Job offers and rejections ...and newly added but related 'what's important in a job?'

[StormFire]

well it's come to that time of year where people start receiving job offers for life after uni, and a few critical career decisions and the like need to be made.

Now my question here in lies ... if you recieve a job offer for a particular job which is decent in it's own right for which you have to give a response and hand in a stack of paper work by a certain date, otherwise the offer goes to someone else ... BUT ... you have another job in the works, which would kick the other jobs ass all over the place, for which you know there's roughly a 50% chance of getting an offer, but the offers for this job are meant to arrive a week or two after you need to give a response to the first job. Now, how does the whole ettiquite thing work for this ?

I feel that if i warn the first place that i'm waiting for another offer, that it might put my offer in jeopardy (ie. they might argue that there's plenty of other people chewing at the bit for the job), as it's part of a graduate recruitment program where they are recruiting 50ish persons so what's one more or less to them ... but if i dont warn them, and sign all the paperwork accepting their offer of employment, am i able to turn them down at a later date without any repercusions ?

i should add that both jobs would be starting around february, and i should also add that i'm not actually signing a contract at this stage, i'm just signing a statement accepting their offer of employment and subjecting myself to a bunch of other crap on which my employment is dependent upon.

It's the age all case of a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, but i'm definately sure that i would take the 2nd job over the one for which i have an offer at the moment, i'm just not sure how to handle things with the first offer is all.

but there lies my dilemna !


---------------------------------------------

**edit** (october 10th)

I just did the whole gravedig and such to ask another question later on in the thread, asking what you all would consider to be important when weighing up two different jobs against each other. More detail is on the question in that later post though.

[bazza]

you sound like you have worked hard and are a smart guy who knows what is going on, apply for the first job, see how that goes, than apply for the 2nd job when it comes up, if they people at the 2nd job are really impressed by you and accept you than go for it! Tell the other group you are unavailable! At least you will of met some people from both job groups and made some connections to who you can go back to if all falls through! Btw how many positions are there for the 2nd job offering? Are you sure you would be accepted into the 1st job if you applied for it and went for it? Do some more research and questioning about both areas in the meantime though!

[I-AM-TEH-FASTEST-11]

if you want to make it in the "career" world, then you gotta have nutsack. Lay it all on the line and hold out for the job you want.. why bother doing anything else

[Arete]

Screw it, the job market is a competitive field for both employers and employees.
Apply for both jobs, take the one that best suits you, reject the other offer.

[StormFire]

you sound like you have worked hard and are a smart guy who knows what is going on, apply for the first job, see how that goes, than apply for the 2nd job when it comes up, if they people at the 2nd job are really impressed by you and accept you than go for it! Tell the other group you are unavailable! At least you will of met some people from both job groups and made some connections to who you can go back to if all falls through! Btw how many positions are there for the 2nd job offering? Are you sure you would be accepted into the 1st job if you applied for it and went for it? Do some more research and questioning about both areas in the meantime though!

I've been through interviews and aptitude tests, psychometric tests and whatever other tests you want to think off for both jobs, ie. i've done the hard part for both, so i've actually been offered a spot of employment for the first position. I know there were about 300 at the interview stage, and i think i'm about 1 of around 50 that got an offer, as in it's a large graduate recruitment program.

the second place is the same deal, i was one of 120 to get interviewed a few weeks back, and i know that they'll be hiring 55 out of those, but the job offers for that one are still about 3 weeks away.

i should also point out that the second place only really does it's recruitment once a year, as it's graduate recruitment, there's not other real way to get in.

[bazza]

Screw it, the job market is a competitive field for both employers and employees.
Apply for both jobs, take the one that best suits you, reject the other offer.

right on the money. put 100% into both and you will be set. again you sound like a really smart guy and have the ability to get either job so just go for both of them. you will make some good connections and if there are 250 other people that missed out they can always go back through those applicants and find someone to fill your position but you would of made a very good impression on that company and this makes employment down the track easier as well as some good networking! go with Arete's option, hes pretty much yoda so he knows a lot of stuff.

[---Matt---]

I was in the same position as you a couple years ago. I just followed the idea that because you have just gotten out of uni, really, any job will do. You've gotta start somewhere to get your foot in the door and once you're in you can move up at the rate you want. In my industry at least (I.T.) you need on the job experience far more than written qualifications and hence, I took the first job I could get... stayed there for 3 months and have been moving up steadily since then and have doubled my salary in two years.

There's always going to be jobs around and if it doesn't work out at the first place you can always get another job elsewhere.

---Matt---

[scblack]

Screw it, the job market is a competitive field for both employers and employees.
Apply for both jobs, take the one that best suits you, reject the other offer.

Thats about right.

Aim to get as good as you can for yourself. You may feel some guilt if you end up knocking the other job back, but you have to look after No.1 first.

I have done exactly the same thing in the past, it's called giving yourself options, and when time comes, you then have to decide which is better for you.

If you did not give yourself the opportunity for both positions you would be selling yourself short.

[Arete]

Think about it this way, if they get two good applicants, they're not going to say "oh this guy applied first, let's give him a go, just to be fair". They interview you both, take the guy that they think is best and tell the other guy sorry.
They're after the best applicant, you're after the best job. It's business.

[FR Drew]

Precisely as others have said.

Many years ago I was offered and accepted a job so i turned down the interview for another position in an alternate career where I would have had pretty good chances of getting in down to some wierd misplaced loyalty moral thingy that because I'd accepted one job I couldn't in good faith chase the other.

That was about 15 years ago. I now know that even as a a permanent employee, if it doesn't suit them, any business will let you go without batting an eyelid. One of the upshots of Mr Howards grand workplace flexibility is that company loyalty is dead.

Accept job one, if you get offered job 2 in the first 3 weeks of job one, bail out, no hard feelings. Hell, it's not like they're short of applicants. You want the best start you can get. An employer won't look out for you, you gotta look out for yourself.

[Binaural]

When I was looking for my first engineering job I received three job offers pretty much simultaneously, the last of which landed a week after the first two (which I really wanted). In order to buy myself some time I accepted an offer of a trial week at one of the first two to respond, then after that elapsed I told them that I didn't think I'd be be suited to the role and accepted job offer 3. There were no hard feelings on either side.

If I were you, I would see if you can put back your start date 3 weeks to give the place you really want to work for a chance to throw their hat in the ring - tell them you have outstanding work/uni commitments or something. This gives you a chance to see if company 2 offers you anything without wasting 3 weeks of company 1's time. If they won't accept that, you may have to resort to quitting three weeks after you join the first company, but try to avoid screwing them around.

[StormFire]

i agree with most things that people have said, and i will accept the first offer, and then wait and see what happens with the 2nd



If I were you, I would see if you can put back your start date 3 weeks to give the place you really want to work for a chance to throw their hat in the ring - tell them you have outstanding work/uni commitments or something. This gives you a chance to see if company 2 offers you anything without wasting 3 weeks of company 1's time. If they won't accept that, you may have to resort to quitting three weeks after you join the first company, but try to avoid screwing them around.

it's not quite as easy as that unfortunately, as both jobs require security clearances, which are a 3 month process so their keen to start it as soon as possible, and both are pretty fixed in their start dates as the both run orientation type deals. ie. for the first one i would be situated in perth (which is the main thing that puts me off, as i'm a melbourne boy born and bred) but flown to canberra for a week long orientation at the start of my employment, and not having a security assessment done in time throws that in jeopardy.

[scblack]

One of the upshots of Mr Howards grand workplace flexibility is that company loyalty is dead.
:rolleyes: Groan.......Loyalty has been gone at least 30years on the part of both employer AND employee.

[nizai]

Loyalty may be dead, but on a personal scale I have been with the same company since 1997, having gone from packing screws in a warehouse to marketing manager. I work for a medium sized business (90-100 employees) still owned by 1 individual who is fairly generous in his nature. So much so that my wages with bonuses are now higher than just about anywhere else for the same job.

Unfortunately not everyone in the company is in this situation, but I can say that the company overall has always come through with the pay rises when ive asked for them. Cant complain with that.

The way the job marketplace is nowadays, employers are suddenly the ones doing the bargaining.

N

[NCR600]

It's business.

No, sometimes it isn't. People sometimes take things personally.

Here's a little cautionary tale about jobs and job applications.

About 6 months ago, I was working as an engineer, (no degree mind you), and earning good money, and having nice letters written about me from clients to my boss (I know, because he gave me copies of them).

A job came up in a government department (I won't mention it by name) for a training type role that I have been trying to get into for years. Application involves aptitude tests, and an interview in front of a panel.

I'd been working with this department in my role as an engineer, and had been specifically asked to apply by the head honcho of the department. I blitzed the tests, but unfortunately my employer found out I had applied for another job (a suspicious mind might draw some connection that my boss's father was in senior management in the same department, although he SHOULDN'T have had anything to do with the particular arm I had applied for).

Anyway, I was told I was to be sacked (illegal, and I told them so), and eventually under threat of being given only the most menial work, I quit, after getting a promise of a good reference.

Unfortunately, it looks like I was blackballed from the job (I have a whole host of evidence for this obtained under freedom of information etc), and I only got another job once I removed my boss' name as a reference on my CV (he had been bad mouthing me all over town... again, I know because I got a mate to ring him asking for a reference)

Now I am back on the tools, working harder for a shitload less money.

Points.

1. People often take a percieved lack of loyalty very personally.
2. People who feel affronted will sometimes go out of their way to ruin your life, particularly if they feel they can do so legally.
3. the words "your application will be treated with the utmost confidence" mean f*ck all.
4. People talk about stuff they shouldn't to people they shouldn't.
5. You can't afford better solicitors than multi billion dollar global corporations.
6. If I thought I could get away with it, I would kill someone in an immensely painful and unneccesarily slow fashion.

[Oddjob]

well it's come to that time of year where people start receiving job offers for life after uni, and a few critical career decisions and the like need to be made.

Now my question here in lies ... if you recieve a job offer for a particular job which is decent in it's own right for which you have to give a response and hand in a stack of paper work by a certain date, otherwise the offer goes to someone else ... BUT ... you have another job in the works, which would kick the other jobs ass all over the place, for which you know there's roughly a 50% chance of getting an offer, but the offers for this job are meant to arrive a week or two after you need to give a response to the first job. Now, how does the whole ettiquite thing work for this ?

I feel that if i warn the first place that i'm waiting for another offer, that it might put my offer in jeopardy (ie. they might argue that there's plenty of other people chewing at the bit for the job), as it's part of a graduate recruitment program where they are recruiting 50ish persons so what's one more or less to them ... but if i dont warn them, and sign all the paperwork accepting their offer of employment, am i able to turn them down at a later date without any repercusions ?

i should add that both jobs would be starting around february, and i should also add that i'm not actually signing a contract at this stage, i'm just signing a statement accepting their offer of employment and subjecting myself to a bunch of other crap on which my employment is dependent upon.

It's the age all case of a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, but i'm definately sure that i would take the 2nd job over the one for which i have an offer at the moment, i'm just not sure how to handle things with the first offer is all.

but there lies my dilemna !

Go ahead and sign the first offer. There is no need to tell them that you are holding out for a better offer. They will be expecting that some of the people who they have given offers to will be given better offers and go elsewhere. Thus they will have a reserve list.

[wtr]

They will be expecting that some of the people who they have given offers to will be given better offers and go elsewhere. Thus they will have a reserve list.
Bravo! Would you expect yourself to be the only applicant taken interest in their offer? Think not. ;)

One of the things I got used to saying to potential tenants after inspecting our rooms: "someone has already been here before you, if you are happy with what you see, be the first to lay a bond."

Cunning.;)

[Fred Nurk]

Think about it this way, if they get two good applicants, they're not going to say "oh this guy applied first, let's give him a go, just to be fair". They interview you both, take the guy that they think is best and tell the other guy sorry.
They're after the best applicant, you're after the best job. It's business.

An even better summation after a solid statement.

Look after yourself first. Worry about feeling guilty after you get the dream job. Theres way too many shit jobs out there for you to afford to do otherwise.

[R33F]

Screw it, the job market is a competitive field for both employers and employees.
Apply for both jobs, take the one that best suits you, reject the other offer.

Thats the good oil right there.

I have just changed jobs, selected the interviews that I wanted, narrowed it down to 2, and decided which I am going to enjoy more. The money is generally competative throughout what ever industry your involved in, so it's which job is going to make you happier.

[FR Drew]

:rolleyes: Groan.......Loyalty has been gone at least 30years on the part of both employer AND employee.

I can agree with sc that certaily, company loyalty from staff has been on the decline, as has any supposed corporate loyalty back in the other direction.

The exceptions (where they existed at all) were primarily in the small bespoke businesses where folks had been around from early on helping the manager to establish the company, seenus though the good times and the bad, yadda yadd yadda...

I guess my point was that things like re-jigging the unfair dismissal laws for small business effectively removes employee rights or gives the impression that people are more likely to get the boot in precisely this sort of company (the small ones).

SC I'm happy for you to believe that nothing has changed at all in tiny worker land vis a vis job security and perceived loyalty on both sides of the employee/employer relationship but personally I don't think it's true.

[Arete]

No, sometimes it isn't. People sometimes take things personally.

Here's a little cautionary tale about jobs and job applications.

About 6 months ago, I was working as an engineer, (no degree mind you), and earning good money, and having nice letters written about me from clients to my boss (I know, because he gave me copies of them).

A job came up in a government department (I won't mention it by name) for a training type role that I have been trying to get into for years. Application involves aptitude tests, and an interview in front of a panel.

I'd been working with this department in my role as an engineer, and had been specifically asked to apply by the head honcho of the department. I blitzed the tests, but unfortunately my employer found out I had applied for another job (a suspicious mind might draw some connection that my boss's father was in senior management in the same department, although he SHOULDN'T have had anything to do with the particular arm I had applied for).

Anyway, I was told I was to be sacked (illegal, and I told them so), and eventually under threat of being given only the most menial work, I quit, after getting a promise of a good reference.

Unfortunately, it looks like I was blackballed from the job (I have a whole host of evidence for this obtained under freedom of information etc), and I only got another job once I removed my boss' name as a reference on my CV (he had been bad mouthing me all over town... again, I know because I got a mate to ring him asking for a reference)

Now I am back on the tools, working harder for a shitload less money.

Points.

1. People often take a percieved lack of loyalty very personally.
2. People who feel affronted will sometimes go out of their way to ruin your life, particularly if they feel they can do so legally.
3. the words "your application will be treated with the utmost confidence" mean f*ck all.
4. People talk about stuff they shouldn't to people they shouldn't.
5. You can't afford better solicitors than multi billion dollar global corporations.
6. If I thought I could get away with it, I would kill someone in an immensely painful and unneccesarily slow fashion.

Hmm, when I was last looking for a new job my boss asked me if the rumours that I was looking at moving elsewhere were true.
I, in the politest way possible told him it wasn't his business unless I handed in my 2 weeks notice.

IMO as a layperson, your employer acted unethically and quite possibly, illegally.

[NCR600]

Hmm, when I was last looking for a new job my boss asked me if the rumours that I was looking at moving elsewhere were true.
I, in the politest way possible told him it wasn't his business unless I handed in my 2 weeks notice.

IMO as a layperson, your employer acted unethically and quite possibly, illegally.

Unethically without a doubt.
Illegally...Who knows. I haven't found a solicitor prepared to take it on, despite the evidence I have collected. Everyone involved in the Government Department would basically be hanging themselves if they revealed what they knew, and the company isn't just going to roll over! In short, it's too hard.

So be careful with job applications. People can and do talk, and most industries have some sort of grapevine going on.

[scblack]

I can agree with sc that certaily, company loyalty from staff has been on the decline, as has any supposed corporate loyalty back in the other direction.

SC I'm happy for you to believe that nothing has changed at all in tiny worker land vis a vis job security and perceived loyalty on both sides of the employee/employer relationship but personally I don't think it's true.

Drew, as far as I know of the new IR laws, and I do not know them well at all, it is still illegal to summarily sack an employee, so security is still there, as long as an employer does nothing illegal.

You will believe this I am sure Drew, but I reckon the new laws are a GOOD thing. The workplace has changed since the days when awards etc were originally written up. Back in those days, people only worked standard hours, because laws only allowed businesses to operate within those hours (9-5 blah blah blah). Thus back then penalty rates, holiday rates of pay were an accepted thing. Now laws are more free for operating hours, so those hours are just normal business really, why should penalty rates apply?

One way to look at this is, if a company works standard hours, they pay normal pay rates. BUT if a company has to wok outside of those hours, say a bakery, or petrol station, why should they face a PENALTY compared to another business just because of operating hours?

Politically I think Howard has shot himself in the foot with this, as there has been poor communication of the actual legislation. Uncertainty has created a great deal of dissatisfaction, which as far as I am aware is not necessarily founded. But I do think the laws improve business competitiveness.

[FR Drew]

I guess I was thinking more of the unfair dismissal stuff.

As far as the new changes go, I guess like any other legislation/tool if they're used in good faith and with fairness and the well being of both parties taken into consideration then sure they can be good. The problem will be when they get used to screw people over. Workplace flexibility and making it easier to hire folks and therefore supply jobs is great.

I think alot of the problem was that staff were improperly using the unfair dismissal rules to jerk their employers around when they had been legitimately sacked. The problem is, in removing the loophole by totally getting rid of the legislation for small business (rather than requiring the employee to supply a greater burden of proof as to the unfairness for instance) they've created a situation where managers who do wish to be unfair and to shaft their workers have a perfect opportunity to do so.

Which will erode company loyalty and breed distrust.

Although you may doubt it, if Howard had wanted to protect managers by requiring sacked employees to provide a lavel of substantiation vetted by an independant body before they could commence unfair dismissal action against a company, I'd have been behind him all the way. As it is, he's taken the easy option and given a windfall to those who would act unfairly on the boss side of things rather than actually solve the problem.

[Binaural]

Drew, as far as I know of the new IR laws, and I do not know them well at all, it is still illegal to summarily sack an employee, so security is still there, as long as an employer does nothing illegal.

You will believe this I am sure Drew, but I reckon the new laws are a GOOD thing. The workplace has changed since the days when awards etc were originally written up. Back in those days, people only worked standard hours, because laws only allowed businesses to operate within those hours (9-5 blah blah blah). Thus back then penalty rates, holiday rates of pay were an accepted thing. Now laws are more free for operating hours, so those hours are just normal business really, why should penalty rates apply?

One way to look at this is, if a company works standard hours, they pay normal pay rates. BUT if a company has to wok outside of those hours, say a bakery, or petrol station, why should they face a PENALTY compared to another business just because of operating hours?

Politically I think Howard has shot himself in the foot with this, as there has been poor communication of the actual legislation. Uncertainty has created a great deal of dissatisfaction, which as far as I am aware is not necessarily founded. But I do think the laws improve business competitiveness.

I don't know a hell of a lot about the new legislation either but I think that the concept of penalty rates for unusual hours is still a perfectly valid concept. Working night shifts etc plays hell with your body clock and social life, and I think it's fair that employers compensate their employees accordingly. Being able to run a manufacturing facility or supermarket etc 24/7 (or at least with significantly increased operating hours) is a big boost for productivity and efficient use of capital, and it's only fair that employees share in that given the costs these hours impose on them.

Politically, I think Labor has lost a golden chance to put some serious hurt on the Libs. Labor should be pulling in voters by the truckload over the uncertainty and multiple PR disasters that have occurred since this legislation was brought in, but we have heard nothing much. Not much from the unions either, even though I understand about a quarter of the workforce is still unionized one way or the other.

[StormFire]

well i thought that i'd dig this thread back up instead of starting a new one, as it's related, by just on a slightly different tack.

Basically, referring back to the initial topic, I ended up getting a couple of job offers after accepting the first one, and therefore ending up rejecting the first job which was in perth, and accepting another one in canberra which was an easy decision, espeically considering that i'm a melbourne boy and canberra is atleast on the same side of the country.

However, to throw a spanner in the works, I just got another job offer today for a job in adelaide, which unfortunately is very competive with the canberra one in terms of interest. For a bit of background, both jobs are involved with the defence industry, where the canberra based job is within the australian public service, and the adelaide based job is for a major defence contractor. After talking to lecturers most of them recommend the adelaide role in terms of engineering experience and such, but canberra is still leading in my mind due to interest levels, but i'd be doing much of the same thing in both roles, and the pay isnt all that different between the two either.

so to finally get onto a question again, I'm just wondering what people actually deem to be important when waying up between a couple of jobs?

[leitch]

well i thought that i'd dig this thread back up instead of starting a new one, as it's related, by just on a slightly different tack.

Basically, referring back to the initial topic, I ended up getting a couple of job offers after accepting the first one, and therefore ending up rejecting the first job which was in perth, and accepting another one in canberra which was an easy decision, espeically considering that i'm a melbourne boy and canberra is atleast on the same side of the country.

However, to throw a spanner in the works, I just got another job offer today for a job in adelaide, which unfortunately is very competive with the canberra one in terms of interest. For a bit of background, both jobs are involved with the defence industry, where the canberra based job is within the australian public service, and the adelaide based job is for a major defence contractor. After talking to lecturers most of them recommend the adelaide role in terms of engineering experience and such, but canberra is still leading in my mind due to interest levels, but i'd be doing much of the same thing in both roles, and the pay isnt all that different between the two either.

so to finally get onto a question again, I'm just wondering what people actually deem to be important when waying up between a couple of jobs?ok, to start, im no expert. shit, im in grade 12 still, so take my opinion with a pinch of salt..

probably the first thing that is obvious to me as needing consideration is what the difference is going to be between working in the public and private sectors. there's going to be a change in style of work, and probably also in the pay package you get offered (this may or may not affect your decision, so im just throwing it out there...).

personally (again take this with a pinch of salt as i've never been in the position you're in), i feel the pay package would affect my decision somewhat, but (hopefully) not as much as other factors. i feel like satisfaction in the job you choose is going to be (and would be for me) an important thing.. so you need to think about what kind of things contribute to your satisfaction. is it interest/motivation in your work? a sense of achievement in what you are doing? you need to kind of work that out for yourself...

finally, if you're being advised that the adelaide job is going to be more beneficial in engineering experience etc for you, then it might be a good option. what kinds of opportunities and openings is a private sector job going to make availiable over a public sector one? i personally (though i am not you, and don't really know your current position or anything) would be looking at the adelaide job, but again, its all up to what you think is right for you, and what you want.

** i know what i've written sounds a bit pretentious, especially coming from a 17 year old, but i still think they're pretty important points to consider..

[PINT of Stella, mate!]

It's different for everyone. Personally I'll go for jobs that sound a bit more interesting (i.e. a country I've never been before) or allow me a lot of time off to go riding, backpacking etc. (I'm currently on a 28/28 rotation), The amount of work involved is also a factor sometimes (I'm a lazy bastard who'll quite happily drop an extra couple hundred bucks a day so I can spend my working day sunbathing and surfing the net as opposed to sitting around viewing radiographs every ten minutes whilst being shouted at by welding foremen)

Having said that though I'm lucky in respect that I've got a flexible trade that is contract rather than career based. No real responsibilities (wife,kids,etc.) and I love travel.

My advice to you would be to check out which workplace employs hotter babes and go with them!

:D

[ajay]

If the pay is the same and work is similar then the things I would be weighing up are the cost of relocation, the sustainability of the job, the condidtions and, if possible, your collegues (will you be able to work with them etc).

Obviously this depends on the job but id also weigh up any possible moral issues with the work and/or industry etc.

Ultimately you want satisfaction within your career, so look at the aspects outside of the job that will be directly affected by you being in that job. Make sense?

[StormFire]

My advice to you would be to check out which workplace employs hotter babes and go with them!

:D

If you've ever seen an engineering class ... and discounting females in HR and secretaries, there's basically zero chance of female contact in either location lol

If the pay is the same and work is similar then the things I would be weighing up are the cost of relocation, the sustainability of the job, the condidtions and, if possible, your collegues (will you be able to work with them etc).


Both will pay for relocation, although the canberra job will pay for everything, and also put me up in a serviced apartment for 3 weeks until i find accomodation, where as adelaide said that they'd provide up to $2500 to pay for my relocation, so much of a muchness really, although i think canberra makes it a little easier ... although the a restricted housing market in canberra apparently is a bit of a problem !


** i know what i've written sounds a bit pretentious, especially coming from a 17 year old, but i still think they're pretty important points to consider..

They've been the sort of things that i've been considering, it's just hard to pick a decisive winner.

Like i know exactly what the adelaide job entails, as i was given a tour of the section where i'd be working when i was flown over there for an interview, plus the adelaide job seems really keen on me from little bits and pieces that they've said. The canberra job on the other hand, i was given a tour, but due to security and everything that follows, didnt really see the type of stuff that i'd be involved in, to the extent that during the interview i actually had to ask whether they were involved in the type of work that i do at uni (to which they definately do), so it's a bit of an unknown quantity, but i know that the potential definately exists in that job.

[Adrian]

Drew, as far as I know of the new IR laws, and I do not know them well at all, it is still illegal to summarily sack an employee, so security is still there, as long as an employer does nothing illegal.

You will believe this I am sure Drew, but I reckon the new laws are a GOOD thing. The workplace has changed since the days when awards etc were originally written up. Back in those days, people only worked standard hours, because laws only allowed businesses to operate within those hours (9-5 blah blah blah). Thus back then penalty rates, holiday rates of pay were an accepted thing. Now laws are more free for operating hours, so those hours are just normal business really, why should penalty rates apply?

One way to look at this is, if a company works standard hours, they pay normal pay rates. BUT if a company has to wok outside of those hours, say a bakery, or petrol station, why should they face a PENALTY compared to another business just because of operating hours?

Politically I think Howard has shot himself in the foot with this, as there has been poor communication of the actual legislation. Uncertainty has created a great deal of dissatisfaction, which as far as I am aware is not necessarily founded. But I do think the laws improve business competitiveness.


I know I just jumped a whole heap of conversation, but I wanted to give the opinion that the benefits of the new laws in regard to work hours are far outweighed by the costs. I know people in the design industries who have been forced to work 12 hour days, and sometimes give up weekends under threat of being replaced, all for a nominal ovetime rate which they do not want to collect. If work and money is your life, then I guess being able to stay at work all the time has its benefits. But for those who also like to exist outside of their job, it's a loss of power on their behalf to have to negotiate how many hours they can have for themselves.

In technical industries (my own experience in metalwork and construction), working more than an eight hours a day in a high concentration environment on a regular basis is like playing russian roulette with five bullets in chamber. It's only a matter of time before you get hurt. In my own job (Surveying/planning firm) at present, there are only a couple of people who will work longer hours consistently, and these are the ones who cost the company in terms of needing more frequent and stringent checks on the precision of their work.

The original laws of a 40 week were put in place for the safety and protection of employees, and this is an issue that is still relevant today.



eight hours to sleep,
eight hours to work,
eight hours for what we will.


And to get back on topic, it's a hard call, because adelaide and canberra both have nuts riding... You probably have a better financial future in the private sector, while the public service is a better lifestyle choice. My suggestion in this situation is to decide where you want to be, then go with the job that takes you there.