4 Aug 2007, Comments Off on Ad Nauseam: Federal Government’s IR ads

Ad Nauseam: Federal Government’s IR ads

Author: Helen

Govt’s IR ad blitz backfiring.” Excellent!

The Howard government’s latest advertising blitz is reportedly reinforcing fears surrounding its Work Choices reforms rather than dispelling them.
…”(It is) educating the public as to the negative realities of the new IR laws rather than myth-busting,” Essential Research has told The Weekend Australian newspaper.

I could have told them that. Actually, I’ve only noticed the one covering young peoples’ working conditions; maybe my TV habits aren’t as disastrous as I thought, or I just take notice because Girlchild is due to hit the part-time workforce at any second now.

This one goes something like (paraphrasing) You think an employer can hire your teenager for a miserable wage, but it’s not true, because the parent is required to co-sign his contract! …or witness it, or something– sorry, can’t find the text or a YouTube, and the Government’s website is unhelpful as well. It doesn’t mention parents other than in relation to their children being in training schemes.

Even the most politically apathetic parent could see the gap there and drive their truck through it. Sure, you can refuse to co-sign your kid’s contract unless the employer offers a higher rate, or better conditions, or whatever. Then the employer will say “Kthxbye: NEXT!”

Let’s not get too gleeful: we’re paying for the campaign, after all. Tim Dunlop and others have more on why this ad campaign should be pulled.
 
 
 
Crossposted at Road to Surfdom

Comments (0)

  • Ann of Brisbane says:

    Helen, watch out for the unpaid trial. According to the Workplace Ombudsman’s site “unpaid trial periods are generally unlawful” but it seems they are a common pratice in the hospitality industry for one.
    When we support/encourage our young people to seek casual work and get a taste of the work force I reckon most of us tell them not to ask about pay too early in the interview process.
    If they are expected to do a trial it is very hard for them to ask “is is paid or not?.” They are generally just hoping to get a fair go to show their potential.
    I’m hearing of an employer who quoted a registered agreement that enables him to trial someone unpaid for up to 5 hours. That’s not a fair go.

  • blue milk says:

    Great post, I’ve thought the same thing too watching that ad.

  • Helen says:

    Five hours? FFS, I mean I might let it go if my spirit was sufficiently broken and the Girlchild was rolling her eyes, but is that going to break the business? Really, they shouldn’t be employing people if they operate on that kind of knife edge!

  • Rebecca says:

    I’ve been noticing the same thing about these ads.

    This one particularly wasn’t very bright, as you’ve noted, but it isn’t as if the others were much more convincing. Having a public servant come on the screen and explain that she’s there to protect you if your employer breaks the law is all very nice, except that virtually all of this stuff is legal now – and people know this. It isn’t even coming close to taming the fears people actually hold about this legislation.

  • shula says:

    My 18 year old boarder just paid $1500 to do two weeks training as a hospital orderly (to learn how to wipe peoples’ bums) and then has had to do another 2 weeks unpaid ‘placement’.

    She paid them. Good rort, eh?

    Fuckers.

  • shula says:

    Sorry Helen, just realised it’s very rude to swear on someone’s blog.

    Got a bit worked up there.

  • Helen says:

    That’s OK Shula, I would be swearing too.
    That’s disgraceful.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.