It seems the Liberals are going to drip feed their IR policy using their good mate, The Australian.

This morning the Oz's Industrial Editor, Ewin Hannan, writes "it is understood" the Libs will have at least three changes to the Fair Work Act
in mind

1) Limit the issues over which unions and employers can bargain
2) Ban arbitration in intractable disputes
3) Ban the right of union officials to meet non- union workers during meal breaks.

On 3) Eric Arbetz, Coalition spokesman on workplace relations, says visits would allow "the 87 percent of Australian private sector workers who actively choose not to join a union to be constantly badgered by union bosses."

Unions have got to accept that not everyone wants (or needs) to be a member of a union and to respect the choice of those who decide not to join, instead of harrassing them. Unions do have their place in many instances, but they are becoming increasingly militant and we are seeing more cases where unions are, quite simply, pricing their members out of a job. Unions need to get with the time or else they'll very quickly become an endangered species... if they are not already.

Told yas...

Liberals to have Civil War against Unions

Provincial Independents forced to take over from the suicide of the ALP.

ALP/Unions recede to the Democrats of the North (USA)

Namerican Republicans head south to Liberal/Independents of OZ.

Can't you hear the Division Bell ringing.

...Libs might wanna win some votes from the Rebel Bikers when the Unions come marching in.

So what is the point of this thread. It seems unusual for you to be showing good policy. Is there a trick to this thread.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

Unions have got to accept that not everyone wants (or needs) to be a member of a union and to respect the choice of those who decide not to join, instead of harrassing them. Unions do have their place in many instances, but they are becoming increasingly militant and we are seeing more cases where unions are, quite simply, pricing their members out of a job. Unions need to get with the time or else they'll very quickly become an endangered species... if they are not already.

How do you know if they want to join if you don't ask? Many employees these days don't even know they have a union representing them. Whilst I don't agree with unions badgering non members, I don't think its up to the libs to just ban meetings during meal breaks altogether ... whats next? you can't go to the bank during your lunch hour? you can't go home for lunch?

This is just an attempt to limit union acess to potential members so as to weaken unions.

No one can be forced to meet with a union rep. It's your choice who you speak with during your lunch break. This is all about denying choice. The Libs want to weaken unions and isolate workers.

I've only ever lowered my standard to join a Union (x1 week before I got sacked) - they retrieved lost wages for me.
I found the Rep very professional, but I'm a Confederate boy at heart.
The Union wanted the Contractors gone too, they are not potential members.

...maybe it will be the Independents & Liberals V the ALP and the Unions ?? :o
WARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

The Confederate Way: If the Boss/Company screws you over, etc - then its about screwing as many female staff as possible in the Boss's/Companie's name and/or steal as much poo from them as possible.

John Smith wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 7:50pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 7:38pm: Unions have got to accept that not everyone wants (or needs) to be a member of a union and to respect the choice of those who decide not to join, instead of harrassing them. Unions do have their place in many instances, but they are becoming increasingly militant and we are seeing more cases where unions are, quite simply, pricing their members out of a job. Unions need to get with the time or else they'll very quickly become an endangered species... if they are not already. How do you know if they want to join if you don't ask? Many employees these days don't even know they have a union representing them. Whilst I don't agree with unions badgering non members, I don't think its up to the libs to just ban meetings during meal breaks altogether ... whats next? you can't go to the bank during your lunch hour? you can't go home for lunch? This is just an attempt to limit union acess to potential members so as to weaken unions.

When I worked in a state government dept, there were meetings every month or so with the union organiser during the lunch break. I was asked a few times if I wanted to come along and that was that. This isn't an attempt to limit union access, just to prevent intimidation/harrassment.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 7:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 7:50pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 7:38pm: Unions have got to accept that not everyone wants (or needs) to be a member of a union and to respect the choice of those who decide not to join, instead of harrassing them. Unions do have their place in many instances, but they are becoming increasingly militant and we are seeing more cases where unions are, quite simply, pricing their members out of a job. Unions need to get with the time or else they'll very quickly become an endangered species... if they are not already. How do you know if they want to join if you don't ask? Many employees these days don't even know they have a union representing them. Whilst I don't agree with unions badgering non members, I don't think its up to the libs to just ban meetings during meal breaks altogether ... whats next? you can't go to the bank during your lunch hour? you can't go home for lunch? This is just an attempt to limit union acess to potential members so as to weaken unions. When I worked in a state government dept, there were meetings every month or so with the union organiser during the lunch break. I was asked a few times if I wanted to come along and that was that. This isn't an attempt to limit union access, just to prevent intimidation/harrassment.

Are you really that naive, armchair. You had the choice of attending that meeting, something you have no qualms denying current Australian workers. This is all about weakening unions and laying the groundwork for introducing Workchoices Mark II.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 7:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 7:50pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 7:38pm: Unions have got to accept that not everyone wants (or needs) to be a member of a union and to respect the choice of those who decide not to join, instead of harrassing them. Unions do have their place in many instances, but they are becoming increasingly militant and we are seeing more cases where unions are, quite simply, pricing their members out of a job. Unions need to get with the time or else they'll very quickly become an endangered species... if they are not already. How do you know if they want to join if you don't ask? Many employees these days don't even know they have a union representing them. Whilst I don't agree with unions badgering non members, I don't think its up to the libs to just ban meetings during meal breaks altogether ... whats next? you can't go to the bank during your lunch hour? you can't go home for lunch? This is just an attempt to limit union acess to potential members so as to weaken unions. When I worked in a state government dept, there were meetings every month or so with the union organiser during the lunch break. I was asked a few times if I wanted to come along and that was that. This isn't an attempt to limit union access, just to prevent intimidation/harrassment.

no? I don't believe you ... surely those union reps harrassed and intimidated you ... after all, Tony says thats what they do.

You must be a real idiot to believe the tripe even after you've been through it yourself and seen that there is no badgering.

Firstly, policies 1) and 2) are contradictory. The Liberals want to interfere as to what can be discussed at the bargaining table, but then sit on their hands when a dispute has got out of hand and there seems no way through. Surely these two policies are the wrong way round.

Arbetz's use of words is interesting. Union officials are always "bosses" while the real bosses are always "employers".

And I'm not sure how you "actively choose" not to do something. Surely workers are perfectly capable of listening, or not listening, to a union organiser, they don't need Nanny State to protect them.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 7:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 7:50pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 7:38pm: Unions have got to accept that not everyone wants (or needs) to be a member of a union and to respect the choice of those who decide not to join, instead of harrassing them. Unions do have their place in many instances, but they are becoming increasingly militant and we are seeing more cases where unions are, quite simply, pricing their members out of a job. Unions need to get with the time or else they'll very quickly become an endangered species... if they are not already. How do you know if they want to join if you don't ask? Many employees these days don't even know they have a union representing them. Whilst I don't agree with unions badgering non members, I don't think its up to the libs to just ban meetings during meal breaks altogether ... whats next? you can't go to the bank during your lunch hour? you can't go home for lunch? This is just an attempt to limit union acess to potential members so as to weaken unions. When I worked in a state government dept, there were meetings every month or so with the union organiser during the lunch break. I was asked a few times if I wanted to come along and that was that. This isn't an attempt to limit union access, just to prevent intimidation/harrassment.

Did you ever feel intimidated or harrassed?
From the tone of your post it appears not.

:)

Any union recruiter who harangues, intimidates or harasses people is totally wrong for the job.

When I first worked as an organiser in NZ, membership was compulsory, a policy my union opposed, as did I. We believed having members who did not support the union would only weaken the organisation, and that the policy made unions fat and lazy.

When compulsory membership was dropped, the job became much more interesting. You could debate the value of union membership with people. Some signed up, some didn't. It was their choice.

Being able to meet with non- members gave them the right to make an informed decision. What's wrong with that?

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

Any union recruiter who harangues, intimidates or harasses people is totally wrong for the job. When I first worked as an organiser in NZ, membership was compulsory, a policy my union opposed, as did I. We believed having members who did not support the union would only weaken the organisation, and that the policy made unions fat and lazy. When compulsory membership was dropped, the job became much more interesting. You could debate the value of union membership with people. Some signed up, some didn't. It was their choice. Being able to meet with non- members gave them the right to make an informed decision. What's wrong with that?

Those two words are whats wrong with that ....  informed decision ... the libs don't believe in letting people make informed decisions ... they'll tell us what to believe and we shouldn't question it.

Lobo wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 8:36pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 7:50pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 7:38pm: Unions have got to accept that not everyone wants (or needs) to be a member of a union and to respect the choice of those who decide not to join, instead of harrassing them. Unions do have their place in many instances, but they are becoming increasingly militant and we are seeing more cases where unions are, quite simply, pricing their members out of a job. Unions need to get with the time or else they'll very quickly become an endangered species... if they are not already. How do you know if they want to join if you don't ask? Many employees these days don't even know they have a union representing them. Whilst I don't agree with unions badgering non members, I don't think its up to the libs to just ban meetings during meal breaks altogether ... whats next? you can't go to the bank during your lunch hour? you can't go home for lunch? This is just an attempt to limit union acess to potential members so as to weaken unions. When I worked in a state government dept, there were meetings every month or so with the union organiser during the lunch break. I was asked a few times if I wanted to come along and that was that. This isn't an attempt to limit union access, just to prevent intimidation/harrassment. Did you ever feel intimidated or harrassed? From the tone of your post it appears not. :)

No, I didn't. But that was because I told the organiser where he could go. Having said that, it (harrassment) does happen and it isn't always the organiser who is the culprit.

In other words, you were rude and offensive to him. Why?

Couldn't you just say you weren't interested?

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:52pm:

In other words, you were rude and offensive to him. Why? Couldn't you just say you weren't interested?

do you think the libs will introduce legislation to ban armpit during meal breaks? he admitted he is rude and offensive.

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:52pm:

In other words, you were rude and offensive to him. Why? Couldn't you just say you weren't interested?

No, the guy was a complete twat and was only interested in regurgitating ALP lies and propaganda....

So you considered that gave you the right to be rude to him.

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:12pm:

So you considered that gave you the right to be rude to him.

Yep. Tell you what - take the most obnoxious, lying twerp you've ever met and they're tame compared to this fool.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:20pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 10:12pm: So you considered that gave you the right to be rude to him. Yep. Tell you what - take the most obnoxious, lying twerp you've ever met and they're tame compared to this fool.

so he was something like you?

This exchange says more about you, AP, than anyone else. I have never been able to fathom why conservatives hate the union movement.

Or is it just that many of them are obnoxious in the first place?

John Smith wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:28pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 10:20pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 10:12pm: So you considered that gave you the right to be rude to him. Yep. Tell you what - take the most obnoxious, lying twerp you've ever met and they're tame compared to this fool. so he was something like you?

Far worse.

Unions are cartels of labour.

Cartels are formed to restrict competition and artificially inflate the price of their product.

Corporate cartels are illegal but Labour cartels are not? :-/

Corporate Cartels are anti-competition so they can rip off the consumer.

Unions are anti-competition. so they can rip off the consumer.

That is why Unions and their supporters and the Labor party S U C K ..............

Swagman wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:49pm:

Unions are cartels of labour. Cartels are formed to restrict competition and artificially inflate the price of their product. Corporate cartels are illegal but Labour cartels are not? :-/ Corporate Cartels are anti-competition so they can rip off the consumer. Unions are anti-competition. so they can rip off the consumer. That is why Unions and their supporters and the Labor party S U C K ..............

Abbott wants unions to be held accountable for their finances in the same way as other organisations. Given recent events with HSU, etc it isn't a bad idea...

It's catchy lyrics, Swag, but a mite repetitive. Maybe it would be better set to music?