The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

[frog12986]

In what way is Beazley not credible? What difference would Rudd or Gillard make? Beazley is a senior politician and would make a fine Prime Minister. People like you just find it trendy to bag him because he's an easy target.

A fine Prime Minister? I'll give Beazely the credit that he is a genuinely nice man, however it's his politics that detracts..

Trendy to bag him? I think not. The most trendy form of insult is to bag or hate John Howard..

I think your signature removes any credibility on your part to judge individuals and character..

 

[myst]

Did anyone on this thread mentioned the fact that it was the Commonwealth LABOUR GOVERNMENT that started the industrial relations reform through the facilitation of the Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1993?
The liberal government continued this with the facilation of the Workplace Relations Act 1996

Details can be found here:
http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2005/09/baird.html

It's called 'Why the states matter in industrial relations'
by:

Marian Baird, University of Sydney
Bradon Ellem, University of Sydney
Chris F. Wright, University of Sydney


This was the start of decentralisation (included reduced union power etc).

So really both political parties have been responsible for the Industrial Relations Changes to date.

 

[Generator]

Did anyone on this thread mentioned the fact that it was the Commonwealth LABOUR GOVERNMENT that started the industrial relations reform through the facilitation of the Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1993?

No, but I'm fairly certain that a few people have made note of the fact that the Labor Government enacted its own reforms back in 1993.

I hate it when people use a 'u' when they are talking about the ALP. It's bloody annoying.

So really both political parties have been responsible for the Industrial Relations Changes to date.

Thanks for stating the obvious, but it's a bit rich to hold both parties equally responsible (as you seemingly do) when one considers who held the balance of power in the Senate in both 1996 (the Democrats) and 2005/06 (the Coalition). Realistically, the ALP set the scene, but it has not played much of a role since then.

 

[myst]

I hate it when people use a 'u' when they are talking about the ALP. It's bloody annoying.


Thanks for stating the obvious, but it's a bit rich to hold both parties equally responsible (as you seemingly do) when one considers who held the balance of power in the Senate in both 1996 (the Democrats) and 2005/06 (the Coalition). Realistically, the ALP set the scene, but it has not played much of a role since then.

Calm down, it's just a spelling mistake.
There was no insinuation that both parties were equally responsible. The point was, that the Liberal government should not be solely blamed for the IR reforms.

 

[Generator]

There was no insinuation that both parties were equally responsible. The point was, that the Liberal government should not be solely blamed for the IR reforms.

The Coaliton cannot be solely blamed (or praised, if you're that way inclined) for the reforms of the past 10 years, no, but you're out on a limb if you're trying to suggest that the Coalition is not solely responsible (in a legislative sense) for the Work Choices Bill.

I know that I'm being a bastard, but this is a thread discussing Work Choices first and foremost.

 

[ZabZu]

Did anyone on this thread mentioned the fact that it was the Commonwealth LABOUR GOVERNMENT that started the industrial relations reform through the facilitation of the Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1993?
The liberal government continued this with the facilation of the Workplace Relations Act 1996

So really both political parties have been responsible for the Industrial Relations Changes to date.

The ALP did start IR deregulation but Paul Keating's reforms in 1993 still encouraged collective bargaining, through both union and non-union agreements.

Howard's reforms starting in 1996 with the introduction of AWAs has attempted to individualise the workforce. Collective bargaining increases the bargaining power of workers in employment arrangements and lets unskilled workers get a fair go. Individual contracts (such as AWAs) just shove a punch of conditions in your face that the employer determines and if you have few skills there is no bargaining at all.

There is no doubt that the reforms are beneficial for the economy but the social cost is too high.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Collective bargaining increases the bargaining power of workers in employment arrangements and lets unskilled workers get a fair go.

Hmm an important caveat to this thinking is that (at least imo) collective bargaining increases the bargaining power of unions, directly, not workers.

Individual contracts (such as AWAs) just shove a punch of conditions in your face that the employer determines and if you have few skills there is no bargaining at all.

Sometimes you need an individual contract specialised for the specific work you are doing. For example, Emergency maintenance work - This is basically impossible under your standard award and is made much easier through implimentation of AWA's.

There is no doubt that the reforms are beneficial for the economy but the social cost is too high.

I think there is a doubt about the benefit for the economy.

 

[ZabZu]

Not all collective agreements involve a union.

I admit the award system is a bit old fashioned and inflexible. But why should the contracts be individual, there should be collective agreements take into account the needs and situation of different businesses. Keating introduced Enterprise Flexibility Agreements (a collective agreement), im not sure if they are still around, i think Howard has called them something else or abolished them.

 

[ZabZu]

"Bank leads charge to cash in on work laws"

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bank-cashes-in-on-work-laws/2006/11/28/1164476210875.html

 

[Rafy]

A lower than expected turnout at a national day of action against new industrial laws shows voters are not concerned with the changes, Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews says.

Unions had hoped to fill the 100,000 capacity Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) for the largest of the rallies, but by 9.15am (AEDT) it appeared about half full.

"The less than expected numbers send a clear message that reflects the fact that in the six months or eight months since Work Choices came into operation, we've seen growing jobs in terms of numbers, record low unemployment, wages continuing to rise, record levels of low disputation in the workforce," Mr Andrews told Sky News.

"And this was reflected by the fact that the overwhelming majority of people were at work today.

"All the economic data indicates the benefit of the changes."

Mr Andrews said the unions were involved in a political campaign that would not connect with ordinary Australians.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...-claims-andrews/2006/11/30/1164777694401.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20846947-2702,00.html

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Haha, 2% of Australia's working population attend rallies, and

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20844871-2862,00.html

Protest to cost $30 million

Hundreds of schools will be thrown into turmoil and construction will halt as up to 100,000 people attend the protest against federal industrial relation laws.

Traffic chaos is expected as people pour into the MCG from 7am and later march along Wellington Pde and Flinders St to Federation Square.

Premier Steve Bracks will address the rally, as will federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley.

Education unions said yesterday about 30,000 teachers would join the anti-WorkChoices protest, shutting down at least 19 schools and disrupting more than 200.
...

Master Builders Association of Victoria workplace relations manager Lawrie Cross said lost productivity would cost $20 million.

"Employees who don't have written authorisation to attend the rally will be taking illegal industrial action and could be docked a minimum four hours' pay," Mr Cross said.
...

Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry workplace relations manager David Gregory said total cost to Victoria would be at least $30 million in lost productivity and disruption.

...

ACTU secretary Greg Combet said unions had tried to minimise the effect on business and schools, but it was important people had the right to protest against "horrendous" laws.

Asked why the rally wasn't held on a Saturday to minimise disruption, Mr Combet said: "One of the factors we took into account . . . was the availability of the MCG, which was pretty tight."

But the Melbourne Cricket Club confirmed the ground is not booked this Saturday.
...

Mr Bracks upset organisers by attacking a public transport union directive for members not to check tickets so workers can travel to the rally free.
.

Apparently pro-union slogans have been painted (vandalised) on the MCG, too.

 

[Rafy]

MCG half-empty as workers stay at work
Workplace fury fizzles with low turnouts
Vandals mar union rally
Economic sunshine clouds the message