The official IR reform thread! (41 Viewers)

[Not-That-Bright]

Because investigating everybody would require massive amounts manpower and resources, unnecessary when the good conduct of Labor members and non-aligned citizens can generally be assumed, whereas a random check of a Liberal, particularly a high ranking one, could well yield evidence of misconduct.

You're basing that on very little... Especially the part about the 'good conduct of Labor members'. I have on good authority information that housing contracts have been handed out in a dodgy fashion.

think you mean "employees"?

Yea, I write my posts a little fast sometimes, sorry.

Going off on a tangent here but with the issue of responsibility over super, the question arises of who should bear the costs of it i.e the Govt, employers, or the individual

In my opinion there should be a minimum super contribution by the government, and then the rest should be provided by the individual. People care about things they own/invest in, but at the same time I do believe there should be some sort of minimum-standard that the government upholds.

 

[Generator]

Just a slight tangent - http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-sa...er-to-employers/2005/12/23/1135032183379.html

 

[Generator]

IR jobs claim under attack

 

[Generator]

Opinion - The odds are even as a very big question awaits seven answers

In this new constitutional game, all the rules are changed. For a start, incredibly, this has ceased to be a political fight between Liberal and Labor over industrial relations. It is now a highly technical fight between the Commonwealth and the states over the reach of Canberra's corporations power.

...

Interestingly, a number of different High Court observers have privately touted that the tendencies of the seven judges towards the legislation would be two favourable, two unfavourable and three utterly unpredictable.

It should be interesting.

 

[erawamai]

Opinion - The odds are even as a very big question awaits seven answers



It should be interesting.

I only know a little corporations law but I believe, since 2001, the states have referred their state power to make laws for the incorporation of companies to the Federal government under s51(xxxvii) of the constitution on the condition that the Commonwealth not use this referral to make laws for the regulation of industrial relations. This condition is found within the The corporations Agreement 2002 within clause 505(1).

Previously the states had refused to give up their power to make laws for corporations and as such the corporation law existed on a co operative system whereby each state enacted the same legislation. However this just resulted in messy jurisdictional problems to do with cross vesting. In Re Wakin (1999) the High Court found that the cross vesting legislation (enacted by the states), in which certain corporation law matters could be heard in the Federal court rather than the State Supreme Courts, was unconstitional. This eventually resulted in the referral of the corporations power to the Commonwealth under s51(xxxvii) and the adoption of a uniform national Corporations law enacted by the commonwealth and not the States which has been up and running since 2001.

In 1989 the the Hawke Labor governments tried to take away the corporation law making powers from the states which had been given to the states based on older interpretations, of s51(xx) - the coroporations power. The NSW Liberal government challenged in the High Court and won in NSW v the Commowealth (1990)

I'm not really sure how the govrernment is attempting to legislate for IR. Whether they are forcing the states to refer their IR law making powers or not? If they are referring then all this corporations stuff may be relevant.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Been reading up for FedCon?

When the case begins, I will be reading the High Court transcript with great interest.

It should prove an interesting start for the new judge, Justice Crennan.

 

[erawamai]

Been reading up for FedCon?

When the case begins, I will be reading the High Court transcript with great interest.

It should prove an interesting start for the new judge, Justice Crennan.

That little speel is from the first few pages of Business Assoications not fed con. All this IR High Court business might provide an interesting context in which to study fed con and BA1.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Hmm I started reading my BA book - was going through partnership, but as you know I have had timetable woes and so I'm doing it second semester.

So I will have to be uninformed for a while

 

[Sarah]

Historically, there is evidence of the high court permitting the use of the corporations power in the 1971 case of Concrete Pipes.

iamaware, if the content of Industrial Relations 1A was the same as when you did it, you may have heard about this case from your lecturer.

 

[Generator]

Work ads message falls on deaf ears

 

[leetom]

Work ads message falls on deaf ears

I wonder how a wave of productivity growth is supposed to materialise when 84% of businesses don't understand the reforms and more than half don't intend on altering their busniess operation anyway.

 

[Generator]

IR, welfare reform and single mums - Long live the pension!

Mums earn more on pension

 

[leetom]

IR, welfare reform and single mums - Long live the pension!

Mums earn more on pension

But an increased pension is designed to cover the cost of more kids. If the cost of each child is the same then there shouldn't be any cash saved from having more than one child, as the pension income should be spent equally on the expenses of rearing each child.

Workers on the minimum wage though who desire more children will be enticed to the pension, as the minimum wage doesn't take into account the amount of children a sole parent is currently raising.

 

[Generator]

The following concern the advertising campaign for the IR reform agenda -

PM was involved in ad campaign

$5000 fee to release IR details

 

[Generator]

No contract, no job, says Ballarat Uni

No contract, no job, says Ballarat Uni
Meaghan Shaw
January 19, 2006


NEW staff at Ballarat University will have to sign an individual contract if they want a job.

The university has confirmed new workers must sign an Australian Workplace Agreement, offering terms and conditions already rejected twice by staff.

Vice-chancellor Kerry Cox said it was a condition of employment for new staff. "Staff don't have to come to this university," he said.

ACTU president Sharan Burrow said the move was proof of the Federal Government's real agenda to remove the right of workers to collectively bargain and force them on to AWAs that reduce wages or conditions.

[continued - see link]

Keep in mind that the above is a result of the recent higher ed reform package (within this package additional federal funding was tied to particular employment arrangements), but it's still more than indicative of what the future may hold for those looking to bargain collectively.

 

[leetom]

(within this package additional federal funding was tied to particular employment arrangements).

That in itself is a repulsive feature of the Howard Government. Stripping university funding to unprecedented lows, then threatening to withhold what meagre funds are left unless the university conforms to WorkChoices ideology.

That they are rejected nationwide and force has to be applied in order to get workers onto them, says alot about AWAs.

 

[Sarah]

No contract, no job, says Ballarat Uni



Keep in mind that the above is a result of the recent higher ed reform package (within this package additional federal funding was tied to particular employment arrangements), but it's still more than indicative of what the future may hold for those looking to bargain collectively.

Hmm... look, we're not privy to all the terms and conditions of the AWA. None of us can really judge whether the AWA disadvantages the worker in comparison with the previous enterprise agreement.

 

[Generator]

True, but I'm willing to take the union at its word. Besides, even if the AWA isn't as bad as is being suggested, it's still a slap in the face to those employees (both new and old) who would prefer to be covered by a collective agreement.

 

[Generator]

Work loses its point for low-skilled

High Court challenge to IR reforms

 

[Generator]

Goward's warning on maternity leave