Gillard's IR laws - The Unions to rule again! (2 Viewers)

[impervious182]

The relationship between Labor and unions has existed for quite a while. However it is very dangerous to business in Australia and many unions have a bully mentality.

It seems that Labor's union gang are at it again. Led by ex-union lawyer - Julia Gillard.

Coalition legal advice urges rethink on IR laws

Patricia Karvelas and Brad Norington | December 03, 2008

Article from: The Australian

"CONFIDENTIAL legal advice provided to the Coalition warns that the Rudd Government's new workplace legislation will revive the practice of pattern bargaining so loathed by employers.

The advice, obtained by The Australian, claims multi-enterprise agreements meant for the low-paid would be "completely unrestricted".
It argues that a union could use these provisions to kick off bargaining across a whole industry.

"Employers will not be entitled to refuse to recognise, or bargain with, a bargaining representative of the employees," says the document.

"When read in conjunction with the default bargaining provisions and civil remedy provisions, this means that genuine non-union agreements will only be possible in workplaces with no union members.

"All other enterprise agreements are capable of applying to and being enforced by unions." ..."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24743415-5013871,00.html
​

(Of course, there are quite a few who dispute that unions will have extensive powers under the new laws... but I'll leave it to you to decide.)

Discuss.

 

[Trefoil]

Wow, who would have fucking guessed... Labour are acting on the single biggest mandate of their election. It's mind-blowing!

 

[Kwayera]

What a surprise.

 

[impervious182]

Wow, who would have fucking guessed... Labour are acting on the single biggest mandate of their election. It's mind-blowing!

Except their electorial mandate was to abolish Howard's I.R. laws and to balance the relationship between employer and employee.

NOT to take away all power from the employer by exponentially increasing the power of unions.

 

[Trefoil]

Except their electorial mandate was to abolish Howard's I.R. laws and to balance the relationship between employer and employee.

NOT to take away all power from the employer by exponentially increasing the power of unions.

Nope, I'm pretty sure Labour's mandate was to completely revert Howard's I.R. laws and return to the status quo.

"The people have spoken, the Labor Party has a mandate to tear up WorkChoices and they'll be able to use that mandate." - Liberal Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey

 

[impervious182]

Nope, I'm pretty sure Labour's mandate was to completely revert Howard's I.R. laws and return to the status quo.

"The people have spoken, the Labor Party has a mandate to tear up WorkChoices and they'll be able to use that mandate." - Liberal Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey

Firstly, the quote doesn't support your statement. It just says, like I already have, that Labor were elected on the promise they would tear up WorkChoices (Howard's IR laws). Labor's new IR laws go beyond what existed before Howard's. (At least, I think they do... which is my point.)

Secondly, I tried to give you the hint last time, but Labor has no 'u'. I've made it bold again.

 

[Trefoil]

Firstly, the quote doesn't support your statement. It just says, like I already have, that Labor were elected on the promise they would tear up WorkChoices (Howard's IR laws). Labor's new IR laws go beyond what existed before Howard's. (At least, I think they do... which is my point.)

Secondly, I tried to give you the hint last time, but Labor has no 'u'. I've made it bold again.

Um, cry moar because your party was defeated and its unpopular policies are being reverted?

And yeah, I'm aware of the ALP's etymology, which is why I spell it with a 'u'.

 

[impervious182]

Um, cry moar because your party was defeated and its unpopular policies are being reverted?

And yeah, I'm aware of the ALP's etymology, which is why I spell it with a 'u'.

I don't have a party and I'm not upset that some bad Liberal policies are being reverted. I have no problem with scrapping WorkChoices, as long as the alternative is better.

Also, whether you're 'aware' of the ALP's etymology or not - there's a little thing called inconsistency... and it's annoying for those pedantic people amongst us. (me) I have to admit though, I make grammatical errors too... but better to admit to it then dig yourself further into the hole.

 

[Trefoil]

I don't have a party and I'm not upset that some bad Liberal policies are being reverted. I have no problem with scrapping WorkChoices, as long as the alternative is better.

Also, whether you're 'aware' of the ALP's etymology or not - there's a little thing called inconsistency... and it's annoying for those pedantic people amongst us. (me) I have to admit though, I make grammatical errors too... but better to admit to it then dig yourself further into the hole.

It's good that you're interested in etymology. It's actually quite a fascinating topic, but so many people find it dull. For future reference, I consistently use a 'u' for spelling the Labour party. You can read some discussion about that in this thread: http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=172566

 

[impervious182]

Nope, I'm pretty sure Labour's mandate was to completely revert Howard's I.R. laws and return to the status quo.

"The people have spoken, the Labor Party has a mandate to tear up WorkChoices...

Just wanted to contradict you. lol.

For future reference, I consistently use a 'u' for spelling the Labour party.

 

[Trefoil]

Just wanted to contradict you. lol.

Um, if you're going to try and stalk my posts to pull me up for spelling inconsistencies (why?), it might be a good idea to check if it's even my spelling you're actually 'correcting', rather than that of, say, a news source I am quoting, of which it is bad practice to alter.

Just a thought.

 

[impervious182]

Um, if you're going to try and stalk my posts to pull me up for spelling inconsistencies (why?), it might be a good idea to check if it's even my spelling you're actually 'correcting', rather than that of, say, a news source I am quoting, of which it is bad practice to alter.

Just a thought.

lol. Except the quote you used, was an oral one... nothing was written, so technically you could have made any adaption you wanted...

If you were trying to use really good practice you would also reference where you got the source, but this is only BoS not a doctoral dissertation... lol. But your point has been made. I have to say though Trefoil, you have been very thorough in using 'Labour' instead of 'Labor'... I just went through about half of your 1055 posts (skimmed over them) and I couldn't find a single 'Labor'. lol. So a one time mistake... Then I went back, just then, to find if you'd typed Labor under your other username (Slidey)... verrrryyyy thorough. L.O.L.

Though whatever your reason for caling it Labour it's still incorrect. Just like it wouldn't be correct if someone called me 'Alec' because my name is 'Alex'... doesn't matter if that's how they spell it. Also though, why are you so against Americanisation of words? (Notice how I specifically avoided it there. lol)

 

[badquinton304]

Labor abolishes workchoices. Introduces one of the most balanced workplace agreement systems and this person has to have a problem with it.

 

[impervious182]

Labor abolishes workchoices. Introduces one of the most balanced workplace agreement systems and this person has to have a problem with it.

I haven't read through the new laws. I'm just getting information from a reliable source; 'The Australian.'

 

[spiny norman]

Just like it wouldn't be correct if someone called me 'Alec' because my name is 'Alex'... doesn't matter if that's how they spell it.

Is it just me or is every second poster in here's real name Alex?

Also, this IR policy is not as pro-union as that of Hawke and Keating. More's the shame, really.

 

[boris]

You're a bit of an embarrassment tbh alexdore993

 

[spiny norman]

When you make chicky_pie seem like an intelligent and informed poster...

 

[jb_nc]

The majority of non-fuckheads would agree that these laws are completely fair.

 

[Iron]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24704778-5013871,00.html
Gillard Explains Fair Work Bill 2008(second reading speech)

I rise today one year on from the election of the Rudd Labor Government to deliver on a promise Labor made to the Australian people. Today we deliver the creation of a new workplace relations system, one that allows Australia to grasp the promise of the future without forgetting the values that made us who and what we are.

Over a century ago at Federation, Australians decided that we would be different to other nations. Democratic, yes. With parliamentary institutions, judicial independence and individual rights similar to those of other great democracies like the United Kingdom and the United States of America, but without their wide social inequalities.

And our Australian version of fairness began with industrial relations:

with the concept of the living wage, determined first in the Harvester Judgement;
with the idea that people's democratic rights don't cease when they step onto the factory, shop or office floor;
with recognition of the need for time for family, relaxation and community; and
with an end to divisive industrial conflict.
Before the November 2007 election, this set of values - which instill the essence of the Australian genius for fairness and enterprise - was attacked by the values contained in Work Choices.

The philosophy that underpinned Work Choices said, essentially: make your own way in the world; without the comfort of mateship; without the protections afforded by a compassionate society; against odds deliberately stacked against you. No safety net. No rights at work. No cooperation in the workplace to take the nation forward.

More than anything else, the 2007 election was a contest between these two visions of what Australia should be. And in November 2007, the Australian people settled the matter for once and for all. They chose to be true to the Australian ideal of a fair go. Their decision cost a Prime Minister not only his Government but his seat in this House.

They chose to reject Work Choices and all it stood for, and to put in its place the promises Labor made in its policy statement Forward with Fairness. They gave the Rudd Government the strongest possible popular mandate for the introduction of this Bill.

One year on from our election, the Rudd Government now delivers in full on those promises.

The Bill being introduced today is based on the enduring principle of fairness while meeting the needs of the modern age. It balances the interests of employers and employees and balances the granting of rights with the imposition of responsibilities. The Bill delivers:

--a fair and comprehensive safety net of minimum employment conditions that cannot be stripped away;
--a system that has at its heart bargaining in good faith at the enterprise level, as this essential to maximise workplace cooperation, improve economic productivity and create rising national prosperity;
--protections from unfair dismissal for all employees;
--protection and hope for a better future for the low-paid;
--a balance between work and family life; and
--the right to be represented in the workplace.
These rights are guaranteed by the legislation and overseen by a new industrial umpire, Fair Work Australia, that will operate with independence and balance.

Reflecting the Government's commitment to co-operative workplace relations, this Bill is the product of an unprecedented degree of consultation with employer and employee representatives and State and Territory governments.

One century on from Federation, and one year on from the election of the Rudd Labor Government, this Bill takes the Australian value of the fair go and builds around it a new workplace relations system ready to meet the needs of the nation in the 21st Century.

It's a good Bill for employees, for employers, for families and for the economy.

Only a Labor Government could have introduced this Bill because only Labor believes that the ideal of fairness should lie at the centre of our national life.

This Bill is simpler and shorter than Work Choices. It is easier to read and apply and is set out in six easy to follow parts.

Not a bad speech imo. She then goes through the bill in detail, for anyone interested

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

No I'm completely uninterested, but I shall assume that Comrade Gillard knows what she's on about, and will agree with whatever she says.

This anti-unions pov that underlines newbies post is a bit antiquated, I reckon? Only complete nongs like WAF and John Howard still believe stuff about unions being the tool of the devil and so on.