Australia $ Value, Economic Direction?

[The_Big_M]

[quote name='Oz_Steve']I have worked with many large companies and the 'super efficient' private sector mantra is a myth.[/quote]

That statement is also true.

It varies by company and position/manager.

[MicCanberra]

[quote name='The_Big_M']Things are nowhere near what you perceive - quite the opposite![/QUOTE]

:confused:
I worked private industry for 22 years, and I can tell you that while there was lots of work, they didn't sack anyone, that only happened when things started to get tight. There was no efficiency dividends ever. It was affordable to keep someone on or not. Those companies didn't cut people if it wasn't necessary.

[MicCanberra]

[quote name='bazzaw']Are they "permanents" or "casuals" ??

Barry[/QUOTE]

They were ongoing full time staff, not they are not.:(

[The_Big_M]

[quote name='MicCanberra']:confused:
I worked private industry for 22 years, and I can tell you that while there was lots of work, they didn't sack anyone, that only happened when things started to get tight. There was no efficiency dividends ever. It was affordable to keep someone on or not. Those companies didn't cut people if it wasn't necessary.[/quote]

Companies are different. But things have changed substantially since you were private.

Our company's its most profitable ever - and substantially so! - yet people are made redundant continually, and we've had a hiring freeze for more than a year, and don't replace people as they go. We've lost half our team the past year - yet have had to find ways to be more productive on top of it. Where that means ever increasing profitability, in any way.

There's a lot more that could be said, but it's not to dwell on that. Just the grass isn't as green as you think elsewhere.

[Oz_Steve]

[quote name='The_Big_M']Companies are different. But things have changed substantially since you were private.

Our company's its most profitable ever - and substantially so! - yet people are made redundant continually, and we've had a hiring freeze for more than a year, and don't replace people as they go. We've lost half our team the past year - yet have had to find ways to be more productive on top of it. Where that means ever increasing profitability, in any way.

There's a lot more that could be said, but it's not to dwell on that. Just the grass isn't as green as you think elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

I don't think he is saying the grass is greener, just that it is different. Any large company becomes a bureaucracy, its just that your mistakes don't end up in the press with one of them.

[Aus Traveller]

From what I am reading here, both private companies and the Commonwealth government have been making people redundant for a while. So what is new if there are more redundancies?

In my son's State government department there was one staffer who didn't pull his weight and who was a real problem. My son used to say that he had to help this person so much that he could have done his job (as well as his own) in the time he was spending supervising someone who wouldn't learn. When Campbell Newman came into office and there were redundancies, naturally this unproductive worker was the one who was tapped on the shoulder. I am not trying to get into a debate on how many redundancies there were - my point is that (IN SOME CASES) redundancies are a way to get rid of unproductive staff.:)

[MicCanberra]

[quote name='Oz_Steve']I don't think he is saying the grass is greener, just that it is different. Any large company becomes a bureaucracy, its just that your mistakes don't end up in the press with one of them.[/QUOTE]

Yes, companies and private industry are always there to make money while government is to provide a service and not necessarily to make/save money. My point is if there is work they hire and if not they sack. The same can be said of Government but instead they sack anyway. The efficiency dividend was designed to influence innovation and less red tape. The trouble is to change systems to more innovative ones is costly.:D

[bazzaw]

[quote name='Aus Traveller']From what I am reading here, both private companies and the Commonwealth government have been making people redundant for a while. So what is new if there are more redundancies?

In my son's State government department there was one staffer who didn't pull his weight and who was a real problem. My son used to say that he had to help this person so much that he could have done his job (as well as his own) in the time he was spending supervising someone who wouldn't learn. When Campbell Newman came into office and there were redundancies, naturally this unproductive worker was the one who was tapped on the shoulder. I am not trying to get into a debate on how many redundancies there were - my point is that (IN SOME CASES) redundancies are a way to get rid of unproductive staff.:)[/QUOTE]

30 years ago, I was in the Navy and spent a few years at both Cockatoo Island Dockyard and Garden Island Dockyard (being part of the Navy's Project Management team managing ship refits).

Of course things have changed since then -- Cockatoo Island has become defunct - but at that time these dockyards were a DISGRACE. Peopled by the very featherbedded Commonwealth Public Service (mostly Dept of Defence) and highly Unionised (with the Painters and Dockers leading the way with their "practices" -- now let me see, which one of the 3 available Companies will get the contract this time around -- whose turn is it??????:rolleyes:). And people wonder why I do not vote Labor or support any kind of organisation associated with unionised Labour. :rolleyes:

Barry

[MicCanberra]

[quote name='Aus Traveller']From what I am reading here, both private companies and the Commonwealth government have been making people redundant for a while. So what is new if there are more redundancies?

In my son's State government department there was one staffer who didn't pull his weight and who was a real problem. My son used to say that he had to help this person so much that he could have done his job (as well as his own) in the time he was spending supervising someone who wouldn't learn. When Campbell Newman came into office and there were redundancies, naturally this unproductive worker was the one who was tapped on the shoulder. I am not trying to get into a debate on how many redundancies there were - my point is that (IN SOME CASES) redundancies are a way to get rid of unproductive staff.:)[/quote]
There will always be some people who do not pull their weight both in private industry and government, IMO, they should be sacked. Providing them with a payout or redundancy does get rid of some but also rewards their efforts (or lack there of).
These planned redundancies is to save money, pure and simple, it will also get rid of programs and services for the public.

[crazzyd77]

Yes this is for me...

[frantic36]

Changes were occurring in the Public Service by Labor prior to the Election and it too wasn't being reported.

My sister works for a Federal Government Department here in Perth. A few weeks ago prior to the election they were all called in and told of changes to occur with how things were being run...people who were in an acting higher level were to go back to the lower level and of course the [B]lower pay level[/B]. They were told they wouldn't have to do the higher level of work but due to productivity requirements they know they will still need to do it anyway. So they get to do the same work they were doing before but they will get paid less money.

The frustration was they knew their colleagues in Canberra were more protected from this as there are so many more there so they wouldn't be affected. It was less likely people in Canberra were in acting positions and if so they were unlikely to still be required to do the work of the higher level.

My point is both Labor and Liberal were/are looking to ways to save money to reduce our deficit. It needs to occur and there are definitely some research areas and new small focus ideological departments that have sprung up over the last few years that could do with a good prune.

To stay on topic it looks like our AU$ is stabilising around the 90c to the US$.

[icat2000]

[quote name='frantic36']

To stay on topic it looks like our AU$ is stabilising around the 90c to the US$.[/QUOTE]
92.5 at the mo.

[frantic36]

[quote name='icat2000']92.5 at the mo.[/QUOTE]

True. :)

Selfish of me but I am hoping it stays around the 90 mark as I have my first trip to the US planned for the end of the year.

[MicCanberra]

[quote name='frantic36']Changes were occurring in the Public Service by Labor prior to the Election and it too wasn't being reported.

My sister works for a Federal Government Department here in Perth. A few weeks ago prior to the election they were all called in and told of changes to occur with how things were being run...people who were in an acting higher level were to go back to the lower level and of course the [B]lower pay level[/B]. They were told they wouldn't have to do the higher level of work but due to productivity requirements they know they will still need to do it anyway. So they get to do the same work they were doing before but they will get paid less money.

The frustration was they knew their colleagues in Canberra were more protected from this as there are so many more there so they wouldn't be affected. It was less likely people in Canberra were in acting positions and if so they were unlikely to still be required to do the work of the higher level.

My point is both Labor and Liberal were/are looking to ways to save money to reduce our deficit. It needs to occur and there are definitely some research areas and new small focus ideological departments that have sprung up over the last few years that could do with a good prune.

To stay on topic it looks like our AU$ is stabilising around the 90c to the US$.[/quote]
I can see your point and I did mention this a while ago that both governments were doing the cuts and increasing the efficiency dividends.
However, the new government is pruning 12,000 from Canberra. I don't think that this means Canberra will remain unaffected or protected.
In regards to the AUD I am glad that it is hovering arount this 92 cent mark, wouldn't mind if it increased again either. A redundancy would give me time and money for a nice long cruise.:D

[circuitrider]

[quote name='frantic36']Selfish of me but I am hoping it stays around the 90 mark as I have my first trip to the US planned for the end of the year.[/quote]

Took me a while to make sense of your post. I was wondering why you weren't thrilled with it going up. Then I understood...you figure it'll either stay near 90c, or drop like a rock. Interesting.

Still, I'm going to hope that it shoots back past parity. I won't get too greedy and hope for $1.10; $1.05 would suit me fine.

[MicCanberra]

[quote name='circuitrider']Took me a while to make sense of your post. I was wondering why you weren't thrilled with it going up. Then I understood...you figure it'll either stay near 90c, or drop like a rock. Interesting.

Still, I'm going to hope that it shoots back past parity. I won't get too greedy and hope for $1.10; [B]$1.05[/B] would suit me fine.[/quote]
Would certainly suit me as well.:D

[The_Big_M]

[quote name='Oz_Steve']I don't think he is saying the grass is greener, just that it is different. Any large company becomes a bureaucracy, its just that your mistakes don't end up in the press with one of them.[/quote]

He said that "private industry does not cut back when the business is going well."

My point is that private industry _does_ cut back when things are going well as well. There's a focus on increasing efficiency, just as in the public sector.

[The_Big_M]

[quote name='circuitrider']Took me a while to make sense of your post. I was wondering why you weren't thrilled with it going up. Then I understood...you figure it'll either stay near 90c, or drop like a rock. Interesting.

Still, I'm going to hope that it shoots back past parity. I won't get too greedy and hope for $1.10; $1.05 would suit me fine.[/quote]

While I have a mid range optimistic view, it's certainly possible for it to fall, esp short term as I mentioned earlier (I think my jobs comment started the past few pages. :D) So you both could be right :-)

[bazzaw]

I am certain that if any of us here had the slightest idea of the direction of our currency -- and had known it's direction(s) over the last few years, we/they would be considerably richer than we/they are :)



Barry

[MicCanberra]

[quote name='bazzaw']I am certain that if any of us here had the slightest idea of the direction of our currency -- and had known it's direction(s) over the last few years, we/they would be considerably richer than we/they are :)



Barry[/quote]
You are dead on there.
If I knew, I would have made a packet and then I wouldn't be posting about cruising on boards, but I would be cruising onboard.:rolleyes:

[NSWP]

Don't worry about the rise and fall of the little Aussie dollar, you guys. Just tell your cruise line you are 'adjusting your auto tips' in line with currency fluctuations. LOL. Edited September 13, 2013 by NSWP

[MicCanberra]

[quote name='NSWP']Don't worry about the rise and fall of the little Aussie dollar, you guys. Just tell your cruise line you are 'adjusting your auto tips' in line with currency fluctuations. LOL.[/quote]
I know some people who do not find that funny, luckily this thread isn't about tipping.:rolleyes:

[icat2000]

They would go postal on some boards if you made that suggestion.

[NSWP]

[quote name='icat2000']They would go postal on some boards if you made that suggestion.[/QUOTE]
You mean on the American boards? Heh, Heh. Don't worry I have been on enough American Princess ships to see our American friends lined up at the Purser Desk 'adjusting their tips.'

[MicCanberra]

[quote name='NSWP']You mean on the American boards? Heh, Heh. Don't worry I have been on enough American Princess ships to see our American friends lined up at the Purser Desk 'adjusting their tips.'[/QUOTE]

Noooo, and I thought that they just accused us and the brits for doing that.:D