47pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 12:37pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 12:07pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:36am: angeleyes wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:31am: They tend to label someone they do not like as a poor performer and will more likely promote an awful performer that they like. Oh, you poor possum. No the other way - I may have done it myself, we all think that the people we like are doing a good job - its just human nature. I think people who are doing a good job - are usually doing a good job. The girl who last week worked back to 10pm to ensure we got our month report out to the execs on time is a good performer. The guy who would p*ss off at 5 "because he doesn't get paid to stay back" that I had in Melbourne was not a good performer. I didn't like him because of his work - I like her because of her work. It's the old horse following cart scenario. Expecting unpaid work is not an indication of performance. People going home at the end of their paid work day is not an indication of poor performance. In my line of work - we provide support services to the senior management. We're not clock watchers 9-5. We need to be able to work to deadlines. Walking out the door at 5, when there is sh*t to do is NOT a good employee. Fact.

As long as they are paid for the time and it is in their contract its OK, If it is just expected out of the goodness of their heart it is not a measure of performance.

____ wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:24am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:17am: Out of interest woody - where do you stand on it? Are you self-employed to employee of a company? I ask because I have never been self-employed and this may drive differences in opinion. Not of relevance to the discussion.

It means he's an inter-generational dole bludger

Maqqa wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 1:01pm:

____ wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:24am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:17am: Out of interest woody - where do you stand on it? Are you self-employed to employee of a company? I ask because I have never been self-employed and this may drive differences in opinion. Not of relevance to the discussion. It means he's an inter-generational dole bludger

I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt Macca - that he isn't the classic New Zealander in Australia on the dole charicature.

But he makes it very hard.

He has no education, he's as thick as mince and he seems to be on here and watching tv in the middle of the day.

Unless he works nights at a petrol station - it's hard not to think he is on the dole...

Happy to be told wrong though and I will offer him an apology.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 1:06pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 1:01pm: ____ wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:24am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:17am: Out of interest woody - where do you stand on it? Are you self-employed to employee of a company? I ask because I have never been self-employed and this may drive differences in opinion. Not of relevance to the discussion. It means he's an inter-generational dole bludger I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt Macca - that he isn't the classic New Zealander in Australia on the dole charicature. But he makes it very hard. He has no education, he's as thick as mince and he seems to be on here and watching tv in the middle of the day. Unless he works nights at a petrol station - it's hard not to think he is on the dole... Happy to be told wrong though and I will offer him an apology.

He's been trying to link his pro-Green vote on these forums since 2008 hoping to get pre-selected for the Greens

I applaud the Greens that they've resisted his advances so far

But after the next election - they might so that desperate to entertain the idea

Nice of you two to show such interest in me, although your discussion is in the wrong section. Take it to relationships.

This thread is on the devious plans of the right to con workers.

The only guarantee the workers have are via voting for the Greens in the Senate, so to counteract any extremist agenda either old party trawls out post election.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 12:34pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 12:13pm: Well Abbott has said there will be no workchoices. The only people who trouble with believeing him are the suckers who fell for Gillard 'no carbon tax' promise. bad luck, losers! And since he said that he and other government ministers and the business community have been pushing discussion on unfair dismisal, W/E rates, PH rates shift penalties etc. We won't have workchoices just all the conditions which came under it?

you cant just end changes in industrial relations and conditions. The world doesnt stop just because we have a luddite govt that felt the need to return to 1990s style IR.

Aren't  Richard Goyder comments standard practice for the libs? Don't the fat cats of industry always tell the libs what the liberal policies are? First it was Palmer, now Goyder ... and there are many more waiting for their chance