THE RELIEF MILKER.

�

He then extends the discussion further about how this might impact in commerce and industry and asks what lessons industry can learn about stress and exploitation of employees

******************

Maybe the tale of the Relief Milker shows a lesson that can be learnt by all of us.

Living in a world that seems to want to do everything at top speed, there is little time for more leisurely pursuits. Even leisure is controlled by time constraints

Perhaps there would be fewer problems with stress and heart troubles, if we took a more leisurely approach to life.

Prof. is convinced that productivity would be much higher with a less stressed workforce.

This is a lesson that the economic rationalists have yet to learn.

Industry has removed career paths away from workers. Reduced workers rights. Cut job security by using short-term contracts of employment with no guarantees of extensions.

In many instances solid industry and commercial training programmes have now been dismantled and replaced with "Venture" training rather than industry training.�Training that is not transportable across industry or is of limited value in the long term.

�Many of venture training programmes are little more than selling the company's philosophy and their training is not transportable to another section of their industry or commerce.� This means that the person has to be retrained again to do the work the next employer wants them to do.

Employers now complain that there is no longer any loyalty. Why should they complain? Loyalty is a two-way street. You must give loyalty in order to receive it.

They also complain of a lack of skilled and experienced workers.� What do they expect?� In Victoria in particular, they have dismantled or are in the process of dismantling one of the best industrial training systems in the world. One that was the envy of many countries.

We are now falling behind even the poorer countries in addressing the needs of industry.

It is easier for the multi-nationals, when they find they cannot get sufficient qualified or experienced workers they threaten governments with moving off shore.�� Multi or International means just that. They do not owe any loyalty to any country.

Legally, in Australia, there is supposed to be a 38-40 hour week, but overtime has almost become mandatory and often without payment.

This applies especially to the young school-leavers or those undergoing further commerce or industry training through the colleges.

As a public servant, Prof. had seen young people studying training courses, which include two by three weeks blocks of "in-house workplace" training.

In itself, this is not the real problem. The real problem is one of exploitation. When we consider that school-time equals 8 hours, there are young people frequently working 12 hours per day while on these courses.

Present day attitudes imply that students on courses are not technically or legally employed and will not receive a wage.

While industry and governments may agree that no wages, or at best a token payment of e.g. $15 per week shall be paid for this period; it needs to be clearly stipulated that the "period" means the equivalent of a normal school day, i.e. 8 hours period.

Any time worked beyond that should be paid at the appropriate industry/commercial rates and conditions that apply to the job

An industrial question which might arise, would be whether the person, working the extra hours, should be paid at penalty rates. After all, the student has already been working in the workplace under the guise of training, for 8 hours.

Prof believes that unscrupulous employers would fight not to have that recognised, as they are already exploiting the young people by asking them to work 12 hour shifts.

Their concerns might also be that they would be forced to cover these people under workers compensation insurance, public liability, plus penalty rates, etc.

It would be an interesting Industrial Relations issue if one of these people was hurt on the job while working beyond the designated school hours.

Would the employer claim that as they were not officially employed it was not their responsibility? Would they try to push the responsibility over to the colleges?

The next question would be regarding the reaction of the college system, suddenly potentially facing additional insurance and compensation costs if made responsible for students including when employed beyond school hours.

At the moment young people are too frightened to complain, fearing they will prejudice job prospects within industry if it became known they had complained.

Experience shows that seldom do they get the job on concluding their training. These unscrupulous employers are "host" employers, providing the colleges with employers prepared to put on young people for the courses. They will just take on another hopeful student after the present leaves. They have no need to offer a job.

Unfortunately the reputation of this type of employer imputes the credibility of fair and legitimate employers, thus giving industry a bad name.

The end result is that young people lose their confidence, self-esteem and self-respect. It can be understood with some degree of sympathy that they might think "Why should we try any more; what incentive is there"?

Prof. remembers a case where a young girl was in such a situation and had come to him to ask for advice.

She was advised to speak with her teacher and explain what had happened. She did this and was told she had no reason to complain, as she was fortunate to have the opportunity.

Opportunity to be exploited?????. I ask you!

When the college was queried about the matter, the response was that it was hard for the college to find employers prepared to take on the young people in these courses. The college was reluctant to take action that might upset these host employers.

Another case involved a young girl already employed in a job but working 12 hours for 8 hours of pay. She also asked for advice and was advised to contact her case manager.

A same situation applies to Job Placement organisations when facing exploitation issues.

Fortunately there some job placement agencies who will address their responsibilities to the clients (job seekers).

In this instance the young girl did so and her case manager told she should not complain, as she was lucky to have a job. There were many other people wanting a job and would be glad to take hers. ?????

What is the world coming to when we allow such exploitation of the young? Where anyone standing up for their rights is labelled a troublemaker and is judged not suitable candidate for employment.

Another instance was brought to my attention where 16 young "trainees" were employed by a company for three months at the minimum rate of pay "training wage" to be trained to do a particular task.

The task was not a particularly difficult one and could be learnt after the first two or three days. It did not take three months training.

Prior to the completion of the time each was told they would not be taken on. When they left, the employer requested another team of "Trainees" and when questioned why he did not put on any of the young people from the previous group the reply was, "why should I. I had no intention of employing anyone. However the government was paying me a subsidy to take them on."

The community wonders why so many of the young people lose heart and their self esteem and don't try. They know they are going to be exploited, but as most are school leavers or unemployed they are directed to accpet the conditions or lose any unemployment and health benefits.

Some people who have never been unemployed and have always been employed say "So what! Why should they receive benefits when there is work available."

The work is available but not at a fair wage or in fair conditions. Often these young people are far worse off than when on the benefits. They are forced into income far below poverty, especially those who do not live at home and have family support.

There have been attempts to force parents to take them back into the home. The reason why many have left home is because of a family breakdown for some reason or other. Governments forcing a return will not and cannot be successful in these circumstances.

Prof. remembers when he was in business a young fellow coming to him for a job. When he had turned 15-16, his father gave him an old car and $50 and told him to go and earn his own living; he was old enough to support himself.

The lad had drifted down the Eastern coast picking up work here and there, often at ridiculous rates in order to survive.

He was brought to me by our oldest son who asked if I could give him some work as he had run out of money and petrol to try somewhere else.

We employed him, initially for a couple of months to help him earn some money but then gave him a fulltime job until we were able to have him placed into an apprenticeship with a business contact. He was an excellent worker and willing to try anything you gave him. He was also a self-starter, despite his experience.

Similarly, many mature aged workers are being exploited.

The issue here is slightly different in that they must work much harder and perform better to prove to their employers that they can still make a valuable contribution to the workforce.

They are often forced to accept lower wages, based on the employer's argument that the government offers a subsidy to take on a young person, so they cannot afford to employ them if they can't get a subsidy.

Business has elected to take a short term view and attitude, looking at the needs of today. They know they can draw on the skills and knowledge of the very older workers they are exploiting.

This will happen only for a short time because as attrition reduces the number available older, experienced and skilled workers, it subsequently reduces the size of the pool of such skilled people.

At present, mature aged skills and experience no great value on today's labour market.

However, many employers are starting to complain that they no longer can get experienced or skilled people.

No wonder when they no longer train at industry level but at enterprise level (Mickey mouse) training. No wonder when they exploit the young and older alike.

Industry and Commerce needs to have a mix of older and young workers in their workforce. The older worker can pass on their skills and knowledge to the younger ones. Then the younger ones in turn, will replace those older workers, passing on their skills and knowledge to another younger group.

Worldwide Copyright John W. 1998,2001

Click on the graphic to vote for this
page as a Starting Point Hot Site