D-Day for Holden tomorrow - Page 3

Joe5619 · 13-08-2013, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalmania

Holden are only interested in saving $ in the packages they will pay out in a few years time. With this wage freeze they will not only save in wages cost but also in the packages they pay out. Think about it 3% for each year, next 3 years. Thats at least 9% when they do decide to close some time after 2016.

The deal is Holden must commit to post 2016 for this deal to be agreed to. This comment is just so wrong & incorrect. Read up on the facts please!!

metalmania · 13-08-2013, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe5619

The deal is Holden must commit to post 2016 for this deal to be agreed to. This comment is just so wrong & incorrect. Read up on the facts please!!

Really ,you think so. What happens if for some unforeseen circumstances Holden do close up in 2016. Will they back pay all the workers?

mik · 14-08-2013, 01:38 AM

It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at the headquarters of GM discussing the pro's and cons with the bean counters regarding holden.
Holden execs here are probably just towing the line from across the pond, who probably really don't give a toss where cars are made(or not) as long as they make x amount $$$.

Joe5619 · 14-08-2013, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalmania

Really ,you think so. What happens if for some unforeseen circumstances Holden do close up in 2016. Will they back pay all the workers?

No, but Holden need to put plains/ equipment in place at the end of THIS year (I.E. spend allot of money) for the vehicles that will be here post 2016. If they start that work then they are serious about continuing past 2016, if they don’t, then it is all over. We'll know by the end of this year, 110% if Holden will be around after 2016...

2011G6E · 14-08-2013, 10:58 AM

I'm just curious...

Forget it's Holden, this counts for any business trying to "save itself". A wage freeze you can possibly understand...that's a big cost to the company.
However, why do they have to make do with less sick days and lower conditions? How does a worker having less sick days save the company money?

At the moment we're going through negotiation of an enterprise agreement...and we have a suspicion that once again the company is going to want us to give up conditions to get a pay rise. Why does this happen? Why can;t a company leave a workers conditions alone and give a pay rise if things are going good, or a lesser rise if things aren't so good?

Conditions of work are things that have been hard fought for over the years...why are workers expected to give up these things, because you'll never get them back.

**MercurySilver** · 14-08-2013, 11:55 AM

dunno mate
we are going thru the same thing right now
EBA talks

they wanted to completely take away our income protection that was their idea to include in EBA talks about 9 or 12 years ago, but only give us 1% for it, even when we went to get quotes for private cover it came to no where near as low as one percent of a wage...so we said i dont think so we'll keep that
then they wanted to take away TIL (time in lieu, which is where we can do overtime and bank it, then either cash it in later or use it as time off later)
completely wanted to get rid of it
we explained that we use it when there is ten hr days plus weekend work, you take the money for the ten hr days on your pay and bank the 8 hrs they ask you to work sunday (16hrs banked, as its double time)
why take the sunday as well and lose it all on tax, we'd rather bank it and then cash it in when its our quiet time to boost the pay a bit
nope, they want to get rid of it..so we said no one will do the overtime then as we dont want to lose it in tax.

then when we give them what we would like as a pay rise and they say, nope too high, come back with another offer!
errrrr. its a negotiationhow about YOU come back with a counter offer
nope couldnt do that
then tell us we are stalling and its taking too long
lol
yeah its us taking to long
we had under 20 claims and they had over 40 changes they wanted to make
but we're the reason its taking so long

gotta love it
might be sitting out the front for a few days the way this crap is going, i mean the old EBA only ran out on july 1st
lol

mik · 14-08-2013, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I'm just curious...

Forget it's Holden, this counts for any business trying to "save itself". A wage freeze you can possibly understand...that's a big cost to the company.
However, why do they have to make do with less sick days and lower conditions? How does a worker having less sick days save the company money?

At the moment we're going through negotiation of an enterprise agreement...and we have a suspicion that once again the company is going to want us to give up conditions to get a pay rise. Why does this happen? Why can;t a company leave a workers conditions alone and give a pay rise if things are going good, or a lesser rise if things aren't so good?

Conditions of work are things that have been hard fought for over the years...why are workers expected to give up these things, because you'll never get them back.

I agree, we see similarities happening to the the rights of Australians slowly pulled out from under them, i believe the government has words for it ........... "restructuring" or "reform", in essence , the little feller getting the shaft.

**MercurySilver** · 14-08-2013, 11:58 AM

trying to get cheaper labour hire in
trying it at our place

we let them use it on VERY strict conditions
but they did want to be able to use it how they saw fit in thses EBA negs we are doing now

we put the kibosh on that pretty damn quickly

2011G6E · 14-08-2013, 12:16 PM

Yes, too many people knock the unions saying they're "asking for too big a rise".

usually this is from people who have had literally nothing to do with the enterprise bargaining process, and who have never dealt with management and their tricks.

The union will ask for a pay rise, and management will always come back with "what conditions are you going to give up to deserve it?".

No...it's negotiation...we give you a price, you come back with a counter offer of what you're willing to accept. "Conditions" shouldn't come into it. Are management expected to give up perks and conditions to get a rise? No, of course not...they only have to show increased or maintained productivity. Workers have very little control over productivity, especially in an industry making cars which depend on people buying said cars at the end of the process.

Same with my workplace...we just drive the trains, on the schedule given. Not our fault if scheduling is unrealistic, or if there's a breakdown, or if the rail breaks, or if the port at Gladstone has a breakdown, shutting down the system for a day or two.
However, at the end of the day if we ask for a rise, we are asked "what will you give up to get one?".

It simply shouldn't work like that...but it fricking does...

P6LTD351 · 14-08-2013, 01:14 PM

Are you seriously asking how sick days cost a company?

OMG.

That explains a lot about our culture sadly.

Paying someone to NOT be at work? Um...yeah...that doesn't cost anything.

Nikked · 14-08-2013, 05:15 PM

So:

he pay dispute is settled, Holden Saves 15 Million...
But wait, there is more...to fulfil the promise, the right government must win the election, for the plant to open past 2016...
If that happens, Holden will "promise" to build an extra 2 new models here...at a cost of over $1 billion...
That's providing that the govenrmnet donates $220+ million

Not only have Holden put the gun to its workers heads...now they have pointed it at the government...

I wish the best just like anyone else, we don't want to see them pack up and go...it would be a giant shame...

But...I just don't like the sound of it all, I think its GM being GM, spin doctors at their best.

P6LTD351 · 14-08-2013, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikked

So:

he pay dispute is settled, Holden Saves 15 Million...
But wait, there is more...to fulfil the promise, the right government must win the election, for the plant to open past 2016...
If that happens, Holden will "promise" to build an extra 2 new models here...at a cost of over $1 billion...
That's providing that the govenrmnet donates $220+ million

Not only have Holden put the gun to its workers heads...now they have pointed it at the government...

I wish the best just like anyone else, we don't want to see them pack up and go...it would be a giant shame...

But...I just don't like the sound of it all, I think its GM being GM, spin doctors at their best.

Good assessment.

Bossxr8 · 14-08-2013, 08:25 PM

Being a fellow AMWU member and shop steward, I think they have set a bad precedent, now that Holden have got away with it just watch how many other's try to do the same.

Asking for a pay freeze is one thing, but cutting a whole range of conditions is another thing entirely.

Just think back to last year about Holden crowing about the great deal they had provided their workers as a thank you for taking a wage freeze during the GFC, and now they turn back around and bend them over a year later. Thanks for the pay freeze suckers. There's going to be a lot of peed off Holden workers atm.

Joe5619 · 14-08-2013, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Being a fellow AMWU member and shop steward, I think they have set a bad precedent, now that Holden have got away with it just watch how many other's try to do the same.

Asking for a pay freeze is one thing, but cutting a whole range of conditions is another thing entirely.

Just think back to last year about Holden crowing about the great deal they had provided their workers as a thank you for taking a wage freeze during the GFC, and now they turn back around and bend them over a year later. Thanks for the pay freeze suckers. There's going to be a lot of peed off Holden workers atm.

Let me ask you this, you work at Ford & you'll be out of a job in 3 years.

Would you rather
A) Lose your job
B) Keep it, but at the same pay & a few less conditions.

Seriously ask yourself this question. Just think about it as if Ford where giving you this very same option. I know both options A & B suck, & everyone wishes there was a nice option C, but there isn't..

Bossxr8 · 14-08-2013, 09:17 PM

Option C, wait 4 weeks and find out the company is closing anyway because the Libs won't give them the cash they are demanding.

Or option D, be extremely peed off and look for a package and work elsewhere, like a whole bunch of them did a few weeks ago.

Not all of us want to be treated like biatches who will take whatever they get served up, by having a gun pointed at their heads in a take it or leave it deal by a morally and financially bankrupt, poor excuse of a company like GM.

But I can see why they did it, they didn't have much choice did they?

2011G6E · 14-08-2013, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P6LTD351

Are you seriously asking how sick days cost a company?

OMG.

That explains a lot about our culture sadly.

Paying someone to NOT be at work? Um...yeah...that doesn't cost anything.

Can we assume you work in an industry that has no sick days cover, no compensation cover, no family leave if you have to stay home and look after sick family members, etc? If you get sick or injured, well, why the heck should the boss pay you to stay at home, you lazy bugger! Limp or wheeze and cough your damn way in to work and get back to making a dollar for the poor hard done by fella!!
I'd take your suggestion one step further...why the hell should we pay people holiday pay (not even "loading", just "pay")? Or for that matter give them holidays at all, the lazy sods!

You're automatically assuming that the majority of people take sickies when they aren't sick. This is the issue with the whole system. People that are giving up their lives to come and work for you need reasons to come to work for you...and that means beyond simple money. That means conditions that mean they know they will be looked after if they have to take a day or two off when ill, etc.

Really disturbing the number of people who seem that they would like it to go back to the old master/serf way of life, with people afraid every minute they are going to lose their job, and just be damn happy to get any pittance thrown their direction, without question.

zilo · 15-08-2013, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Yes, too many people knock the unions saying they're "asking for too big a rise".

usually this is from people who have had literally nothing to do with the enterprise bargaining process, and who have never dealt with management and their tricks.

The union will ask for a pay rise, and management will always come back with "what conditions are you going to give up to deserve it?".

No...it's negotiation...we give you a price, you come back with a counter offer of what you're willing to accept. "Conditions" shouldn't come into it. Are management expected to give up perks and conditions to get a rise? No, of course not...they only have to show increased or maintained productivity. Workers have very little control over productivity, especially in an industry making cars which depend on people buying said cars at the end of the process.

Same with my workplace...we just drive the trains, on the schedule given. Not our fault if scheduling is unrealistic, or if there's a breakdown, or if the rail breaks, or if the port at Gladstone has a breakdown, shutting down the system for a day or two.
However, at the end of the day if we ask for a rise, we are asked "what will you give up to get one?".

It simply shouldn't work like that...but it fricking does...

The employment workplace is a lot harsher than what you advocate.

People are bleeding everywhere.
Being militant and holding an employer to ransom is last century.
Doesn't work in this part of the world.

Ask the boys at Pilkington in Geelong what happened when they tried that trick....Ford no longer got their windows from them....or Holden...or Toyota.

All gone from Australia.

If it were me I would take a cut...and start looking elsewhere.

Better to lose a few conditions than lose the house.

2011G6E · 15-08-2013, 12:45 AM

...aaaand...we're assuming that the bosses will be kind-hearted enough to return those hard-fought-for, and easily-given-up conditions again at a later date when things turn around for the company, so workers should just happily give them up...?

Trusting souls, ain'tcha...

Once something is given up, it's gone. Wage cuts or freezes are different...you can easily put in a contract that it's for a set period of time...that's fairly common and has been done before.

Worker rights and conditions of employment are another thing altogether...they're something that make a job enjoyable, that make you secure in going to work, that give you peace of mind sort of like insurance.

There's one...and only one...reason that employers want to wind back conditions that have been in place for decades. That's not to save money, it's not to make a workplace more productive, it's not to make the workers happier, and it's not to make the company "better".
It's to make an environment where the workers are kept on thier toes like the good old days, when the buggers were afraid to ask for any little concessions in case they turned up one day to find the factory gates locked and a whole lot of new and more tractable workers arriving.

Having shareholders is another reason...once you have shareholders, only one thing matters: increasing return to shareholders.
it doesn't matter if workers are happy or unhappy, enjoy working there or not...as long as the shareholders see an increase every year, that's all that matters.

I really don't like where the industrial relations side of things is headed in this country...and don't say "under Abbott it will be bad"...because anyone who has had anything to do with Fair Work Australia will know they couldn't give two craps about workers.

P6LTD351 · 15-08-2013, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Can we assume you work in an industry that has no sick days cover, no compensation cover, no family leave if you have to stay home and look after sick family members, etc? If you get sick or injured, well, why the heck should the boss pay you to stay at home, you lazy bugger! Limp or wheeze and cough your damn way in to work and get back to making a dollar for the poor hard done by fella!!
I'd take your suggestion one step further...why the hell should we pay people holiday pay (not even "loading", just "pay")? Or for that matter give them holidays at all, the lazy sods!

You're automatically assuming that the majority of people take sickies when they aren't sick. This is the issue with the whole system. People that are giving up their lives to come and work for you need reasons to come to work for you...and that means beyond simple money. That means conditions that mean they know they will be looked after if they have to take a day or two off when ill, etc.

Really disturbing the number of people who seem that they would like it to go back to the old master/serf way of life, with people afraid every minute they are going to lose their job, and just be damn happy to get any pittance thrown their direction, without question.

When did I say that sick leave is not appropriate? Sick leave is appropriate - when people are SICK. But to say it doesn't cost a company...Well... that's ludicrous.

Giving up their lives to come to work? No one has a gun to their head. If they're unhappy with the conditions, they need to have the guts to leave and find another job. Oh, but the money....

**buggerlugs** · 15-08-2013, 07:26 AM

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messen...-1226697021919 Wow, just wow...........what hope have local manufactures got.......

Joe5619 · 15-08-2013, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buggerlugs

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messen...-1226697021919 Wow, just wow...........what hope have local manufactures got.......

We live in said times!!

stazza · 15-08-2013, 09:16 AM

Well it's true what she's saying. Just cause people falling for Holdens sob story doesnt mean everyone should ignore a safety issue of the blind spot. It IS a safety issue. I hired a VE in the Gold Coast and the blind spot was a pain in the ***. Just because it's made here doesn't mean we should buy it if it has safety issues.

Good on her for putting safety first and not being a sheep.

GRANT ED · 15-08-2013, 09:34 AM

I don't think anyone has said how far up the chain this pay freeze goes. Do management get a pay freeze or just the low payed workers?

2011G6E · 15-08-2013, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buggerlugs

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messen...-1226697021919 Wow, just wow...........what hope have local manufactures got.......

Erm....

First: I fail to see how the personal vehicle choice of a vehicle by a mayor is newsworthy. How did any reporter even come across this story?
Second: I've driven Aurions...at work, and my sons Aurion. All modern cars...Holden, Falcon, Toyota, whatever...have really "fat A pillars"...that's what comes from demanding you be surrounded by airbags like being inside a marshmallow in a crash.
The visibility in my old '82 Celica is great...nice thin a-pillars, but not as thin as the ones on our Kingswood ute. The HQ-WB are widely spoken of as having the thinnest A-pillars of any Australian production car.

Maybe the mayoress would feel safer in a HQ...?

Oh...and if people demand they buy "Australian made cars", then remember that doesn't just mean Falcons...it includes Commodores, Cruises, Aurions, and Camrys. You can't have it both ways...you either support "the Australian motor industry" or you don't.

Back to the industrial issues: I would lay money that the pay freeze goes no higher than the plebs on the workshop floor.

In my workplace, we have been told to increase efficiencies, to try and think of ways to save the company money, etc.
However, it's hard to get too excited about cutting costs and how nicely that will work out to keep the business running "efficiently" when our CEO got a payrise in recent years from a measly $1.1 million a year up to nearly three and a half million a year...how the poor man manages to live on that is beyond me...no wonder they want us to restrict our pay rise demands and do away with conditions to save some money...

That mayoress is a funny old bird...did anyone see the link to the other news story mentioning her?
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/n...-1111117317502

Quote:

AN Adelaide council has banned nude works from its annual art competition adding fuel to the recent national controversy about art and censorship.

Adelaide's Tea Tree Gully Council said the works - a painting featuring a seated nude by Margaret Tuckey, and a sculpture of a female torso by Scot Eames - were too graphic.

The two artists said they were stunned by the council’s decision.

"I unwrapped my work and they looked at it and told me it was inappropriate and they would not hang it in the exhibition," Ms Tuckey, an art teacher, told the community Messenger newspaper.

"They said that school children would be seeing the exhibition."

Mr Eames said he was “dumbfounded” to be excluded and pointed out that school children could see nudes at the Art Gallery of South Australia.

“I said `you’ve got to be joking’ and the organiser said `if you’re both going to continue to protest, I’ll have to ask you to leave the premises,’” Mr Eames told The Messenger.

*ICEMAN* · 15-08-2013, 10:21 AM

does this mean holden will stickj with same cars but manufacture overseas?

Nikked · 15-08-2013, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stazza

Well it's true what she's saying. Just cause people falling for Holdens sob story doesnt mean everyone should ignore a safety issue of the blind spot. It IS a safety issue. I hired a VE in the Gold Coast and the blind spot was a pain in the ***. Just because it's made here doesn't mean we should buy it if it has safety issues.

Good on her for putting safety first and not being a sheep.

Lol...that is all.

TMC · 15-08-2013, 11:12 AM

I think the economics of scale for parts suppliers will be non existent when Ford goes and GM knows it. Parts suppliers have been doing it real tough for a long time. Once Ford decided to shut down, they basically set the stage for GMH and Toyota to shut down operations in time. It's inevitable.

Don't expect the government to help either. By "help" I don't mean hand outs of millions here and there (they've been doing that for ages with no real benefit), but actual policy changes that protect local production. Keating started taking away the protections to local industry back in the 80's and all manufacturers have struggled for ages with essentially economic terminal cancer. We are too small a country to compete with imports. The local market should have been protected. The economics of scale are in Asia.

mik · 15-08-2013, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Erm....

First: I fail to see how the personal vehicle choice of a vehicle by a mayor is newsworthy. How did any reporter even come across this story?
Second: I've driven Aurions...at work, and my sons Aurion. All modern cars...Holden, Falcon, Toyota, whatever...have really "fat A pillars"...that's what comes from demanding you be surrounded by airbags like being inside a marshmallow in a crash.
The visibility in my old '82 Celica is great...nice thin a-pillars, but not as thin as the ones on our Kingswood ute. The HQ-WB are widely spoken of as having the thinnest A-pillars of any Australian production car.

Maybe the mayoress would feel safer in a HQ...?

Oh...and if people demand they buy "Australian made cars", then remember that doesn't just mean Falcons...it includes Commodores, Cruises, Aurions, and Camrys. You can't have it both ways...you either support "the Australian motor industry" or you don't.

Back to the industrial issues: I would lay money that the pay freeze goes no higher than the plebs on the workshop floor.

In my workplace, we have been told to increase efficiencies, to try and think of ways to save the company money, etc.
However, it's hard to get too excited about cutting costs and how nicely that will work out to keep the business running "efficiently" when our CEO got a payrise in recent years from a measly $1.1 million a year up to nearly three and a half million a year...how the poor man manages to live on that is beyond me...no wonder they want us to restrict our pay rise demands and do away with conditions to save some money...

That mayoress is a funny old bird...did anyone see the link to the other news story mentioning her?
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/n...-1111117317502

I think the thick pillars are more needed to combat a pancakeing roof from a roll over, look at the rake of the windscreen, it may be a fair comment, the thick pillars have been mentioned in mag road tests before

2011G6E · 15-08-2013, 12:38 PM

How do we "protect the local industry" and what exactly would that mean?

There's really only two ways to do it: Go back to the bad old days by severely limiting consumers choices by heavily taxing all imports, or using even more taxpayers dollars to heavily subsidise cars that, to be blunt, people just don't want anymore, ie: Falcon and to a lesser extent Commodore...?

Tax imports and impose stupid tariffs like we had in the old days, and you also have to realise that you are forgetting one little thing...how many cars on the showroom floor at Holden and Ford dealers are actually made here in Australia? They're nearly all "imports", and if you tried to tax and tariff one import, but allow another in unrestricted, you will very quickly find yourself in trouble before the world trade organisation and facing severe retaliatory action from countries that import our goods to their countries.

Subsidise with taxpayers dollars the few cars that are actually built here, and you breed lazy manufacturers, knowing that the public is virtually being forced to buy whatever they make.

There's no easy answers, but pretending that you can force the public to buy cars they don't want isn't facing reality.

TMC · 15-08-2013, 02:10 PM

Bad old days? Back in the "bad old days" we had local manufacturing in many different industries. How many different car manufacturers did we have designing/manufacturing/assembling here in the "bad old days". How many people were employed in manufacturing back then? Were there choices? Was there no competition to force companies to come up with new and better things back then? Also were there no imports back then?

Our population is too small for an all doors open approach to trade. Other countries have protected there markets and almost always have strong manufacturing sectors. Even the countries we buy things from impose trade restrictions on their imports. They'd be stupid if they didn't.

I'm not totally disagreeing with you either 2011G6E. I see some points there too.

The government is very good at coming up with schemes that throw money around and really change nothing. Politicians really can't think too hard outside of election campaigns.