Employment at decade high: ABS
Email Print Normal font Large font August 7, 2007 - 3:14PM

Advertisement
AdvertisementMore Australians have jobs than at any time in the past decade, they are working fewer hours and they are working more safely.

And according to Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data, they are deserting trade unions and staging fewer strikes.

In the year to June 2006, Australia had a labour force of 10.59 million of which 10.064 million had either a full or part-time job.

While the workforce has grown, it is spending slightly less time on the job.

The ABS found the average hours worked by full-time employees is at its lowest level in 10 years with 40 hours a week having become the standard.

While most employment trends have experienced little change over the past decade, workplace relations has undergone a well-publicised overhaul.

In 1996, 31.1 per cent of Australian workers belonged to a trade union.

Last year that figure had dropped to 20.3 per cent.

The declining influence of the trade union movement is accompanied by a fall in the number of days lost to strikes.

Ten years ago, 114.1 days per 1,000 workers were spent on strike, compared with 21.6 days last year.

ABS data shows the Northern Territory to be the worst state or territory for industrial disputes, with a strike rate more than twice the national average.

The figures, however, don't necessarily show a relationship between trade union membership and industrial unrest.

Tasmania, where union membership is the highest in the country, lost only 4.2 days per 1,000 workers to strikes, less than half the rate of the next worst state.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Employment-at-decade-high-ABS/2007/08/07/1186252689243.html

Once again you betray your ignorance. The unemployment rate is low only because of the huge increase in part-time jobs. Part-timers have no contract defining their job, no job security, no award conditions and no rights to things like overtime pay or sick leave. Full time employment has been static since 1996, apart from federal government employment which has tripled from about 100,000 in 1995 to around 300,000 in 2007.

So full time employment is static and aprt time is going up? That's good isn't it? More jobs.

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 9:24am:

So full time employment is static and aprt time is going up? That's good isn't it? More jobs.

Progs is completely correct.

I think partime employment is almost useless to those wanting to build a secure future..ie pay off a house.




Part time employment does nothing to create stability in a household.


Its a joke.

It's better than unemployment, which is what it replaced.

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 9:58am:

It's better than unemployment, which is what it replaced.

depends on hiow you look at it.

Some could argue that this Government has created the surge in partime/casual employment..with the punishing welfare to work fiasco etc...

This is where the boost in "so called rising employment" stats comes from. One hr per week constitues a job. Laughable. These pple are still registered with Centrelink.

They are rubbery dodgy figures and most Aussies know it.

oceanz wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 10:02am:

freediver wrote on Aug 14th, 2007 at 9:58am: It's better than unemployment, which is what it replaced. depends on how you look at it. Some could argue that this Government has created the surge in partime/casual employment..with the punishing welfare to work fiasco etc... This is where the boost in "so called rising employment" stats comes from. One hr per week constitues a job. Laughable. These pple are still registered with Centrelink. They are rubbery dodgy figures and most Aussies know it.In my dads day one wage earner could buy a home..now its an impossibility. Something gone very wrong here.

If you go from the dole to 1 hr a week, does your salary fo up? Do you still get most of your dole check? Getting people on the dole into any kind of employment is a good thing, even if it is only part time.

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 10:08am:

If you go from the dole to 1 hr a week, does your salary fo up? Do you still get most of your dole check? Getting people on the dole into any kind of employment is a good thing, even if it is only part time.

Totally agree FD..but they are deceitfully running around trying to have the public beleive that genuine unemployment figures are going down.That the economy is doing well because of this..its cr ap.

The reason the electorate dont feel like they are the beneficiries of the booming economy is for reasons such as this. They are STILL caught in theyre poverty trap arent they? Its a carrot stick thing..do this or else? How can that inspire anything at all let alone that affluent feeling pollies enjoy?

This is simply not true.

Do you have any statistics that better reflect the true situation? How many of these new jobs are one hour a week and how many are 24 hours a week?

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 10:17am:

Do you have any statistics that better reflect the true situation? How many of these new jobs are one hour a week and how many are 24 hours a week?

no I dont..and I believe that is the true situation..

Otherwise how could you describe the fact that, although Libs are constantly hammering it home " you never had it so good peasants"..that noone is feeling that special glow?


Why is the mood in the electorate so hostile towards Libs at the moment.?

I don't think it's hostile. At least, not the same way it was last time there was a change in government. People are just tired of Howard and the coalition, that's all.

hostile is a pretty good word for it.  Might be a bit harsh, dismissive ??

Perhaps the mood has moderated slighty recently.

It's only hostile on internet forums. Most Australians couldn't be bothered getting hostile. It's enough of a hassle just turning up to vote.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 10:54am:

hostile is a pretty good word for it.  Might be a bit harsh, dismissive ?? Perhaps the mood has moderated slighty recently.

maybe..but not enough to get Hopward back into power .

Progs wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 8:14pm:

Once again you betray your ignorance. The unemployment rate is low only because of the huge increase in part-time jobs. Part-timers have no contract defining their job, no job security, no award conditions and no rights to things like overtime pay or sick leave. Full time employment has been static since 1996, apart from federal government employment which has tripled from about 100,000 in 1995 to around 300,000 in 2007.

That is the complete truth. Im in that exact position.
Im considering returning to the Army, and pursue a career there for the rest of my life.

wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 11:56am:

Progs wrote on Aug 13th, 2007 at 8:14pm: Once again you betray your ignorance. The unemployment rate is low only because of the huge increase in part-time jobs. Part-timers have no contract defining their job, no job security, no award conditions and no rights to things like overtime pay or sick leave. Full time employment has been static since 1996, apart from federal government employment which has tripled from about 100,000 in 1995 to around 300,000 in 2007. That is the complete truth. Im in that exact position. Im considering returning to the Army, and pursue a career there for the rest of my life.

hey Aussie..

you could do worse than pursue a career in the Army thats for sure.

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,22187259-462,00.html

THE Howard Government is reinforcing fears about the loss of employment conditions in its $37 million television advertising blitz rather than persuading voters they are protected, according to the first research about the new ads.

Television commercials that acknowledge people are worried about the loss of holiday entitlements, penalty rates, job security and conditions for young workers are "educating the public as to the negative realities of the new IR laws, rather than myth-busting", research conducted in the past two weeks indicates.

The campaign - starring Workplace Authority director Barbara Bennett, who has been criticised by Labor for appearing in the ads - was launched in July after the Government softened its laws and introduced a fairness test to protect workers earning $75,000 or less.

They're right.
The govt should also run adds featuring people who would never work under general agreements, suited to the "average" worker.

Can IR be rolled back.?

Ive heard it said it wont happen because it would be just too difficult to undo.

What would be involved? Rudd seems very determined.

hhhmmm, it could be rolled back.  Anything is possible.

IR is only what the business sector HAD to have. They HAVE to have flexibility.
Many employees love them, they won't go back.
If they merit it, they get paid more, are not shackled to others who are not as productive.

It can't be that onerous, has been with us for a decade.  Sure, fine tune it if need be.
Totally scrapping anything is pointless unless the new system is dramatically better.

Sounds like labours renamed schedule is the same idea in a new package.
Either that or companies will be made unprofitable. Many jobs will be lost as a consequence.

Scrapping IR is a political ploy, IR has been made a big bad bogeyman by the unions.
Which it is not.

Well Sprint,

I unfortunately dont have enough working knowledge of these things to dispute what you say..but yes I have heard that some pple are happy with their agreements, flexibility being one aspect.

I wonder why then there are so many unhappy with it.,? I think young ppl;e are unfairly affected by this . I dont klike the thought of Irs and Im not even sure why.

I just love the idea that the Unions will protect us if we have our security threatend for whatever reason, the safety net is a very comforting thought and most battlers realise in most cases the only friend they have if they arent in high earning groups.

What you say is pretty right.  There should be an area of "amicable" agreement.
It is not good if either employee or employer has the complete control.
In all reality there are not so many unhappy with it.

In the real world those powerless (young people, uneducated) are not in a good bargaining position. The laws of supply and demand dictate this. The powerless are selling their talents in a market that has a glut. That may sound hardnosed, but in those jobs there are 500 applicants.
That is a market reality.

The safety net is the social security system, which is much more generous than most  other places in the world .
Unions are useless when the business closes down because labour costs are too high , or because qualified staff are not available.

This may seem unrelated, but stick with it. I did an associate diploma by correspondance.
I was acutely aware that if I failed a subject I was going to have to do it again AND pay for it again. This financial reality helped me in that I did not fail any subjects. Had there been a "safety net", where a failure did not cost me, I may well have failed a few subjects.

That's where being in the "real world" is beneficial for everyone.
We don't want more "battlers". There are more than enough battlers. Don't encourage them.
Encourage those that want more than to be battlers.

That's the liberal thought process.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 23^rd, 2007 at 9:19pm:

What you say is pretty right.  There should be an area of "amicable" agreement. It is not good if either employee or employer has the complete control. In all reality there are not so many unhappy with it. In the real world those powerless (young people, uneducated) are not in a good bargaining position. The laws of supply and demand dictate this. The powerless are selling their talents in a market that has a glut. That may sound hardnosed, but in those jobs there are 500 applicants. That is a market reality. The safety net is the social security system, which is much more generous than most  other places in the world . Unions are useless when the business closes down because labour costs are too high , or because qualified staff are not available. This may seem unrelated, but stick with it. I did an associate diploma by correspondance. I was acutely aware that if I failed a subject I was going to have to do it again AND pay for it again. This financial reality helped me in that I did not fail any subjects. Had there been a "safety net", where a failure did not cost me, I may well have failed a few subjects. That's where being in the "real world" is beneficial for everyone. We don't want more "battlers". There are more than enough battlers. Don't encourage them. Encourage those that want more than to be battlers. That's the liberal thought process.

The Liberal thought process is not supported by its actions though Sprint..in the vocational training schemes etc, we stilll need plumbers and builders etc. We cant all be academics and white or blue collar. I want ot be a Social Worker for instance
, one of the resons I chose this area of study is because I see a critical shortage of Social Workers in this country..I have a veiw to working and living in England after a while.So I am targetting my study to meet a demand.

The welfare to work schemes are not helping pple with decent training schemes, tafe or whatever to meet the skill shortages..it threatens the vulnerable with harsh punishments and payments cuts if they dont dance to their disgraceful and rediculous regiomes.

This is the Libs chance to properly reskill pple who really need it and meet the skill shortage with Austarlin workers, but no..its off on a power trip whereby it has no reghard for the human suffering it imposes.

These ppl will be efeected by IR and once theyre safety net is gone..theyre benefit, will not be abkle to go and get decent training , they will be left to struggle, with t\Australias next generation whom they will be desperately trying to feed and clothe.

This Government has to go, they see no human suffering, only ways to further boost the surplus and  the battlers are indispenible..happy to take their taxes but loathe to help them when they need it.

Our welfare schemes are a far better safety net than any IR laws. They effectively set a minimum wage because people will only work for significantly more than what they can get for doing nothing. They also mean people don't have to put up with arseholes for bosses. I have a friend who has done those work for the dole things. So long as you turn up, they can't do anything against you even if you don't actually do any work. And if you can't even be bothered turning up then maybe you shouldn't be on welfare. There are plenty of young people who are happy to stay with their parents and too lazy to get out of bed, which is fine so long as they don't expect to get paid for it.

Hi oceans - I tried to read your posting and leaving out the rhetoric, but there was not much left .  :)

yes there is a skills shortage. That is generated by the robustly healthy economy the libs have generated. Under a labour govt, there is no skills shortage, there is lagre unemployment.
Thanks for bringing that topic up.   ;)


freediver - my thinking is "work for the dole" can only be effective and meaningful if it is voluntary.

effective - depends on what your goals are

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 24^th, 2007 at 10:44am:

Hi oceans - I tried to read your posting and leaving out the rhetoric, but there was not much left .  :) yes there is a skills shortage. That is generated by the robustly healthy economy the libs have generated. Under a labour govt, there is no skills shortage, there is lagre unemployment. Thanks for bringing that topic up.   ;) freediver - my thinking is "work for the dole" can only be effective and meaningful if it is voluntary.

No worries Sprint,

As for rhetoric, I think supporters of both sides of politics rely on rhetoric to make points.

As for robustly healthy economy , the employment stats are rubbery and deceiving..The unemployment rate is actually more like 12% I saw one poster report and this is because if, in this country now you do but ONE MEASLEY hours work, you are classed as 'EMPLOYED"????  Give me a break. This trickery and lies are the reason the Libs are in such dire straits right now.

Im sorry if this sounds like more rhetoric. But Ill supply figures later on if Ican .

So how is there a skills shortage, yet 12% unemployed ?
Not too sure I would trust figures bandied around by some other poster.

I believe even part time employed is being employed.  As opposed to being unemployed.

Shall we look at 20% unemployed after 3 years of a labour govt ?
At least they won't be suffering under IR.   ;)

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 24^th, 2007 at 2:33pm:

So how is there a skills shortage, yet 12% unemployed ? Not too sure I would trust figures bandied around by some other poster. I believe even part time employed is being employed.  As opposed to being unemployed. Shall we look at 20% unemployed after 3 years of a labour govt ? At least they won't be suffering under IR.   ;)

And hopefully that wil be god for us all... ;)

Julia Gillard has said labor will keep AWA's

well the unions and labor did well with icreased membership by lying to the workers, yet again saying we will tear up AWA's

When did they say this?  There hasn't been anything in the media about it?

Unless they have said those who want to keep them - can!

AWA's are not a problem, it is the minimum conditions and wage setting systems that they are bound to that is a problem. AWA's have really been around since early Howard days and were previously bound to what was the minimum standard. I think Labor's angle is to lift the minimum standard, and restore the rights of workers to form democratic organisations if they wish to assist their bargaining power.

Now I am personally not opposed to individual contracts, but can anybody tell me they didn't know any contractors before work choices came around? The thing I have never understood about these new laws is that the AWAs and conditions that go with them (really, BETTER than a common private contract demands) are meaningless, utterly pointless as the option was always there anyway. Now I do also agree that being forced into a majority bargained average wage when you have better skills to bargain with is wrong. But how many people knew private contractors (before work choices) who were ever forced into this position? What I think is that while individual contracts should be promoted more, there needs to also be flexible majority bargained conditions for anyone who isn't interested in a private contract, of which there are many. Why is it not possible to harmonise the two?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/ADF-contractor-to-be-prosecuted-for-AWAs/2007/08/17/1186857722319.html

Australia's workplace watchdog will prosecute a major contractor to the Australian Defence Force (ADF) for allegedly trying to force two young women to sign Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs).

Workplace Ombudsman Nicholas Wilson on Friday announced he will prosecute Serco Sodexho for trying to force Jessica Sharp, 18, and Kate Sharp, 20, to sign AWAs while they worked as mess stewards at the Australian Defence College in Canberra.

---

Govt's workplace ads 'have backfired'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Govts-workplace-ads-have-backfired/2007/08/20/1187462124384.html

The federal government's latest workplace relations advertising campaign has backfired, a new survey has found.

The Roy Morgan survey, commissioned by political activist group GetUp!, has found 45 per cent of Australians feel less positive towards the government's laws as a result of the multi-million dollar campaign.

Only 23 per cent say it has made them feel better about the laws.

Of the remainder, 24 per cent say the ads have mot made them feel differently about the laws, while eight per cent said they were not sure.

Apparently the Workplace Authority has checked only one in ten Australian Workplace Agreements since the introduction of the ‘Fairness Test’, leaving 110,000 AWA’s yet to be vetted.  Of those checked, one in seven have failed, with employers found to have denied workers penalty rates without compensating them adequately with higher pay rates.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/AWAs-are-dead-says-leading-economist/2007/11/12/1194766538075.html

A leading conservative economist and labour market reformer has described the federal government's AWAs as "dead".

News Limited newspapers report Mark Wooden, from the Melbourne Institute, said the government's fairness test on AWAs has prevented employers cutting labour costs.

Mr Wooden is one of a number of prominent economists who have challenged Prime Minister John Howard's claim that Labor wants to return the workforce to a centralised system.

"The advantage of AWAs evaporated with the fairness test," Mr Wooden told the newspaper.

"AWAs are dead - he (the PM) can say what he likes. You'll still get companies like Rio Tinto going for AWAs, but that will be for reasons other than cutting labour costs. They're using them to get rid of unions."

Mr Howard introduced AWAs in his first group of workplace laws in 1997 with a "no disadvantage test" that claimed workers could not be worse off than under minimum awards.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/We-went-too-deep-on-Work-Choices-Hockey/2007/11/28/1196036933980.html

The outgoing coalition government should never have abandoned the no-disadvantage test in its original Work Choices laws, outgoing workplace relations minister Joe Hockey has admitted.

"Work Choices is dead," Mr Hockey said.

Last week's federal election had given the new government an overwhelming mandate to scrap the contentious industrial relations system, he told ABC radio.

"The Labor party said there weren't enough protections, in their view, in place and their view won on polling day," Mr Hockey said.

He did not believe the Liberal Party should use its numbers in the Senate to block legislation amending Work Choices.

"No, my view is, provided the Labor party bill keeps to their policy then we have an obligation to support the bill," he said.

"We can't block it. It is a clear mandate," Mr Hockey said.

"The Labor party and the union movement campaigned for two years, so there's no argument about it."

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2007 at 1:22pm:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/We-went-too-deep-on-Work-Choices-Hockey/2007/11/28/1196036933980.html The outgoing coalition government should never have abandoned the no-disadvantage test in its original Work Choices laws, outgoing workplace relations minister Joe Hockey has admitted. "Work Choices is dead," Mr Hockey said. Last week's federal election had given the new government an overwhelming mandate to scrap the contentious industrial relations system, he told ABC radio. "The Labor party said there weren't enough protections, in their view, in place and their view won on polling day," Mr Hockey said. He did not believe the Liberal Party should use its numbers in the Senate to block legislation amending Work Choices. "No, my view is, provided the Labor party bill keeps to their policy then we have an obligation to support the bill," he said. "We can't block it. It is a clear mandate," Mr Hockey said. "The Labor party and the union movement campaigned for two years, so there's no argument about it."

I don't mean to threadjack, but this clear mandate stuff speaks volumes about serfchoices being blamed for the loss and the pro-Nuclear position coming back for another go.

 :P :o :-? :-/ :'( :P :P :P

In a two horse race where only a small swing is needed: IT'S SCARY.

So, was serchoices a trojan horse for Nuclear Power where the Libs didn't mind losing an election to get it in(the waste dump that is).

I agree with you there. My vote was based on climate change. However I do concede that it made up the biggest part of their campaign.

Although I agree with workchoices, seems most of aussie did not.

Right idea of Joe Hockeys, should not block what it seems most of Aussie voted for.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 28^th, 2007 at 2:44pm:

Although I agree with workchoices, seems most of aussie did not. Right idea of Joe Hockeys, should not block what it seems most of Aussie voted for.

Joe Hockey is a politician . . . .

deepthought wrote on Nov 28^th, 2007 at 6:13pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 28th, 2007 at 2:44pm: Although I agree with workchoices, seems most of aussie did not. Right idea of Joe Hockeys, should not block what it seems most of Aussie voted for. Joe Hockey is a politician . . . .

....and therefore.....?????

Aussie wrote on Nov 28^th, 2007 at 7:56pm:

deepthought wrote on Nov 28th, 2007 at 6:13pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 28th, 2007 at 2:44pm: Although I agree with workchoices, seems most of aussie did not. Right idea of Joe Hockeys, should not block what it seems most of Aussie voted for. Joe Hockey is a politician . . . . ....and therefore.....?????

He will encourage the Liebor Party to follow through with their polices which will ruin the economy.

Joe Hockey is a Liberal party member. What he did was very uncharacteristic of a politician.

Joe Hockey is a Liberal party member. What he did was very uncharacteristic of a politician.

What? Back-pedalling?

You must be kidding.

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2007 at 9:29pm:

Joe Hockey is a Liberal party member. What he did was very uncharacteristic of a politician.

No, they always want to be in power, no matter the colour.

He admitted his party got it wrong.

I haven't seen you elected to the senate- or even got your party off the ground. Are you admitting you are wrong?

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2007 at 9:35pm:

He admitted his party got it wrong.

Got what wrong though.  You must always listen closely to a politician.  You aren't discerning enough.  This is what Joe Hockey also said.


Quote:

And he warned that their scrapping under a Labor Government would cause a rise in unemployment. "As I said yesterday and I've said since election day, WorkChoices is dead, and there is an overwhelming mandate for the Labor Party's policy of tearing up WorkChoices," he said. "We will accept that. I think there are a number of people in the Liberal Party that grieve for the fact, [who say] that there will be significant job losses, and I think that they're right.

He knows that scrapping workchoices will cause the economy to collapse as people lose their jobs.  He wants Liebor to be on the nose when they go ahead and hand power back to the unions.  How else will Joe Hockey's party get back in 2010?

Everyone knew that unemployment would rise with a Liebor government in power and that it would signal the beginning of the end of prosperity.  Even I did not expect it so soon.

But it has begun a few days after the snouts hit the trough.


Quote:

Bosses race to beat labour laws SMALL businesses are being urged to sack workers before Labor overhauls the industrial relations laws, as one of Australia's biggest employers races to put 15,000 staff on five-year employment contracts before Work Choices is scrapped. Telstra (tls.ASX:Quote,News) yesterday outlined a post-election strategy to urgently sign up thousands of its staff already employed under Australian Workplace Agreements to new deals that do not guarantee pay rises. The AWAs being offered by the telecommunications giant could also be offered to new employees who join Telstra before the new laws are passed. The move comes as small businesses were being advised to seize the "window of opportunity to take advantage of Work Choices" before Labor's new laws are implemented. "The exemption from unfair dismissal laws for businesses with 100 employees or less could be gone by early 2008," says Smartcompany, an online magazine for business that attracts 80,000 hits a month. "SME (small and medium enterprise) owners who move quickly to get rid of unsuitable staff could save themselves on legal costs and go-away money down the track. "There is also an opportunity for SMEs to maximise the benefit they derive from (AWAs). Labor has promised AWAs signed before its laws come in will be allowed to operate until 2012." Watch the country collapse

yep, I saw it today in the share market.
people are just pulling their breath in a bit.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 29^th, 2007 at 8:14pm:

yep, I saw it today in the share market. people are just pulling their breath in a bit.

The share market actually rose which is an indication of the shift in the housing market.  When property looks shaky people shift into the share market.  I'd say canny investors are predicting a property crash as ordinary Australians get wiped out by interest rate rises following Liebor's win.  The smart money is moving away from property.

These signs of a slump in the economy is very early - I certainly did not expect such a swift negative reaction to Liebor.

imho - the market rose on oil and US's rise and % rate cut.

When interest rates rise, peple shuffle their money into cash - why take the risk ??
Look for coys reliant on their yield to suffer the most - eg banks.

No, I did not expect a shiver so soon either.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 29^th, 2007 at 9:07pm:

imho - the market rose on oil and US's rise and % rate cut. When interest rates rise, peple shuffle their money into cash - why take the risk ?? Look for coys reliant on their yield to suffer the most - eg banks. No, I did not expect a shiver so soon either.

The only people to make a lot of money out of the Hawke Keating Dynasties were the rich and the share price rises were pretty specific this time too.  Little Kevvy promised to waste hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars giving computers to kids.  Needless to say computer manufacturers will be rolling in it and the shares in retailers such as JB HiFi and Harvey Norman have jumped almost immediately.  On tuesday JB HiFi shares rose 84c to $15.60 - a reflection of the direction wealth flows when a Liebor government focus on wealth creation for shareholders.

Banks will suffer as you say sprint, they will see a lot of defaults on borrowings as people lose jobs and can no longer service their loans.  The flow on to the average consumer will be in bank charge hikes which will see the rich move money off shore, probably into Asia or a tax haven to protect it.

Deepy - particularily good point you bring up.

"Punish" the rich people (for being rich), and eventually they will leave.
Leaving only poor people there. Not a good country to live in.

"Accommodate" the rich people and they will come/stay there.
They will spend up big and help everyone.  Noice place to live.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 29^th, 2007 at 11:41pm:

Deepy - particularily good point you bring up. "Punish" the rich people (for being rich), and eventually they will leave. Leaving only poor people there. Not a good country to live in. "Accommodate" the rich people and they will come/stay there. They will spend up big and help everyone.  Noice place to live.

Australians paid a heavy penalty in the 80s as the cult of the super rich was born.  Who can forget Christopher Skase and Alan Bond.  Both made mountains of cash while the workers suffered stagnant wages.  Then they hid it all over the world and the government spent millions of taxpayer dollars trying to recover it.  Kerry Packer amassed wealth beyond dreams during that time too.  He made his first billion during Liebor's tyranny.

http://news.smh.com.au/work-choices-went-too-far-liberal-mp/20071213-1guz.html

The Howard government went too far with its Work Choices laws, a key Liberal party frontbencher says.

Former minister and party official Andrew Robb will be involved in a review of the Liberal Party rules and structures, one of three examinations commissioned following last month's electoral defeat.

Speaking on ABC radio, he admitted there were flaws in the former government's Work Choices policy, as well as the Liberal Party structure.

"The fact of the matter is we went too far on Work Choices," he said.

Mr Robb said the coalition's domination of the Senate had meant the government had not canvassed opinions as widely as it should.

"I think because we had control of the Senate there was a temptation to ram things through and not necessarily give consideration to the wide range of views," he said.

The former Liberal federal director said that improvements in the party structure were also crucial.

"We've got a structure which is more appropriate for the last century than this century."

freediver wrote on Dec 13^th, 2007 at 2:37pm:

http://news.smh.com.au/work-choices-went-too-far-liberal-mp/20071213-1guz.html The Howard government went too far with its Work Choices laws, a key Liberal party frontbencher says. Former minister and party official Andrew Robb will be involved in a review of the Liberal Party rules and structures, one of three examinations commissioned following last month's electoral defeat. Speaking on ABC radio, he admitted there were flaws in the former government's Work Choices policy, as well as the Liberal Party structure. "The fact of the matter is we went too far on Work Choices," he said. Mr Robb said the coalition's domination of the Senate had meant the government had not canvassed opinions as widely as it should. "I think because we had control of the Senate there was a temptation to ram things through and not necessarily give consideration to the wide range of views," he said. The former Liberal federal director said that improvements in the party structure were also crucial. "We've got a structure which is more appropriate for the last century than this century."

Poor old fellow.  He's wrong.  The fact that the modern IR policies of Johnny worked have just been proven today with the release of new employment figures - or should I say unemployment figures.

First point is that unemployment is now the highest it has been since the start of the year.  

But the second point is the most frightening for Australians, though it is the predicted outcome of the election of a Liebor government in November, and that is that the number of jobs created in November were largely part time - about 80% of them.

Contrast that with the new jobs created before the fear of Liebor set in.  They were mostly full time roles as the batallions of casuals created by Cheating shrank.

WorkChoices worked, the Liebor government's Union first policy is killing off the good effects though.

Hey freediver, here's one of your heroes, an economist, telling us that scrapping Workchoices will add to the risk of inflation.  Is he right?




Quote:

Scrapping WorkChoices will 'add to inflation risk' Economic consulting firm Access Economics says dumping the former government's WorkChoices laws will pose another risk to inflation, in an already overheated economy. Federal Cabinet met today and formally approved plans to scrap the previous government's workplace regime. The go-ahead came on the same day the economics forecaster warned the Government its planned tax cuts will push interest rates up if it does not find major savings. Chris Richardson from Access Economics told The 7.30 Report scrapping WorkChoices will add to that problem. "I think it's an added risk but it's certainly not the main risk," he said. "The main risk is the sheer pace of China and therefore Australia at the moment." Bugger those economists

DT - that was why I admire JWH so much .

He was right .

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 9:35am:

DT - that was why I admire JWH so much . He was right .

It's obvious the abolition of WorkChoices will put the economy in reverse.  But Liebor have never cared for individual workers.

Australians can be thankful Little Kevvy is a true Liebor man and lies like billyo.  The unions aren't at all happy that he is a true Liebor man and lies like billyo.




Quote:

Unions threaten Rudd over workplace reforms UNIONS have threatened to campaign against the Rudd Government unless the Coalition's workplace laws are dismantled in 12 months, after Julia Gillard confirmed that Labor's planned restoration of unfair dismissal claims could be delayed with other changes until 2010. The Deputy Prime Minister yesterday held out the prospect of Labor waiting until the next election year before honouring the party's promise to give all workers unfair dismissal rights. The uncertainty over Labor's position has unsettled unions, which campaigned for the ALP during the election campaign and had expected a faster timetable for abolishing John Howard's Work Choices. Unions were taken by surprise yesterday that Ms Gillard could delay unfair dismissal changes until 2010, allowing employers to continue sacking employees with impunity until then. Ms Gillard met employers and unions yesterday at a private meeting in Canberra to discuss Labor's plans, with unions hoping she would accept a "progressive implementation" of Labor's industrial laws between now and 2010. But asked specifically on Sydney radio about the timing for unfair dismissal laws, Ms Gillard, the Workplace Relations Minister, left open a delay of a further 25 months, saying "every bit of it" would be in operation on January 1, 2010. "That's when awards will be modernised; that's when our new industrial umpire, Fair Work Australia, will come into operation," Ms Gillard said. "Obviously, that (legislation) will deal with a number of matters, including unfair dismissals." According to policy documents released earlier this year, Labor's unfair dismissal regime is to be run by a branch of Fair Work Australia, which Ms Gillard confirmed would start operation from January 2010. Victorian Trades Hall Council secretary Brian Boyd said unions would lobby the entire federal Labor caucus in a bid to ensure Work Choices was scrapped by the end of next year. "Two years is far too long," he told The Australian. "We have to accelerate the process of dismantling Work Choices. It's got to be done sooner rather than later. "There are a lot of working people out there who should not be left still at the mercy of the Work Choices machinery. We know these things take time, but I don't think it needs to take two years. "Our view is that the dismantling of Work Choices should be accelerated through 2008 and not go beyond 2008." Unions NSW secretary John Robertson said his understanding remained that unfair dismissal laws could be in force before 2010. However, other union leaders said Ms Gillard was vague on timing. Vague on timing?  I think they mean just 'vague'

Liebor know that scrapping WorkChoices will destroy the economy so they are putting it off as long as possible - preferably just far enough out from the next election to have no immediate impact.  Crikey they're about as crooked as it's possible to be.

Some legal chappy, Industrial law professor Ron McCallum, said 'he believed "ordinary Australians" would have believed in the lead-up to the election that Labor planned to restore unfair dismissal rights sooner than 2010'.

What he failed to consider is that 'ordinary Australians' don't matter to Kevvy - they are election fodder.  Bulltesticling to them is of no concern to Liebor.

Where do you go now, DT?

Those Lieberals.....the very bastards who told us that Work Choices are the magic wand silver bullet for/of IR, have...............


.......................................abandoned Work Choices.  Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Makes you look like an ass, nay?

Aussie wrote on Dec 20^th, 2007 at 8:41pm:

Where do you go now, DT? Those Lieberals.....the very bastards who told us that Work Choices are the magic wand silver bullet for/of IR, have............... .......................................abandoned Work Choices.  Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Makes you look like an ass, nay?

Not me mate, the very possibility of WorkChoices being abandoned has caused unemployment to rise to a level not seen since February and part time jobs to outstrip full time ones for the first time in two years mate - in fact since WorkChoices came in.

It's clear that Little Kevvy is no friend of the worker.

Can you explain the horror facing Australians in the work place Aussie?

http://news.smh.com.au/over-17m-spent-on-work-choices-ads/20071221-1ifs.html

The Howard government spent more than $17 million last financial year advertising its highly-controversial changes to workplace laws.

The figures are contained in the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations annual report.

The report reveals spending for the 2006-07 financial year but not the amount spent on advertising Work Choices laws in the lead-up to the time the November 24 federal election was called.

More than $1 million was spent researching the effectiveness of the ads with the Open Mind Research Group.

And $12.6 million was spent buying advertising space for "welfare to work, support the system and workplace relations system campaigns".

Dewey and Horton was paid $44,404.25 to take photos for Work Choices advertising while advertising agency Whybin/TBWA received $1.4 million for "creative services" that were part of the Work Choices campaign.

Mr Hockey repeatedly refused to say how much had been spent advertising the virtues of Work Choices - a legislative package that will be dismantled in February by the new Labor government.

It's a little over a month into the Liebor Government's stranglehold on the economy and the cracks in Australia's prosperity and vitality are appearing.  Already the unemployment rate has risen to the highest it has been since the beginning of 2007, part time employment has returned to haunt the security of workers and now outpaces full time work on offer, and now strikes, after being at a near 100 year low under Johnny's benign leadership, loom maliciously to threaten our lives.

The CFMEU have made good on their threats to crap smackity testicles the building industry - one of the drivers of the economy for many years now.



Quote:

The Labor government is facing its first stand-off with unions, after the CFMEU suggested workers would strike if they are not given back awards that they lost under the Howard government. The union wants overtime payments, penalty rates, site allowances and rostered days off for its workers, and says it is prepared to organise strikes if it faces opposition. Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard has sent a message to unions that threaten illegal strike action. Opposition leader Brendan Nelson has been quick to condemn the union pressure on the new Labor government. 'We're three days into 2008 and already we've got the prospect of strikes... The unions have spent $30 million getting Mr Rudd and Julia Gillard and the government elected, and it seems they've already come calling,' Dr Nelson said. As Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard sent a message to unions that threaten illegal strike action, Mr Nelson says Labor is in no position to stand up to the unions. 'I am not confident that Mr Rudd and Julia Gillard will be able to stand up to the unions.' 'Because let's remember, in the end, the unions actually own the Labor Party.' According to the union, some of the entitlements would be worth up to $150 per week in overtime payments to some employees. Employers within the industry warn the reinstatement of the provisions could trigger a wage explosion within the construction industry and cause construction costs to skyrocket. The union does however claim that any moves to reach a fresh pay deal, will not be taken until after the government's new industrial legislation is passed. Watch out Australia - it's back to the future with Liebor

Quote:

Can you explain the horror facing Australians in the work place Aussie?

Strawman.

You are boring, DT.

Aussie wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 8:38pm:

Quote: Can you explain the horror facing Australians in the work place Aussie? Strawman. You are boring, DT.

deepy said


Quote:

Aussie's usual modus operandi is 1) to plop in, deny everything in the face of awesome evidence to the contrary, 2) keep shifting the goal posts all over the field 3) then clear off when he sees he has nowhere else to go.

Are you on your bike old boy?

deepthought wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 9:36pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 3rd, 2008 at 8:38pm: Quote: Can you explain the horror facing Australians in the work place Aussie? Strawman. You are boring, DT. deepy said [quote]Aussie's usual modus operandi is 1) to plop in, deny everything in the face of awesome evidence to the contrary, 2) keep shifting the goal posts all over the field 3) then clear off when he sees he has nowhere else to go.

Are you on your bike old boy?[/quote]

Nah, still here, and that makes your theory a tad querstionable.

Aussie wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 9:44pm:

deepthought wrote on Jan 3rd, 2008 at 9:36pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 3rd, 2008 at 8:38pm: Quote: Can you explain the horror facing Australians in the work place Aussie? Strawman. You are boring, DT. deepy said [quote]Aussie's usual modus operandi is 1) to plop in, deny everything in the face of awesome evidence to the contrary, 2) keep shifting the goal posts all over the field 3) then clear off when he sees he has nowhere else to go. Are you on your bike old boy?

Nah, still here, and that makes your theory a tad querstionable.
[/quote]

Not really, as I don't see the argument "You are boring, DT" particularly compelling Aussie.  

You will need to add a little substance to your comments or they appear to be remarkably like a personal insult and not a considered viewpoint.  I wouldn't expect many people would think "You are boring, DT" was very grown up.

deepthought wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 6:22pm:

It's a little over a month into the Liebor Government's stranglehold on the economy and the cracks in Australia's prosperity and vitality are appearing.  Already the unemployment rate has risen to the highest it has been since the beginning of 2007, part time employment has returned to haunt the security of workers and now outpaces full time work on offer, and now strikes, after being at a near 100 year low under Johnny's benign leadership, loom maliciously to threaten our lives. The CFMEU have made good on their threats to crap smackity testicles the building industry - one of the drivers of the economy for many years now.

And now . . . . .



Quote:

Qantas engineers plan 'low-level' work bans Talks between Qantas management and the engineers union has wound up without a resolution on a new enterprise agreement. Qantas maintenance workers are planning industrial action after talks between management and the engineers union wound up without a resolution on a new enterprise agreement. Both Qantas and the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association agree that some progress was made today. Executive general manager of Qantas Engineering, David Cox, says there may be further talks before next week's action. "We've been advised that from next Wednesday they will institute what I'd describe as a low-level overtime ban," he said. Welcome to your nightmare Australia

deepthought wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 6:22pm:

It's a little over a month into the Liebor Government's stranglehold on the economy and the cracks in Australia's prosperity and vitality are appearing.

Stranglehold? Very tough rhetoric DT. I didn't see you use the same words describing Liberal's majority in both the Upper and Lower Houses. The softer term mandate is what the aprarachiks have called it I think. A mandate which the JWH promised not to abuse.

What stranglehold do they have apart from being the governing party?

As you have said, it has only been a month (4 weeks) so whatever cracks that are appearing are not caused by Labor as they haven't passed any laws or enacted any policies (besides Kyoto) yet. Therefore, whatever effects are lags from the Liberal reign. It's hard to pin this on Labor DT. If the situation is still the same in say 6-12 months time then I'll stand by you.

;)

Acid Monkey wrote on Jan 6^th, 2008 at 4:27pm:

deepthought wrote on Jan 3rd, 2008 at 6:22pm: It's a little over a month into the Liebor Government's stranglehold on the economy and the cracks in Australia's prosperity and vitality are appearing. Stranglehold? Very tough rhetoric DT. I didn't see you use the same words describing Liberal's majority in both the Upper and Lower Houses. The softer term mandate is what the aprarachiks have called it I think. A mandate which the JWH promised not to abuse. What stranglehold do they have apart from being the governing party? As you have said, it has only been a month (4 weeks) so whatever cracks that are appearing are not caused by Labor as they haven't passed any laws or enacted any policies (besides Kyoto) yet. Therefore, whatever effects are lags from the Liberal reign. It's hard to pin this on Labor DT. If the situation is still the same in say 6-12 months time then I'll stand by you. ;)

Industrial action reached near 100 year lows under the coalition.  The unions threatened to take action if Liebor was elected and they spent a lot of money to ensure it happened.  Now they have come to collect their due.  This recent industrial action is nothing to do with the former coalition government.  It is the unions taking control of the country as the Liebor Party wrecks the economy.

The unions are re-stocking the larder in anticipation of giving Australians hell.  

They introduced a levy so they could tell a bunch of porkies on tele about IR.  And it seemed to work as the majority of Australians fell for the fibs and chose the Little Kevvy Holiday Show.  The Headmaster has rewarded the people by having a big piss up at Kirribilli, goggling at the fireworks and teetering about at the cricket.  That's after jetting off to Iraq, Afghanistan and Bali while leaving his deputy to fiddle the books.

So now the unions have a government they can manipulate they will cease collecting the levy?

Like phuq.  They are having too much fun with all the punters' lolly.





Quote:

PM John Howard gone, but not the union levy UNIONS want to keep charging their members a special fighting levy introduced to oust John Howard. They want to use the money to amass a post-election war chest for advertising and future public campaigns. The $5.50 annual charge raised about $30 million, funding a series of hard-hitting ads that helped end 11 years of Coalition rule. The nation's 1.8 million union members have already paid the levy for 2008, after it was brought forward to raise money before the election. Now, union officials are considering an annual charge. "The decision that has been made is that the levy is in place for 2008," ACTU secretary Jeff Lawrence said. "We'll look at that question . . . as to what's required post-2008. "I think there is a general view across the movement, including rank-and-file members, that it has been a good thing, that there has been resources there . . . and we need to look at the things that we need to put a public point of view about." Mr Lawrence said the union movement was likely to conduct further paid advertising, emphasising the role of unions and the importance of collective bargaining in workplaces. However he said ensuring the Rudd Government's new IR laws were implemented properly was the movement's biggest priority. Future campaigns could also include a push to boost government superannuation contributions, and moves to secure universal paid maternity leave, union sources said. Victorian Trades Hall secretary Brian Boyd said the levy was a source of vital funds and should be maintained. Vital funds?  For what old bean?

from crikey:

Shellshocked and bedraggled Liberal MPs will hold a two-day election post mortem and way-forward strategy meeting in Canberra starting tomorrow with most media attention focused on their differences over Labor’s "Sorry" declaration. But what about WorkChoices?

This is their first gathering since the 24 November election debacle which saw Liberal numbers in the House of Representatives shrink from 74 to 55, partly because of a voter backlash against John Howard’s anti-union legislation.

With the Rudd Government proposing to consign WorkChoices to the dustbin of history and introduce a new industrial relations framework, the question is -- what will Brendan Nelson’s Opposition do?

Do the Liberals vote against WorkChoices, the policy they took to the last election, or do they continue to support it as suggested by industrial relations spokeswoman Julie Bishop and others? By continuing their support for Howard’s laws they will be showing loyalty to the misguided business leaders who raised some $12 million to promote Work Choices in media advertising in the run-up to the election. The hard right believe that staying loyal to Howard’s laws will ensure more corporate cash will be on offer at the next election in three years’ time.

In reality, the Liberals sans Howard are in a very prickly position: they are stuck with a deeply unpopular policy that was bankrolled by big business but rejected by the electorate. Do they abandon the policy and give a slap in the face to their big corporate donors or what?

One thing they will be anxious to avoid is using their current Senate majority – it ends mid-year with the swearing-in of newly-elected Labor and Green senators – to frustrate Labor’s new legislation and give Prime Minister Kevin Rudd the trigger to call a double dissolution election.

In the latest Newspoll, Labor has improved its popularity to 58 per cent with the Coalition dropping to 42 per cent. Any snap election on those figures would see the Liberals reduced to a mere rump in federal parliament.

The odds are that this week’s Liberal summit will decide to cut adrift from WorkChoices which only a few months ago was an article of Liberal faith. (The Nationals were less enthusiastic about Howard's anti-union obsession but loyally marched behind the Liberal standard like well trained sheep going through the dip).

If the meeting also decides to support Rudd’s "Sorry" statement to indigenous Australians, this will mark the dramatic start of the unravelling of Howard’s legacy and his outdated, divisive and mean-spirited hold on the party’s philosophy.

No wonder they call themselves 'Crikey'.  Even they know the readers will be saying 'Crikey, what a load of bollocks'.

Thanks for the giggle.  It is a Liebor Party published comic book you quote from I assume?

How true- any discerning reader knows 'Crickey' leans so far left they would disappear up their own ar se holes if they tripped.

The fact that FD uses them as continual source of his (mis)information is telling

Quote:

Industrial action reached near 100 year lows under the coalition

Of course it did because unions only became significant at the beginning of the 20th century.  Prior to that employers could do what they pleased.  They could send small children down the mines and to work in dangerous industry.  There were 12 hour working days, 6 days a week on less than a living wage and there were no safety provisions in the workplace.  This is exactly the path we would have gone down if Howard had been re-elected.  In fact there have been many complaints recently about conditions in the mining industry where workers have to work under so much pressure, safety is being ignored.  


Quote:

The recent focus on Industrial Relations lately has been all about productivity and pay rates, but new official figures on death rates show that it may be time to give priority to workplace safety. In the past four years there has been a 16 per cent increase in workplace deaths. In the year to last July there were 162 workplace deaths. That is 146 workers and 16 bystanders. Most deaths were from vehicle accidents, being hit by moving or falling objects, electrocution or falls from a height. The official figures show most deaths were in the transport and manufacturing industries, but the riskiest industry is the one which has given Australia much of its wealth: mining. The mining industry recorded a death rate of 8.8 workers per 100,000. The national average across all industries is 1.4. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/31/2150910.htm

We need unions regardless of whether the shareholders have to take a small drop in dividends.

mantra wrote on Feb 7^th, 2008 at 5:53am:

Quote: Industrial action reached near 100 year lows under the coalition Of course it did because unions only became significant at the beginning of the 20th century.  Prior to that employers could do what they pleased.  They could send small children down the mines and to work in dangerous industry.  There were 12 hour working days, 6 days a week on less than a living wage and there were no safety provisions in the workplace.  This is exactly the path we would have gone down if Howard had been re-elected.  In fact there have been many complaints recently about conditions in the mining industry where workers have to work under so much pressure, safety is being ignored.   [quote]The recent focus on Industrial Relations lately has been all about productivity and pay rates, but new official figures on death rates show that it may be time to give priority to workplace safety. In the past four years there has been a 16 per cent increase in workplace deaths. In the year to last July there were 162 workplace deaths. That is 146 workers and 16 bystanders. Most deaths were from vehicle accidents, being hit by moving or falling objects, electrocution or falls from a height. The official figures show most deaths were in the transport and manufacturing industries, but the riskiest industry is the one which has given Australia much of its wealth: mining. The mining industry recorded a death rate of 8.8 workers per 100,000. The national average across all industries is 1.4. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/31/2150910.htm

We need unions regardless of whether the shareholders have to take a small drop in dividends.


[/quote]

Yes, but you seem to think industrial action has been falling naturally.  You obviously are unaware of the Pilot's dispute, the Power strikes in Queensland, the famous meat workers disputes, the waterfront disputes and the renowned Dollar Sweets case.

John Howard brought industrial harmony to a fractious workplace.

from crikey:

Last night's edition of Four Corners was instructive.

"Most cabinet ministers in the former Howard government did not realise that workers could be worse off under Work Choices, former workplace relations minister Joe Hockey says."

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 3:26pm:

from crikey: Last night's edition of Four Corners was instructive. "Most cabinet ministers in the former Howard government did not realise that workers could be worse off under Work Choices, former workplace relations minister Joe Hockey says."

Though most would have known that workers could be better off.  Under a one size fits all model generally espoused by a Liebor Party (centralised wage fixing/enterprise bargaining agreements) everyone gets treated the same.  

Sadly that is as a 'work unit' which depersonalises relations with employers - hence the 'casual army' Cheating created and the 'part time army' Kevvy is creating.  Their IR ideas are steeped in archaic socialist models that everyone's output is equal and therefore everyone is rewarded the same - people get treated as automatons.

Bad IR from the early part of last century.  Back to the future with Liebor.

<snip> Duplicate post

deepthought wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 4:11pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 20th, 2008 at 3:26pm: from crikey: Last night's edition of Four Corners was instructive. "Most cabinet ministers in the former Howard government did not realise that workers could be worse off under Work Choices, former workplace relations minister Joe Hockey says." Though most would have known that workers could be better off.  Under a one size fits all model generally espoused by a Liebor Party (centralised wage fixing/enterprise bargaining agreements) everyone gets treated the same.   Sadly that is as a 'work unit' which depersonalises relations with employers - hence the 'casual army' Cheating created and the 'part time army' Kevvy is creating.  Their IR ideas are steeped in archaic socialist models that everyone's output is equal and therefore everyone is rewarded the same - people get treated as automatons. Bad IR from the early part of last century.  Back to the future with Liebor.

......supported by the Lieberals.  You, and only you, are flogging what everyone else knows is a dead horse.  Ask Brendan!

Aussie wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 4:31pm:

deepthought wrote on Feb 20th, 2008 at 4:11pm: freediver wrote on Feb 20th, 2008 at 3:26pm: from crikey: Last night's edition of Four Corners was instructive. "Most cabinet ministers in the former Howard government did not realise that workers could be worse off under Work Choices, former workplace relations minister Joe Hockey says." Though most would have known that workers could be better off.  Under a one size fits all model generally espoused by a Liebor Party (centralised wage fixing/enterprise bargaining agreements) everyone gets treated the same.   Sadly that is as a 'work unit' which depersonalises relations with employers - hence the 'casual army' Cheating created and the 'part time army' Kevvy is creating.  Their IR ideas are steeped in archaic socialist models that everyone's output is equal and therefore everyone is rewarded the same - people get treated as automatons. Bad IR from the early part of last century.  Back to the future with Liebor. ......supported by the Lieberals.  You, and only you, are flogging what everyone else knows is a dead horse.  Ask Brendan!

I've never been one to follow the crowd mate.  You should know that.

You should also know that most people fear change.  Even if it is good change.   It's the human condition to sit in the swamp and complaiin how awful it is without doing anything about it.

It takes men of vision, like Johnny and me, to see what others can not.   :)

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 3:26pm:

from crikey: Last night's edition of Four Corners was instructive. "Most cabinet ministers in the former Howard government did not realise that workers could be worse off under Work Choices, former workplace relations minister Joe Hockey says."

It's also instructive to know that most cabinet ministers in the Liebor Party will not be aware that workers could be worse off under Liebor's ancient IR tyranny.  Gillard knows though . . . .


Quote:

Gillard shuns pledge on IR conditions DEPUTY Prime Minister Julia Gillard has pledged the aim of award modernisation is not to disadvantage workers but has failed to give a guarantee workers will not be worse off. With employees in different states paid different rates for the same job, the next phase of the Rudd government’s workplace reform agenda poses the real risk that some workers could lose conditions. <snip> Ms Gillard said today there were now no excuses for the Coalition not to pass the legislation to ban new Australian Workplace Agreements by Easter. Under the laws existing AWAs could run for up to five years but now new agreements could be signed from the date of the passage of the legislation. It's a long long way to the bottom from the top

This will kill off the mining industry which built its growth on individual freedom.  With freedom gone the industry will suffer.  Sell your mining shares folks.  Invest in a computer retailer or cable maker.

deepthought wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 4:46pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 20th, 2008 at 4:31pm: deepthought wrote on Feb 20th, 2008 at 4:11pm: freediver wrote on Feb 20th, 2008 at 3:26pm: from crikey: Last night's edition of Four Corners was instructive. "Most cabinet ministers in the former Howard government did not realise that workers could be worse off under Work Choices, former workplace relations minister Joe Hockey says." Though most would have known that workers could be better off.  Under a one size fits all model generally espoused by a Liebor Party (centralised wage fixing/enterprise bargaining agreements) everyone gets treated the same.   Sadly that is as a 'work unit' which depersonalises relations with employers - hence the 'casual army' Cheating created and the 'part time army' Kevvy is creating.  Their IR ideas are steeped in archaic socialist models that everyone's output is equal and therefore everyone is rewarded the same - people get treated as automatons. Bad IR from the early part of last century.  Back to the future with Liebor. ......supported by the Lieberals.  You, and only you, are flogging what everyone else knows is a dead horse.  Ask Brendan! I've never been one to follow the crowd mate.  You should know that. You should also know that most people fear change.  Even if it is good change.   It's the human condition to sit in the swamp and complaiin how awful it is without doing anything about it. It takes men of vision, like Johnny and me, to see what others can not.   :)

So, are you still proud you voted Lieberal?  How can you be, now that they are supporting the Government's position on IR.  What say ye, DT?  You are now out of step with the contemporary Liebs who have abandoned what ye and hayseed just luuurved.  He and ye are now lost in space, flailing away with no gravity.

Aussie wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 5:08pm:

So, are you still proud you voted Lieberal?  How can you be, now that they are supporting the Government's position on IR.  What say ye, DT?  You are now out of step with the contemporary Liebs who have abandoned what ye and hayseed just luuurved.  He and ye are now lost in space, flailing away with no gravity.

I am not proud they have collapsed like blancmanges - but I said all along (from the outset) that Brendan was not up to the task.  Sadly he is proving to be a member of the Liebor Party along with all the others.  

I am still proud to have voted for the government who gave Australians 11 years of clear air to breathe.

I did not vote for the anti-jobs Liebor party and I do not intend to vote for them ever unless they change their position on their opposition to ordinary Australians having a good life.

The Liebor Party are opposed to Australia improving its identity as a smart country.  In fact Liebor's own Knowledge Nation report in 1996 admitted that investment in knowledge as a proportion of GDP actually fell during the Hawke/Cheating years.  Little Kevvy is on track to duplicate the socialist dream of dumbing down the country.

It was also the Big Beazer who, as finance minister in 1995 cut CSIRO funding by $20 million.  Don't fret though - a year later Johnny restored it to them.

And Little Kevvy doesn't give a testicle - he reckoned that student debt had become a "national disgrace" in 2007.  But he's not going to do anything about it though - he's too busy puzzling over the uncooperative dishwasher, signing treaties without targets and mumbling 'sorry' for what your grandad did.

<snip> duplicate phuquing post - this is all the Liebor Party's fault.

Quote:

I am not proud they have collapsed like blancmanges -

Well, what are you going to do.  These buggers just made a complete fool out of you.  Maybe give the Greens a look.................oh, hang on, they support the Labor Party too.

It seems you are now ancient and irrelevant history, just like Keating.  You and him make a great pair.  Side-lined.

Aussie wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 5:53pm:

Quote: I am not proud they have collapsed like blancmanges - Well, what are you going to do.  These buggers just made a complete fool out of you.  Maybe give the Greens a look.................oh, hang on, they support the Labor Party too. It seems you are now ancient and irrelevant history, just like Keating.  You and him make a great pair.  Side-lined.

Now we have your opinion of me out of the way, what do you think of Jules's revelation that workers may be worse off under the return to industrial age IR than they currently are under Johnny's visionary WorkChoices?

Aussie----> http://www.ecosherpa.com/images/notlistening.jpg

IQSRLOW wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 6:51pm:

Aussie----> http://www.ecosherpa.com/images/notlistening.jpg

IQ  --------------->> http://www.jesper.nu/bilder/roligt/manniskor/ugly_monster.jpg

What do my nuts taste like BK? You seem to like hanging off them.

IQSRLOW wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 7:05pm:

What do my nuts taste like BK? You seem to like hanging off them.

Hey sphincter breath/ I spose it never occurred to you your obsession with the rear end of the human anatomy makes you look like  a raging [sounds like BAG!!]

Since when are testicles the ' rear end of human anatomy'

Are you on the goon juice again Oceans?  ;D

IQSRLOW wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 7:21pm:

Since when are testicles the ' rear end of human anatomy' Are you on the goon juice again Oceans?  ;D

I know you look weird IQ- but dont get me confused with someone who would be bothered trading insults  with you.  ::)

Interesting comments folks.   Thanks for adding to the debate on this difficult matter.

deepthought wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 7:31pm:

Interesting comments folks.   Thanks for adding to the debate on this difficult matter.

Your not feeling the love DT?

wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 7:32pm:

deepthought wrote on Feb 20th, 2008 at 7:31pm: Interesting comments folks.   Thanks for adding to the debate on this difficult matter. Your not feeling the love DT?

I am.  Aussie's unswerving interest in me is flattering, though irrelevant.

My bit- I think we need more security in the workforce..so IR sucks.

wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 7:34pm:

My bit- I think we need more security in the workforce..so IR sucks.

All of it?  Which bit is the worst?  Going to work in the first place?

Perhaps he was alluding to the fact the avid watchers of this thread are more interested in Aussie's excuses for his beloved than seeing yourself, BK or Biliby or any number of incarcerations that are cared to be dreamed up muddying up this thread with drivel as is always the case when they are involved

Soooo. back to the relevant...

Dear Aussie..
what do you think of Jules's revelation that workers may be worse off under the return to industrial age IR than they currently are under Johnny's visionary WorkChoices?

deepthought wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 7:35pm:

wrote on Feb 20th, 2008 at 7:34pm: My bit- I think we need more security in the workforce..so IR sucks. All of it?  Which bit is the worst?  Going to work in the first place?

The swing to a whole host of casual positons  generated by Serfchoices is causing a lot of insecurity for pple who need regular fulltime jobs to manage mortgages and plan the future for families..

Dont you like going to work DT?

IQSRLOW wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 7:38pm:

Perhaps he was alluding to the fact the avid watchers of this thread are more interested in Aussie's excuses for his beloved than seeing yourself, BK or Biliby or any number of incarcerations that are cared to be dreamed up muddying up this thread with drivel as is always the case when they are involved Soooo. back to the relevant... Dear Aussie.. what do you think of Jules's revelation that workers may be worse off under the return to industrial age IR than they currently are under Johnny's visionary WorkChoices?

drivvel   ?--so what is this then and the stuff you posted before?

Ignore the D T.

pssst..that is getting back to the subject matter which is Aussie having his fingers in his ears going LALALALALA before it was rudely derailed by BK (who I expect has been banned) and Philby (who I expect popped up after the banning) You have similar writing styles Oceans from the [ parentheses to the unexplainable double gaps between some words- funny that

Now STFU

wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 7:39pm:

deepthought wrote on Feb 20th, 2008 at 7:35pm: wrote on Feb 20th, 2008 at 7:34pm: My bit- I think we need more security in the workforce..so IR sucks. All of it?  Which bit is the worst?  Going to work in the first place? The swing to a whole host of casual positons  generated by Serfchoices is causing a lot of insecurity for pple who need regular fulltime jobs to manage mortgages and plan the future for families.. Dont you like going to work DT?

I think you will find you are wrong.  The casual army was created by Cheating and went into dramatic decline in 2006 with the introduction of WorkChoices.  In fact by the middle of 2007 (and the risk of Little Kevvy's anti-jobs IR loomed) some 387,500 additional jobs had been created with 325,300 of them full-time.  This amounted to 84% of all jobs created.  I reiterate - 84% of all jobs created in the brilliance of WorkChoices were full time positions!

This is dramatically different to the situation today in Kevvy's Kingdom - part time jobs outstrip full time ones as insecurity creeps back into the workplace.  Little Kevvy and his buddy Jules do not like workers - but that makes them full-fledged Lieborites.  It is their policy that the unions are important - workers are not.

deepthought wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 6:40pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 20th, 2008 at 5:53pm: Quote: I am not proud they have collapsed like blancmanges - Well, what are you going to do.  These buggers just made a complete fool out of you.  Maybe give the Greens a look.................oh, hang on, they support the Labor Party too. It seems you are now ancient and irrelevant history, just like Keating.  You and him make a great pair.  Side-lined. Now we have your opinion of me out of the way, what do you think of Jules's revelation that workers may be worse off under the return to industrial age IR than they currently are under Johnny's visionary WorkChoices?

About as much as the Lieberals do...........it must be quite okay because they are going to vote for it.

Knuck knuck knuck.

These are going to be glory years with the Liebs, and their former mate DT having to eat the humble pie that a devastating loss at the polls brings.  It's called a 'mandate to govern in accordance with announced policies.'  Labor announced it, ran hard on it, and won pants down.  Now, it is time for political chickens coming home to roost.

Eat it up, DT, I just love the prospect that I can shove that fact in your face all the time, as you used the same, when your soul mate in outer space had the reins.  You and hayseed....well no, he seems to have accepted that Australia said, 'bugger off," so it's just you who has a problem with numbers.  For example, 9 is far less than 70.

Ho ho ho, and a bottle of rum!

8-)

Aussie wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 8:24pm:

deepthought wrote on Feb 20th, 2008 at 6:40pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 20th, 2008 at 5:53pm: Quote: I am not proud they have collapsed like blancmanges - Well, what are you going to do.  These buggers just made a complete fool out of you.  Maybe give the Greens a look.................oh, hang on, they support the Labor Party too. It seems you are now ancient and irrelevant history, just like Keating.  You and him make a great pair.  Side-lined. Now we have your opinion of me out of the way, what do you think of Jules's revelation that workers may be worse off under the return to industrial age IR than they currently are under Johnny's visionary WorkChoices? About as much as the Lieberals do...........it must be quite okay because they are going to vote for it. Knuck knuck knuck. These are going to be glory years with the Liebs, and their former mate DT having to eat the humble pie that a devastating loss at the polls brings.  It's called a 'mandate to govern in accordance with announced policies.'  Labor announced it, ran hard on it, and won pants down.  Now, it is time for political chickens coming home to roost. Eat it up, DT, I just love the prospect that I can shove that fact in your face all the time, as you used the same, when your soul mate in outer space had the reins.  You and hayseed....well no, he seems to have accepted that Australia said, 'bugger off," so it's just you who has a problem with numbers.  For example, 9 is far less than 70. Ho ho ho, and a bottle of rum! 8-)

So you are comfortable with decreased security and worsening conditions for workers?  I guess that makes you a true Lieborite too then.

I voted Liberal.

And if you are right, which you are not, the Lieberals will also vote for:


Quote:

..............decreased security and worsening conditions for workers.

Teehee!

8-)

So, off to the political wilderness for you, DT.

Go seek a Pancho, and find some windmills.  It will be less painful, and just as fruitless as trying to convince Australia that the Lieberals are wrong to support what Australia has voted for.

I love having this side of the argument for a change.

Have I mentioned.....................'Eat it, DT,' you have at least another 8 or so years to get used to it.

Good luck.

8-)

And if you are right, which you are not

So explain how you know what Dullard doesn't??

the Lieberals will also vote for:

Sometimes it is better to squeeze the reeking pustule to bring it to a head to show where the quack doctor has been wrong in his treatment.

Liebors incompetence is already showing- they will be a mess in 3 years- same as they were when they elected the incompetent Latham. Incompetence runs deep within the Liebor camp. You only have to look to the states to figure that one out.  

Aussie wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 8:38pm:

And if you are right, which you are not, the Lieberals will also vote for: Quote: ..............decreased security and worsening conditions for workers. Teehee! 8-) So, off to the political wilderness for you, DT. Go seek a Pancho, and find some windmills.  It will be less painful, and just as fruitless as trying to convince Australia that the Lieberals are wrong to support what Australia has voted for. I love having this side of the argument for a change. Have I mentioned.....................'Eat it, DT,' you have at least another 8 or so years to get used to it. Good luck. 8-)

I assume your non-answer indicates acquiescence.

I however voted for the Liberal Party I knew - the one Brendan has left to join the Liebor Party.

I voted for the Liberal Party which gave us 11 years of prosperity, the lowest unemployment in 40 years, the lowest incidence of industrial disputation in a century and the biggest spend on health and education ever.

Well, DT, I hate to tell you this, but this lot:


Quote:

I however voted for the Liberal Party I knew - the one Brendan has left to join the Liebor Party. I voted for the Liberal Party which gave us 11 years of prosperity, the lowest unemployment in 40 years, the lowest incidence of industrial disputation in a century and the biggest spend on health and education ever.

..........has been turfed out.

As has hayseed.  Only the second PM in our history to lose his seat.

You need to re-calibrate.

The Lieberals are at Labor's mercy, as are you to mine.

I have my hand on your jugular..............for at least 8 years, and I am going to apply pressure whenever I can, because you did it while hayseed had control.  My turn now.

Eat it.

Aussie wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 10:00pm:

Well, DT, I hate to tell you this, but this lot: Quote: I however voted for the Liberal Party I knew - the one Brendan has left to join the Liebor Party. I voted for the Liberal Party which gave us 11 years of prosperity, the lowest unemployment in 40 years, the lowest incidence of industrial disputation in a century and the biggest spend on health and education ever. ..........has been turfed out. As has hayseed.  Only the second PM in our history to lose his seat. You need to re-calibrate. The Lieberals are at Labor's mercy, as are you to mine. I have my hand on your jugular..............for at least 8 years, and I am going to apply pressure whenever I can, because you did it while hayseed had control.  My turn now. Eat it.

If Little Kevvy is still throttling Australia in eight years Aussie we will be the only ones left on Ozpolitic.  Everyone with an income of less than $1,000,000 a year or without investments that allow them not to work won't be able to afford the internet. The future fund will be gone so any taxpayers who haven't committed suicide will be paying 100% tax to pay for the superannuation shortfall.

And as fewer young Australians will have gone to uni (though it seems there will be a heap of maths teachers) there will be fewer bright young folk to help us out of the inflationary spiral we fell into.  Our dollar will be worth today's equivalent of 1c so a Macca's Happy Meal will cost the modest sum of $500 and if you want a bucket of chicken from KFC you will need to mortgage your house at 45% interest rate.

Good luck - see you in hell.

Thanks for getting back on topic people. You seem to be learning how to handle trolls. That makes my job a lot easier.

I find it a bit childish and spineless for the libs to say they will vote for a piece of legislation because they hope it will end badly and it will show how bad the other party is. If you vote for something, you go down in history as supporting it. The libs really don't have a clue and just want a bet each way. They can say they voted for it if the public end up suppporting it and blame it on Labor if it goes bad. Nothing cries hypocrit louder than voting for something you oppose.

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2008 at 10:47am:

Thanks for getting back on topic people. You seem to be learning how to handle trolls. That makes my job a lot easier. I find it a bit childish and spineless for the libs to say they will vote for a piece of legislation because they hope it will end badly and it will show how bad the other party is. If you vote for something, you go down in history as supporting it. The libs really don't have a clue and just want a bet each way. They can say they voted for it if the public end up suppporting it and blame it on Labor if it goes bad. Nothing cries hypocrit louder than voting for something you oppose.

It is disagreeable to support a regime which will kill off Australia's jobs market and make so many people line up at Centrelink and live in tents after their homes go.

I can see why they would do it - but I don't agree.  They still have a responsibility to slow down Liebor's destruction.

Surely you're not suggesting the Liberal party isn't perfect?

Oh wait, it was Howard who was perfect, right?

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2008 at 2:02pm:

Surely you're not suggesting the Liberal party isn't perfect? Oh wait, it was Howard who was perfect, right?

Deadwood FD  get it right.

He was then and is now. Just another fact.

Who are you talking about Oceans?

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2008 at 2:02pm:

Surely you're not suggesting the Liberal party isn't perfect? Oh wait, it was Howard who was perfect, right?

No one's perfect (except me) but Johnny actually cared about people and cared that he did the right thing, not the expedient thing.  

http://news.smh.com.au/businesses-blame-employment-laws-survey/20080312-1yrv.html

Contrary to what the former coalition government led people to believe, Work Choices and employment laws are the second largest hindrance to a company's expansion, a new survey shows.

The survey of 250 medium-sized to large Australian companies showed that regulation and red-tape scored 32 per cent as a hindrance in expanding their business, up from 27 per cent in a similar 2007 survey.

This included 27 per cent saying employment laws have had the biggest regulatory impact on their ability to expand their business, followed by environmental regulation at 17 per cent and health and safety laws at 10 per cent.

"Governments need to work more closely with business, and those organisations which understand the privately-owned business sector, to identify their future needs and aim to address the regulatory issues ahead of the need, rather than constantly playing 'catch-up'," Tony Markwell, national head of private business services at Grant Thornton said.

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2008 at 11:17am:

http://news.smh.com.au/businesses-blame-employment-laws-survey/20080312-1yrv.html Contrary to what the former coalition government led people to believe, Work Choices and employment laws are the second largest hindrance to a company's expansion, a new survey shows. The survey of 250 medium-sized to large Australian companies showed that regulation and red-tape scored 32 per cent as a hindrance in expanding their business, up from 27 per cent in a similar 2007 survey. This included 27 per cent saying employment laws have had the biggest regulatory impact on their ability to expand their business, followed by environmental regulation at 17 per cent and health and safety laws at 10 per cent. "Governments need to work more closely with business, and those organisations which understand the privately-owned business sector, to identify their future needs and aim to address the regulatory issues ahead of the need, rather than constantly playing 'catch-up'," Tony Markwell, national head of private business services at Grant Thornton said.

That's interestingly slewed by the paper.  Because while in 2007 Australian business showed the figure of '27%' (it was actually 28% in the real report) for the impact of industrial legislation (and conveniently blamed on WorkChoices by the media), globally the figure was 38%.

Now as other countires do not have WorkChoices, it appears that WorkChoices kept the level of concern at about 75% of that of the rest of the world.

Once you look at all the facts the truth reveals itself . . . .

Workplace laws passed by Easter: Gillard

http://news.smh.com.au/workplace-laws-passed-by-easter-gillard/20080317-1zti.html

The federal government is moving to have its workplace relations legislation rubber stamped by the end of the week.

Labor's transition bill to abolish Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) will pass through the lower house on Monday.

A Senate inquiry into the laws will also report to Parliament on Monday.

Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard said the government wants the bill passed before Easter but is willing to amend the legislation if worthwhile recommendations are made.

---

Bill to ban AWAs passes lower house

http://news.smh.com.au/bill-to-ban-awas-passes-lower-house/20080317-1zti.html

Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard says there is no reason the government's industrial relations (IR) changes should not pass parliament by the end of the week, after the lower house rubber stamped them.

---

Govt mulls changes to IR bill

http://news.smh.com.au/govt-mulls-changes-to-ir-bill/20080317-1zti.html

The federal government may concede some changes to its workplace relations bill, but is determined to have laws to ban Australian Workplace Agreements pass parliament before Easter.

The coalition backed the government's bid to fast-track its workplace changes, allowing the draft law to pass the lower house without dissent and giving it priority in the upper house.

Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard said the government would consider making minor technical changes to the legislation after a senate inquiry identified some problem areas.

But she said it should not hold up the bill's passage.

Easter she says?  Minor technical changes she says?




Quote:

Govt amends workplace transition bill The Rudd government has put forward numerous amendments to its workplace transition bill in response to a Senate inquiry's criticisms. The 24 separate amendments were circulated in the upper house on Tuesday during the committee stage of Senate debate on the first plank of Labor's industrial relations legislation. Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told parliament the amendments addressed "technical" issues with the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008. "The government has circulated some amendments which I'm advised are technical amendments arising in part from the Senate committee process," she said. A report on Monday by the Senate's education, employment and workplace relations committee found some important aspects of Labor's transition bill needed clarifying. Liberal senator Eric Abetz questioned why Labor had criticised the previous government for having to amend its original Work Choices legislation, when Labor was behaving similarly now it was in government. He questioned why the government needed to move 24 separate amendments with a 15-page explanatory memorandum. "Why the delay in presenting us with these very detailed and lengthy amendments," he asked. Earlier, Senator Abetz challenged Labor to guarantee that no worker would be worse off as a result of its changes to the previous government's Work Choices laws. "We as a government didn't give that guarantee (about Work Choices)," he told parliament. "We were castigated from the Torres Strait to Tasmania, from Sydney to the Swan, for not being able to give that guarantee." Some workers would inevitably be worse off as a result of Labor's legislation, he said. Senator Wong would not give the guarantee sought by Senator Abetz. But she said the Rudd government's workplace laws would provide far more protection to workers than the Howard government's Work Choices regime. Labor's workplace bill bans the creation of new Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), initiates changes to the award system and provides for transitional individual agreements for employees on existing AWAs. The bill entered committee stage on Tuesday shortly after the upper house resumed, having been read a second time. A second-reading amendment moved by Family First senator Steve Fielding, which noted the absence of guaranteed meal breaks and penalty rates in the bill, failed on the voices. During the committee stage the Senate will consider several amendments from the minor parties as well as from the government. Australian Democrats senator Andrew Murray said the government needed to address a contradiction in the bill identified by witnesses who gave evidence to the Senate inquiry into the legislation. The bill pledges that in the process of standardising industrial awards, the process will not disadvantage employees or increase costs for employers. But, in the committee report, academics Professor Andrew Stewart and Dr John Buchanan raised concerns that this was impossible. "Has the government understood that that's a problem, because of the evidence raised?" Senator Murray asked the government. "Will you have a look at it and try and find a means of dealing with what are regarded as irreconcilable, competing objectives?". What!!!  I though you had a plan Kevvy?  Did you lie about your preparedness?

http://news.smh.com.au/work-choices-mousepad-ideas-flood-in/20080318-2060.html

Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard is being inundated with suggestions of what to do with the government's "plague of mousepads" designed to promote the previous government's Work Choices laws.

Some ideas are intensely practical, but many reflect an element of political dislike for the unpopular workplace laws.

"We've had (suggestions for) mudflaps, stubbie holders, putting them together so you'd have enough to make a yoga mat," Ms Gillard told parliament on Tuesday.

"We've had the suggestion that they could be used for noticeboards, or shin pads for soccer or inner-sole pads for shoes, or doormats, or my personal favourite, floor-liners for porta-loos - a good use of surplus Work Choices mousepads."

Ms Gillard was again seeking to make a point about advertising waste on promoting Work Choices ahead of last year's election campaign.

She said the coalition government had spent $120 million on Work Choices propaganda, an example of which was nearly 100,000 Work Choices mousepads which had remained warehoused due to the laws unpopularity.

"As we collect suggestions, we are of course asking for suggestions about what to do with the 77,000 pens and the 100,000 plastic folders we've got left over from the excess of the extremists in workplace relations who sit opposite," Ms Gillard said.

She announced that 5,000 mousepads would be given to the Mental Health Activity and Learning Centre which was planning to cut them up because of the colours and use them in a large mural.

"We will also be forwarding a large number of mousepads to schools who have requested a bulk number, no doubt to use in art and craft classes," she said.

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2008 at 8:16pm:

http://news.smh.com.au/work-choices-mousepad-ideas-flood-in/20080318-2060.html Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard is being inundated with suggestions of what to do with the government's "plague of mousepads" designed to promote the previous government's Work Choices laws. Some ideas are intensely practical, but many reflect an element of political dislike for the unpopular workplace laws. "We've had (suggestions for) mudflaps, stubbie holders, putting them together so you'd have enough to make a yoga mat," Ms Gillard told parliament on Tuesday. "We've had the suggestion that they could be used for noticeboards, or shin pads for soccer or inner-sole pads for shoes, or doormats, or my personal favourite, floor-liners for porta-loos - a good use of surplus Work Choices mousepads." Ms Gillard was again seeking to make a point about advertising waste on promoting Work Choices ahead of last year's election campaign. She said the coalition government had spent $120 million on Work Choices propaganda, an example of which was nearly 100,000 Work Choices mousepads which had remained warehoused due to the laws unpopularity. "As we collect suggestions, we are of course asking for suggestions about what to do with the 77,000 pens and the 100,000 plastic folders we've got left over from the excess of the extremists in workplace relations who sit opposite," Ms Gillard said. She announced that 5,000 mousepads would be given to the Mental Health Activity and Learning Centre which was planning to cut them up because of the colours and use them in a large mural. "We will also be forwarding a large number of mousepads to schools who have requested a bulk number, no doubt to use in art and craft classes," she said.

Freediver, why don't you use the "hyperlink" thingie so that your URLs can be clicked on?

EG http://www.abc.net.au/news/

I do, sometimes.

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2008 at 8:32pm:

I do, sometimes.

>:(  People are lazy ..... if you want them to read a link, make it easy.  ;)

But I'm lazy too. It's a bit of a dilemma isn't it? Perhaps I should turn the auto hotlinking back on - only problem is the spammers seem to like it.

I reckon that 95% of the links I post would not be followed even if they were hot linked. I post quite a lot of them.

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2008 at 8:41pm:

But I'm lazy too. It's a bit of a dilemma isn't it? Perhaps I should turn the auto hotlinking back on - only problem is the spammers seem to like it. I reckon that 95% of the links I post would not be followed even if they were hot linked. I post quite a lot of them.

I always follow them so as to add the bits you selectively leave out.

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2008 at 8:16pm:

http://news.smh.com.au/work-choices-mousepad-ideas-flood-in/20080318-2060.html Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard is being inundated with suggestions of what to do with the government's "plague of mousepads" designed to promote the previous government's Work Choices laws. Some ideas are intensely practical, but many reflect an element of political dislike for the unpopular workplace laws. "We've had (suggestions for) mudflaps, stubbie holders, putting them together so you'd have enough to make a yoga mat," Ms Gillard told parliament on Tuesday. "We've had the suggestion that they could be used for noticeboards, or shin pads for soccer or inner-sole pads for shoes, or doormats, or my personal favourite, floor-liners for porta-loos - a good use of surplus Work Choices mousepads." Ms Gillard was again seeking to make a point about advertising waste on promoting Work Choices ahead of last year's election campaign. She said the coalition government had spent $120 million on Work Choices propaganda, an example of which was nearly 100,000 Work Choices mousepads which had remained warehoused due to the laws unpopularity. "As we collect suggestions, we are of course asking for suggestions about what to do with the 77,000 pens and the 100,000 plastic folders we've got left over from the excess of the extremists in workplace relations who sit opposite," Ms Gillard said. She announced that 5,000 mousepads would be given to the Mental Health Activity and Learning Centre which was planning to cut them up because of the colours and use them in a large mural. "We will also be forwarding a large number of mousepads to schools who have requested a bulk number, no doubt to use in art and craft classes," she said.

I wonder if they ever thought to just use them?  But then that would take a government serious about waste rather than one engaging in symbolic stuff like proposing to tax plastic bags or ratifying Kyoto while being very secretive about how they plan to save the planet.

deepthought wrote on Mar 18^th, 2008 at 8:56pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2008 at 8:16pm: http://news.smh.com.au/work-choices-mousepad-ideas-flood-in/20080318-2060.html Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard is being inundated with suggestions of what to do with the government's "plague of mousepads" designed to promote the previous government's Work Choices laws. Some ideas are intensely practical, but many reflect an element of political dislike for the unpopular workplace laws. "We've had (suggestions for) mudflaps, stubbie holders, putting them together so you'd have enough to make a yoga mat," Ms Gillard told parliament on Tuesday. "We've had the suggestion that they could be used for noticeboards, or shin pads for soccer or inner-sole pads for shoes, or doormats, or my personal favourite, floor-liners for porta-loos - a good use of surplus Work Choices mousepads." Ms Gillard was again seeking to make a point about advertising waste on promoting Work Choices ahead of last year's election campaign. She said the coalition government had spent $120 million on Work Choices propaganda, an example of which was nearly 100,000 Work Choices mousepads which had remained warehoused due to the laws unpopularity. "As we collect suggestions, we are of course asking for suggestions about what to do with the 77,000 pens and the 100,000 plastic folders we've got left over from the excess of the extremists in workplace relations who sit opposite," Ms Gillard said. She announced that 5,000 mousepads would be given to the Mental Health Activity and Learning Centre which was planning to cut them up because of the colours and use them in a large mural. "We will also be forwarding a large number of mousepads to schools who have requested a bulk number, no doubt to use in art and craft classes," she said. I wonder if they ever thought to just use them?  But then that would take a government serious about waste rather than one engaging in symbolic stuff like proposing to tax plastic bags or ratifying Kyoto while being very secretive about how they plan to save the planet.

Why not donate the mouse pads to the schools who are expecting a "computer per kid"?  Mental Health doesn't need mouse pads!

Gillard is a Spaz!

http://news.smh.com.au/laws-banning-new-awas-pass-parliament/20080319-20ae.html

Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has promised no worker will be worse off after laws banning new Australian Workplace Agreements passed parliament on Wednesday.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared Work Choices "dead and buried" as the laws, the first step in dismantling the Howard government's unpopular industrial relations system, passed with opposition support.

Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard repeatedly refused to promise in parliament that no worker would be worse off from the abolition of AWAs.

But Ms Gillard later gave the guarantee on television.

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2008 at 6:00pm:

http://news.smh.com.au/laws-banning-new-awas-pass-parliament/20080319-20ae.html Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has promised no worker will be worse off after laws banning new Australian Workplace Agreements passed parliament on Wednesday. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared Work Choices "dead and buried" as the laws, the first step in dismantling the Howard government's unpopular industrial relations system, passed with opposition support. Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard repeatedly refused to promise in parliament that no worker would be worse off from the abolition of AWAs. But Ms Gillard later gave the guarantee on television.

What will she do if a worker goes to her and says s/he is worse off?  Quit?

logicalconclusion wrote on Mar 18^th, 2008 at 9:42pm:

deepthought wrote on Mar 18th, 2008 at 8:56pm: freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2008 at 8:16pm: http://news.smh.com.au/work-choices-mousepad-ideas-flood-in/20080318-2060.html Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard is being inundated with suggestions of what to do with the government's "plague of mousepads" designed to promote the previous government's Work Choices laws. Some ideas are intensely practical, but many reflect an element of political dislike for the unpopular workplace laws. "We've had (suggestions for) mudflaps, stubbie holders, putting them together so you'd have enough to make a yoga mat," Ms Gillard told parliament on Tuesday. "We've had the suggestion that they could be used for noticeboards, or shin pads for soccer or inner-sole pads for shoes, or doormats, or my personal favourite, floor-liners for porta-loos - a good use of surplus Work Choices mousepads." Ms Gillard was again seeking to make a point about advertising waste on promoting Work Choices ahead of last year's election campaign. She said the coalition government had spent $120 million on Work Choices propaganda, an example of which was nearly 100,000 Work Choices mousepads which had remained warehoused due to the laws unpopularity. "As we collect suggestions, we are of course asking for suggestions about what to do with the 77,000 pens and the 100,000 plastic folders we've got left over from the excess of the extremists in workplace relations who sit opposite," Ms Gillard said. She announced that 5,000 mousepads would be given to the Mental Health Activity and Learning Centre which was planning to cut them up because of the colours and use them in a large mural. "We will also be forwarding a large number of mousepads to schools who have requested a bulk number, no doubt to use in art and craft classes," she said. I wonder if they ever thought to just use them?  But then that would take a government serious about waste rather than one engaging in symbolic stuff like proposing to tax plastic bags or ratifying Kyoto while being very secretive about how they plan to save the planet. Why not donate the mouse pads to the schools who are expecting a "computer per kid"?  Mental Health doesn't need mouse pads! Gillard is a Spaz!

i've got another suggestion - when opposition members complain about not being paid enough - gilly can send a couple of boxes over to raffle off at lieberals bbqs and garage sales.  :)

Dooley wrote on Mar 24^th, 2008 at 1:23pm:

i've got another suggestion - when opposition members complain about not being paid enough - gilly can send a couple of boxes over to raffle off at lieberals bbqs and garage sales.  :)

Not bad, not bad.  How about they issue them to the Liebor lads for when the Cardboard headmaster summons them to his office.  They can stuff them down their trousers for when they get the cane.

BBQ's are the domain of the Liebor collective to promulgate their propaganda. Only a Liebor govt could think to hijack something so Australian to promote something so un-Australian.

Perhaps Dullard could hand them out as window washing squeegies at traffic lights to the many Australians will end up there as a result of Liebors policies?

I am sure they will be grateful...

Speaking of IR laws I wonder if any of Little Cardboard Kevvy's minions can explain why he thinks it's fair to exploit people while mumbling platitudes about how unfair AWAs are.




Quote:

Public servants asked to work for free at 2020 summit Unions and the Federal Opposition have criticised requests for federal public servants to work for free at the upcoming 2020 summit. About 90 volunteer workers are being sought to work for 12 hours on the Saturday of the summit, and eight hours on the Sunday. Public service chiefs say it presents an excellent professional development opportunity. But Stephen Jones of the Community and Public Sector Union says workers should be paid. "Obviously we support the summit and hope it's a great success, but from what I've heard the roles that people are being asked to perform seem like normal duties," he said. "If people are there in an official capacity then normally you'd expect them to be paid." The Federal Opposition has ridiculed the call for public servants to work for free. Liberal frontbencher Joe Hockey says workers should be paid properly. "It's not a case of simply providing them with colourful jackets and a nice hat like the Olympics," he said. "It's got to be a meaningful outcome from the 2020 summit. If Mr Rudd expects with this summit Australians are going to take him and his Government seriously, he needs to have a professional approach." Kevvy?  Will you work for free for the next three years?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/18/2193394.htm

::)

"The Coalition recognises the political realities we now find ourselves in,"

Why don't they both just go for the one Labor-Liberal coalition monoparty and be done with us voters once and for all before it gets to a 50-50 vote.
::)

Let's not do what would be good for the country, let do what gets us elected by an ignorant ABC force fed voter
::)

logicalconclusion wrote on Mar 18^th, 2008 at 9:53pm:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/18/2193394.htm ::)

Brendan Nelson should be bent over and rooted soundly by Little Kevvy.  Little Kevvy is quite proficient at rooting as he has practiced on the uni students, the carers and the seniors.  Not to mention the dishwasher, Centrelink, Foreign Affairs and Trade and quite possibly Wayne Swan.

So did the AWA's, so what is the difference ???
Apart from one being ALP, one LIBs, and this one costing millions to bring online.



"A MINING industry body says changes to the federal government's new interim individual work agreements will provide welcome flexibility for bosses.

The government today accepted 24 amendments to its Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008.

The bill starts to dismantle the Howard government's controversial Work Choices laws.

It bans the creation of new Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), initiates changes to the award system and imposes transitional employment agreements for workers on existing AWAs.

Under the amendments, bosses will be able to extend the use of Individual Transitional Employment Agreements (ITEAs).

Australian Mines and Metals Association (AMMA) spokesman Chris Platt said his group, which had lobbied for the change during the now completed Senate inquiry, welcomed the amendment.

"It means that if, say, a construction company has built a project and then the employees have left the employment between that project and the next one, under the original submission ... those employees would not be able to be engaged on an ITEA because they were to be regarded as an existing employee,'' he said.

"What the amendment change means is that ... employees will be able to be employed on ITEAs so long as there was an AWA in place (on) December 1, 2007."

Mr Platt said while it was expected that in the resources industry the majority of employees would use collective agreements, there were some resource sector employers who had a preference to use statutory individual contracts.

"The expansion of ITEAs will give them additional flexibility in the period leading up to 2010," he said.

"It's a submission that we put to the Senate committee in recent times and it's pleasing to see that the government is listening and improving its legislation as a result of feedback."


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23396531-5014046,00.html

IR laws 'helping work-life balance'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1187830244

---

Labor's plan to end Work Choices slammed

http://news.smh.com.au/labors-plan-to-end-work-choices-slammed/20080507-2bq9.html

Federal Labor's industrial relations changes are likely to trigger job losses and higher inflation, a Treasury analysis of the plan to scrap Work Choices states.

Treasury's assessment of the plan is contained in an executive minute dated April 18 of last year, before the federal election.

The critique concludes the effects will ultimately create "wage-price spirals" and drive up interest rates, while limiting unfair dismissal laws will cut jobs and increase red tape for small business.

The minute, obtained by The Australian, came one day after Kevin Rudd, as then opposition leader, flagged in a speech to the National Press Club the industrial relations changes he would make as head of a Labor government.

The department, under Treasury secretary Ken Henry, concluded that Labor's plan to abolish Australian Workplace Agreements and the return of guaranteed penalty rates would cut jobs and put "upward pressure on prices".

The changes would also create more "flow-on" wage claims from sectors such as mining to less productive sectors and allow unions to "bid wages up above their market level".

"This reduced flexibility, together with forcing business to pay higher rates of pay during certain hours of business, is likely to lead to lower levels of employment," the minute states.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2008 at 4:26pm:

IR laws 'helping work-life balance' http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1187830244 Labor's plan to end Work Choices slammed http://news.smh.com.au/labors-plan-to-end-work-choices-slammed/20080507-2bq9.html Federal Labor's industrial relations changes are likely to trigger job losses and higher inflation, a Treasury analysis of the plan to scrap Work Choices states. Treasury's assessment of the plan is contained in an executive minute dated April 18 of last year, before the federal election. The critique concludes the effects will ultimately create "wage-price spirals" and drive up interest rates, while limiting unfair dismissal laws will cut jobs and increase red tape for small business. The minute, obtained by The Australian, came one day after Kevin Rudd, as then opposition leader, flagged in a speech to the National Press Club the industrial relations changes he would make as head of a Labor government. The department, under Treasury secretary Ken Henry, concluded that Labor's plan to abolish Australian Workplace Agreements and the return of guaranteed penalty rates would cut jobs and put "upward pressure on prices". The changes would also create more "flow-on" wage claims from sectors such as mining to less productive sectors and allow unions to "bid wages up above their market level". "This reduced flexibility, together with forcing business to pay higher rates of pay during certain hours of business, is likely to lead to lower levels of employment," the minute states.

Liebor voters voted for unemployment so they wouldn't care about that.  They would expect that knowing how Liebor uses the poor to wipe mud off their boots on while they look after the rich and themselves.

You voted Lieberal, you tell us that all the time.  But, your Lieberals, who voted FOR Labor's reforms, ergo, condemn you as an idiot.

Can't say I disagree with them.

8-)

Aussie wrote on May 7^th, 2008 at 6:03pm:

You voted Lieberal, you tell us that all the time.  But, your Lieberals, who voted FOR Labor's reforms, ergo, condemn you as an idiot. Can't say I disagree with them. 8-)

Don't be so hasty.  While it is true that pseudo Liebor pollie Brendan Nelson seemed to give some in principle support to the destructive return to stone age IR the only way Liebor will get the punitive amendments to unfair dismissal regulations is after the senate gives up its coalition majority.

So be cautious my little friend, the Liberals accept the will of the people on some things (foolishly in my opinion) but decline to allow Liebor to completely root the workers by going back to the future of Cheating's anti-worker legislation on unfair dismissals.

Quote:

Treasury's assessment of the plan is contained in an executive minute dated April 18 of last year, before the federal election The department, under Treasury secretary Ken Henry, concluded that Labor's plan to abolish Australian Workplace Agreements and the return of guaranteed penalty rates would cut jobs and put "upward pressure on prices".

This executive minute is a year old - of course Ken Henry would have said something like that back then.  He worked for Howard.  No doubt since Rudd's been in power, he's done an about turn and would now be claiming the exact opposite.

This sounds like something Turnbull has dredged up.

mantra wrote on May 7^th, 2008 at 6:16pm:

Quote: Treasury's assessment of the plan is contained in an executive minute dated April 18 of last year, before the federal election The department, under Treasury secretary Ken Henry, concluded that Labor's plan to abolish Australian Workplace Agreements and the return of guaranteed penalty rates would cut jobs and put "upward pressure on prices". This executive minute is a year old - of course Ken Henry would have said something like that back then.  He worked for Howard.  No doubt since Rudd's been in power, he's done an about turn and would now be claiming the exact opposite. This sounds like something Turnbull has dredged up.

You think Treasury just tell porkies to suit the government of the day?  And it wasn't something Mal pulled out, it was a minute obtained by the Australian.  It actually followed a request which was denied by the Liebor control freaks for more info via an FOI claim.

deepthought wrote on May 7^th, 2008 at 6:14pm:

Aussie wrote on May 7th, 2008 at 6:03pm: You voted Lieberal, you tell us that all the time.  But, your Lieberals, who voted FOR Labor's reforms, ergo, condemn you as an idiot. Can't say I disagree with them. 8-) Don't be so hasty.  While it is true that pseudo Liebor pollie Brendan Nelson seemed to give some in principle support to the destructive return to stone age IR the only way Liebor will get the punitive amendments to unfair dismissal regulations is after the senate gives up its coalition majority. So be cautious my little friend, the Liberals accept the will of the people on some things (foolishly in my opinion) but decline to allow Liebor to completely root the workers by going back to the future of Cheating's anti-worker legislation on unfair dismissals.

Labor's IR legislative reforms have received and will receive Lieberal Party endorsement, so that puts you at odds with the mob you voted for.

You are the odd man out, Don QuixoTe.

Aussie wrote on May 7^th, 2008 at 6:30pm:

deepthought wrote on May 7th, 2008 at 6:14pm: Aussie wrote on May 7th, 2008 at 6:03pm: You voted Lieberal, you tell us that all the time.  But, your Lieberals, who voted FOR Labor's reforms, ergo, condemn you as an idiot. Can't say I disagree with them. 8-) Don't be so hasty.  While it is true that pseudo Liebor pollie Brendan Nelson seemed to give some in principle support to the destructive return to stone age IR the only way Liebor will get the punitive amendments to unfair dismissal regulations is after the senate gives up its coalition majority. So be cautious my little friend, the Liberals accept the will of the people on some things (foolishly in my opinion) but decline to allow Liebor to completely root the workers by going back to the future of Cheating's anti-worker legislation on unfair dismissals. Labor's IR legislative reforms have received and will receive Lieberal Party endorsement, so that puts you at odds with the mob you voted for. You are the odd man out, Don QuixoTe.

You're wrong.  The first piece of legislation did not cover unfair dismissal at all.  That will not be introduced until later in the year because the Libs will oppose it.

We'll see, won't we!!

8-)

If you are at all interested, you can check which Bills are currently being considered by Parliament:-

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/browse.aspx?path=Legislation%20%3E%20Current%20Bills%20by%20Title

Australia is a democractic country so anyone can read what Legislation is proposed, the text of same, and "track" the progress.  ;)

The only problem is that once the Bills are introduced into Parliament, we as citizens can NOT do much about it.  That's why we have the system we do.  You vote for what you get.  If you don't "approve" of the proposed Legislation, tough luck!  ::)

Aussie wrote on May 7^th, 2008 at 6:50pm:

We'll see, won't we!! 8-)

Indeed.  Then you will apologise to all Australians for voting Liebor?

"Treasury's assessment of the plan is contained in an executive minute dated April 18 of last year, before the federal election."

This is very funny, deepthought you notice the date?april 18, thats a week before Labor released their IR policy. So the former gov asked the reserve bank to make asumptions on a non existent policy,mmm, a thinking man may come to the asumption that the former gov were trying to discredit Labor at the time whilst a rusted on Lib supporter may just buy this story from the Liberal party gazzet as fact whilst singing la la la la la .

wrote on May 8^th, 2008 at 12:18pm:

"Treasury's assessment of the plan is contained in an executive minute dated April 18 of last year, before the federal election." This is very funny, deepthought you notice the date?april 18, thats a week before Labor released their IR policy. So the former gov asked the reserve bank to make asumptions on a non existent policy,mmm, a thinking man may come to the asumption that the former gov were trying to discredit Labor at the time whilst a rusted on Lib supporter may just buy this story from the Liberal party gazzet as fact whilst singing la la la la la .

So the Liebor policy is extensively different to the one analysed athiest?

They never were going to dismantle WorkChoices and re-introduce a punishing unfair dimissal regime?

Funny that - because they have done the former and are planning the latter.