JC Political Thread - For All Things Political Part 2

[Auzziephoenix]

In teaching....zip. You pay for pretty much anything you use in the classroom (beyond the supplied IT equipment), and you claim it off your tax. Primary teachers use $2000 of their own money, on average, on supplies.

This statement couldn't be any further from the truth. Just about everything a teacher would use in schools is supplied by the school.. Their 'IT' equipment they have to pay for, which there is a debate where the gov should pay for it.

I am the technician supplied by the Victorian DEECD, the school does not pay a cent for me to be there, I'm free help as far as the school is concerned. Teachers pay $4 a fortnight PRE-tax for their notebook, which has 4 year warranty, loaded with software, 4 year accidental damage protection, insurance, a personal technician to fix anything that is wrong with it. For a total of a little over $400. Which is tax deduct-able. Other supplies that teachers use in a school, Whiteboard markers, printing credit, textbooks, any tool they require comes from the school. They have a budget for their domain, they spend it on tools to help them teach.

There are exceptions to the rule with primarily with primary schools, some schools have so little enrolments that they have to supply their own items for some things, but i's not a long list. A primary school of 30 kids I worked in had everything supplied for teachers, including the tea and coffee. I have a friend who is working at a primary school now and they only thing that she supplies herself is coloured printing, as the school does have a colour copier.

 

[Reaper]

That part may have merit, but most people, I understand, ended up doing the same job for less money and/or with far fewer conditions. Yes every system there are bad apples who wreck it for everyone, but for every employer who is disadvantaged under new systems, there may be 1,2,3 or more employees protected under the new system. Not everyone one who is sacked is unproductive. There may also be discrimination, bullying, personal issues, vendettas etc. Negotiating your own contracts is good if a) you are fluent in legalese, b) you know your individual job market and industry as well as your manager, and c) your employer has time to negotiate things with you constructively without having an arrogant 'take it or leave it approach'. This eliminates 90% of the workforce.....would it not be more time effective to work out one contract for a group rather than 10, 50 or 100 workers?

I tend to think that one major flaw with individual contracts was the omission of a "no disadvantage" test. That means taking whatever the current award is and applying $ values (would need cpi indexing) to all of the components. Employers etc may negotiate out various components such as weekend loadings etc and the no disadvantage test as part of the act would enshrine what that value would be as a minimum.

The 'take it or leave it' approach only really works if you are offering a market rate. If you are significantly below it rarely works and even then the person won't stick around if they are any good as they will get a better offer. You may call it arrogant but it is a legitimate negotiating tactic and I have no qualms admitting I use it myself at times (not often with wage negotiations though). It does have a significant down side as it leaves the person saying it with little room to manoeuvre if they are bluffing without loosing significant credibility and thus any upper hand they may have had. Most good negotiators will leave themselves an "out" until they get to their max (or min) amount at which time they may play the "take it or leave it" card.

 

[Calaber]

Whilst I supported Howard's actions in downgrading union powers and his overall industrial policy, I witnessed the downside of Workchoices personally. My wife was employed as a Barista in 2006/7 at a well known Coffee House which was part of a national chain of shops. Following the intro of W/C, she was given a proposed three year contract by her employers. I read it very carefully and it stank - in fact, it was absolutely rancid and was just the sort of ammunition the union movement needed to undermine and fight against Workchoices. All penalty rates were abolished, staff could be called to work with less than two hour's notice, pay was to increase by forty cents per day over the three year period (that wasn't how it was expressed of course, I did the maths and that was the result). Like my wife, most staff who worked for that establishment were not union members, nor were they "strong" enough, either individually or collectively, to negotiate their wages and conditions. (Actually, knowing the two Egyptians who owned the business, negotiation was a word they had never heard of.) In other words, it was stiff cheddar, take it or leave it. She left. So did a number of others. THAT was the downside of Workchoices and it was serious enough to give the unions all the ammo they needed to get Howard. It might have been good policy for some, but for many, it was badly implemented, poorly explained and miserably inflicted on a workforce that had no prior warning. Howard's biggest political mistake, full stop.

It's a damned shame because it could have been done so much better and we wouldn't have the after taste that still lingers and gives the unions that persistent mantra that a return to Liberals is a return to Workchoices.

 

[minux]

This statement couldn't be any further from the truth. Just about everything a teacher would use in schools is supplied by the school.. Their 'IT' equipment they have to pay for, which there is a debate where the gov should pay for it.

I am the technician supplied by the Victorian DEECD, the school does not pay a cent for me to be there, I'm free help as far as the school is concerned. Teachers pay $4 a fortnight PRE-tax for their notebook, which has 4 year warranty, loaded with software, 4 year accidental damage protection, insurance, a personal technician to fix anything that is wrong with it. For a total of a little over $400. Which is tax deduct-able. Other supplies that teachers use in a school, Whiteboard markers, printing credit, textbooks, any tool they require comes from the school. They have a budget for their domain, they spend it on tools to help them teach.

There are exceptions to the rule with primarily with primary schools, some schools have so little enrolments that they have to supply their own items for some things, but i's not a long list. A primary school of 30 kids I worked in had everything supplied for teachers, including the tea and coffee. I have a friend who is working at a primary school now and they only thing that she supplies herself is coloured printing, as the school does have a colour copier.

lol, actually yours couldn't be more from the truth, my wife is a primary leading teacher, her school has 1200 students, there are nine grade 1/2 classes, they have a budget of $1000 for the year for resources. That budget goes in the first week, to date she has spent almost $2000 out of our pocket for resources.

In Victoria, the smaller the school the better off you are as a teacher.

As for the laptops, the pieces of crap they pay for are rubbish, I would not pay $200 for one. Hence my wife supplied her own and had their IT guys load everything to it.

 

[minux]

Whilst I supported Howard's actions in downgrading union powers and his overall industrial policy, I witnessed the downside of Workchoices personally. My wife was employed as a Barista in 2006/7 at a well known Coffee House which was part of a national chain of shops. Following the intro of W/C, she was given a proposed three year contract by her employers. I read it very carefully and it stank - in fact, it was absolutely rancid and was just the sort of ammunition the union movement needed to undermine and fight against Workchoices. All penalty rates were abolished, staff could be called to work with less than two hour's notice, pay was to increase by forty cents per day over the three year period (that wasn't how it was expressed of course, I did the maths and that was the result). Like my wife, most staff who worked for that establishment were not union members, nor were they "strong" enough, either individually or collectively, to negotiate their wages and conditions. (Actually, knowing the two Egyptians who owned the business, negotiation was a word they had never heard of.) In other words, it was stiff cheddar, take it or leave it. She left. So did a number of others. THAT was the downside of Workchoices and it was serious enough to give the unions all the ammo they needed to get Howard. It might have been good policy for some, but for many, it was badly implemented, poorly explained and miserably inflicted on a workforce that had no prior warning. Howard's biggest political mistake, full stop.

It's a damned shame because it could have been done so much better and we wouldn't have the after taste that still lingers and gives the unions that persistent mantra that a return to Liberals is a return to Workchoices.

So under workchoices, what would of happened to this business? My guess is gone broke and shut the doors. How is that not perfect regulation for shoddy employers?

 

[c2105026]

This statement couldn't be any further from the truth. Just about everything a teacher would use in schools is supplied by the school.. Their 'IT' equipment they have to pay for, which there is a debate where the gov should pay for it.

I am the technician supplied by the Victorian DEECD, the school does not pay a cent for me to be there, I'm free help as far as the school is concerned. Teachers pay $4 a fortnight PRE-tax for their notebook, which has 4 year warranty, loaded with software, 4 year accidental damage protection, insurance, a personal technician to fix anything that is wrong with it. For a total of a little over $400. Which is tax deduct-able. Other supplies that teachers use in a school, Whiteboard markers, printing credit, textbooks, any tool they require comes from the school. They have a budget for their domain, they spend it on tools to help them teach.

There are exceptions to the rule with primarily with primary schools, some schools have so little enrolments that they have to supply their own items for some things, but i's not a long list. A primary school of 30 kids I worked in had everything supplied for teachers, including the tea and coffee. I have a friend who is working at a primary school now and they only thing that she supplies herself is coloured printing, as the school does have a colour copier.

Ok I may have exaggerated but from what I could gather in a larger school in NSW yes you get most of these things; in NSW you get most stationery items and some very basic art/craft supplies, but you need to supply your own textbooks. In highschool teaching the general consensus is that there is not enough copier allowance (but this could be a school issue...) Over 6 KLAs (English, maths, science, HSIE, art and sport) this can be quite a bit.....and the grade you teach from year to year might change so yep, whole new library (or parts of it). I teacher I know who recently retired had his entire resource collection occupying a small room in his house . The figure of $2k I learnt from when I was on prac and I asked my associate/s straight out out of curiosity. Of course much of that is discretionary but a big chunk of it is somewhat expected. NSW teachers get a supplied DET laptop for nix, it is so they can use the $5k/room smartboards that most classes have these days.....not sure about highschool, though...

 

[Auzziephoenix]

lol, actually yours couldn't be more from the truth, my wife is a primary leading teacher, her school has 1200 students, there are nine grade 1/2 classes, they have a budget of $1000 for the year for resources. That budget goes in the first week, to date she has spent almost $2000 out of our pocket for resources.

In Victoria, the smaller the school the better off you are as a teacher.

As for the laptops, the pieces of crap they pay for are rubbish, I would not pay $200 for one. Hence my wife supplied her own and had their IT guys load everything to it.

I currently work in two schools, one with 1200+ the other with ~450. Both are under the same circumstances as I mentioned before, staff don't pay for anything. And the Notebook they are supplied with, the current model is a Lenovo L430 and L420. Both are extremely durable machines, the reason these were chosen for the contract, is due to the excellent support that comes with them, and just how durable they are. They are perfect for what teachers are meant to be using them for. i5 and 4gb ram in a machine that I have personally stood on just to see how they fair can't be anything other than a decent machine. We have 500 of the same model funded by the NSSCF and if students find it difficult to destroy them then I personally would not use anything else in a school environment.

The MACs on the other hand. Well they cost over 3 times as much as the Lenovo and these are alot harder to manage in a school enviroment. two rounds ago, teachers were offered the white macbook which was already an obsolete model, and they should not have been offered at all, a number of teachers handed them back in and replaced them for Lenovos. The current gen apples are Macbook pros which are alot better in terms of performance and have been slightly easier to manage in a school with a Windows infrastructure.

 

[Calaber]

So under workchoices, what would of happened to this business? My guess is gone broke and shut the doors. How is that not perfect regulation for shoddy employers?

That's not the point Minux. The sort of contracts that unscrupulous employers could legally impose was grist for the mill with unions. People saw the advertising campaign and knew somebody who was faced with those sorts of ultimata. For that reason, the union campaign struck a chord with the electorate and was very successful.

The business still exists because others came to fill the vacancies and Rudd won the election. Workchoices died and the "threat" disappeared.

 

[Reaper]

That's not the point Minux. The sort of contracts that unscrupulous employers could legally impose was grist for the mill with unions. People saw the advertising campaign and knew somebody who was faced with those sorts of ultimata. For that reason, the union campaign struck a chord with the electorate and was very successful.

The business still exists because others came to fill the vacancies and Rudd won the election. Workchoices died and the "threat" disappeared.

It's situations like yours where a no disadvantage test may have helped.

 

[DAKSTER]

I was under a similar situation in the catering industry to Caliber's wife. Pretty much everybody in the industry got nailed to the ground. This was the problem with work choices, whole industries took the opportunity to take that very 'take it or leave it, we dont have an award any more' attitude. Reaper is right, a no disadvantage clause would have solved this issue and work choices may not have been the insanity that it was.