QUEENSLAND'S government has brought back strong pro-union policies in the public sector, which the opposition sees as creeping union control over the state. 
 
PREMIER Annastacia Palaszczuk says the policies, uploaded to a government website last week without any other notification, will make workplaces safer.

Government agencies are required to encourage rather than "passively accept" union membership and activities.

New government employees will be handed a union application form and information about their relevant union upon induction.

Unions will also be handed the details of all new public servants.

Ms Palaszcuzk says the provisions existed for at least a decade before the previous Liberal National Party government came to power.

"The unions are there to stand up for workers in this state," she said.

But Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg said the revisions showed the government was increasingly beholden to the unions.

"What we're seeing is a situation where Labor is having to pay the piper," he said.

"Those that supported them in government are going to have a free and unfettered reign in impugning the independence of the public sector."

Under the policy change union delegates will also be allowed to use state resources for union activities and paid education leave will be granted delegates studying industrial relations.

The premier strongly denied Queensland's increasingly vocal unions had requested the changes.

"No, not at all," Ms Palaszczuk said.

"But there have been discussions over the years when we were in opposition and we believe it's the right thing to do."

Mr Springborg also criticised Labor for posting the document on a website without any other notification.

"There was no media or fanfare around the release of this policy like we've seen with the other 'get-squares' this Labor government has rolled out against the former LNP government," he said.

"Queenslanders deserve better than a sneaky Labor government beholden to union bosses."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/qld-encourages-unions-in-public-service/story-fni0xqi3-1227358479796

Quote:

QUEENSLAND'S government has brought back strong pro-union policies in the public sector, which the opposition sees as creeping union control over the state.

The only surprise there is that it took so long to happen.



Quote:

Unions will also be handed the details of all new public servants.

This is just wrong and will lead to Unions pressuring new employees to sign membership forms.



Quote:

Under the policy change union delegates will also be allowed to use state resources for union activities and paid education leave will be granted delegates studying industrial relations.

This is also wrong - taxpayers should not be forced to pay for Union propaganda activities/materials.



Quote:

Mr Springborg also criticised Labor for posting the document on a website without any other notification.

That is typical Labor for you.



Quote:

"Queenslanders deserve better than a sneaky Labor government beholden to union bosses." "There was no media or fanfare around the release of this policy like we've seen with the other 'get-squares' this Labor government has rolled out against the former LNP government," he said.

Well, they get what they deserve and they voted for this mob of Union hacks. Now they have to deal with the consequences, no matter how bad they might be.

Gee......who'd a thunk it was evah possible that a Labor Government would encourage union membership?

Bizarre isn't it!

Ms Palaszcuzk says the provisions existed for at least a decade before the previous Liberal National Party government came to power.

The Liberals attack workers rights and unions, then Labor put the pendulum back to the middle ground.

Dnarever wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

Ms Palaszcuzk says the provisions existed for at least a decade before the previous Liberal National Party government came to power. The Liberals attack workers rights and unions, then Labor put the pendulum back to the middle ground.

How did the Liberals attack workers rights? Unions weren't banned from government buildings. Employees weren't banned from joining a Union. What Labor is doing is effectively trying to pressure workers (new and current) into joining a Union due to plummeting membership numbers.

When you give up the standard of living that the unions have given you we may take you serious .

Aussie wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 7:32pm:

Gee......who'd a thunk it was evah possible that a Labor Government would encourage union membership? Bizarre isn't it!

Encourage, eh? Yeah - like, "Okay, we can't give Tom the promotion - it's got to go to Harry." "Why?" "Because Harry's a paid-up member of the PSU, while Tom refuses to join!"

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 7:39pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:37pm: Ms Palaszcuzk says the provisions existed for at least a decade before the previous Liberal National Party government came to power. The Liberals attack workers rights and unions, then Labor put the pendulum back to the middle ground. How did the Liberals attack workers rights? Unions weren't banned from government buildings. Employees weren't banned from joining a Union. What Labor is doing is effectively trying to pressure workers (new and current) into joining a Union due to plummeting membership numbers.

So you say.  How about you say how?

Its time wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

When you give up the standard of living that the unions have given you we may take you serious .

What a load of crap. The Unions gave me nothing. I went to University, studied hard, got my qualification, a job, worked hard and saved hard for my lifestyle. The Unions can go jump if they expect a thankyou from me - I got where I am today all by myself.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

Aussie wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:32pm: Gee......who'd a thunk it was evah possible that a Labor Government would encourage union membership? Bizarre isn't it! Encourage, eh? Yeah - like, "Okay, we can't give Tom the promotion - it's got to go to Harry." "Why?" "Because Harry's a paid-up member of the PSU, while Tom refuses to join!"

So.....you really reckon Palaszczuk makes that sort of decision?

Aussie wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:39pm: Dnarever wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:37pm: Ms Palaszcuzk says the provisions existed for at least a decade before the previous Liberal National Party government came to power. The Liberals attack workers rights and unions, then Labor put the pendulum back to the middle ground. How did the Liberals attack workers rights? Unions weren't banned from government buildings. Employees weren't banned from joining a Union. What Labor is doing is effectively trying to pressure workers (new and current) into joining a Union due to plummeting membership numbers. So you say.  How about you say how?

"Unions will also be handed the details of all new public servants." Why would you do that if not to pressure new employees to join a Union?

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 7:43pm:

Aussie wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:41pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:39pm: Dnarever wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:37pm: Ms Palaszcuzk says the provisions existed for at least a decade before the previous Liberal National Party government came to power. The Liberals attack workers rights and unions, then Labor put the pendulum back to the middle ground. How did the Liberals attack workers rights? Unions weren't banned from government buildings. Employees weren't banned from joining a Union. What Labor is doing is effectively trying to pressure workers (new and current) into joining a Union due to plummeting membership numbers. So you say.  How about you say how? "Unions will also be handed the details of all new public servants." Why would you do that if not to pressure new employees to join a Union?

So.....if I am Mary working in the Pharmacy at the Nambour Hospital, and I am am Union member, what the hell is so wrong with me telling the Union, 'Oh, an idiot called Armpit began today at work.  Maybe, you could invite her into the Union.'

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 7:42pm:

Its time wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:41pm: When you give up the standard of living that the unions have given you we may take you serious . What a load of crap. The Unions gave me nothing. I went to University, studied hard, got my qualification, a job, worked hard  and saved hard for my lifestyle. The Unions can go jump if they expect a thankyou from me - I got where I am today all by myself.

Geez you must be the only person that relinquinshed his penalty rates , weekends, sick leave and a plethora of other conditions and entitlements , but we both know you did no such thing , or did you think it was the company owners that gave this all to you out of the genorosity of their hearts

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 7:42pm:

Its time wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:41pm: When you give up the standard of living that the unions have given you we may take you serious . What a load of crap. The Unions gave me nothing. I went to University, studied hard, got my qualification, a job, worked hard and saved hard for my lifestyle. The Unions can go jump if they expect a thankyou from me - I got where I am today all by myself.

People were doing that when they had to work 60 hours a week and had 1 weeks leave, didn't get paid when sick and didn't get reasonable pay rates or increases at a time where the workplace was a dangerous place to work.

Aussie wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 7:47pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:43pm: Aussie wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:41pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:39pm: Dnarever wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:37pm: Ms Palaszcuzk says the provisions existed for at least a decade before the previous Liberal National Party government came to power. The Liberals attack workers rights and unions, then Labor put the pendulum back to the middle ground. How did the Liberals attack workers rights? Unions weren't banned from government buildings. Employees weren't banned from joining a Union. What Labor is doing is effectively trying to pressure workers (new and current) into joining a Union due to plummeting membership numbers. So you say.  How about you say how? "Unions will also be handed the details of all new public servants." Why would you do that if not to pressure new employees to join a Union? So.....if I am Mary working in the Pharmacy at the Nambour Hospital, and I am am Union member, what the hell is so wrong with me telling the Union, 'Oh, an idiot called Armpit began today at work.  Maybe, you could invite her into the Union.'

That's not what they mean and you know it (or ought to). This directive will mean government departments will effectively become recruiting offices for Unions and will have to pass on the personal details of new employees to Union officials.

Dnarever wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 7:55pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:42pm: Its time wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:41pm: When you give up the standard of living that the unions have given you we may take you serious . What a load of crap. The Unions gave me nothing. I went to University, studied hard, got my qualification, a job, worked hard and saved hard for my lifestyle. The Unions can go jump if they expect a thankyou from me - I got where I am today all by myself. People were doing that when they had to work 60 hours a week and had 1 weeks leave, didn't get paid when sick and didn't get reasonable pay rates or increases at a time where the workplace was a dangerous place to work.

You still don't get sick leave if you're a casual. Oh crap - better not give the Unions any bad ideas!

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 7:42pm:

Its time wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:41pm: When you give up the standard of living that the unions have given you we may take you serious . What a load of crap. The Unions gave me nothing. I went to University, studied hard, got my qualification, a job, worked hard and saved hard for my lifestyle. The Unions can go jump if they expect a thankyou from me - I got where I am today all by myself.

;D ;D ;D

You went to uni? I can't begin to imagine how stupid you were before you were educated  :D :D :D

when you pay back all the penalty rates, holiday pay, flexis and any other benefits that the unions got for you, people will take you seriously, until then you're just a hypocrite

Quote:

That's not what they mean and you know it (or ought to). This directive will mean government departments will effectively become recruiting offices for Unions and will have to pass on the personal details of new employees to Union officials.

What directive?  Who did it come from and to whom was it addressed.  How does a 'Government Department' recruit?  It is a nothing......an entity.....a nothing.....no heart...no voice......so how does it do this amazing thing?  Mary...remember her...the bird in the Pharmacy at Nambour Hospital.  She gets a new workmate, and she passes the name on to the Union.  Is that a problem?  If so, why?

Aussie wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 8:02pm:

Quote: That's not what they mean and you know it (or ought to). This directive will mean government departments will effectively become recruiting offices for Unions and will have to pass on the personal details of new employees to Union officials. What directive?  Who did it come from and to whom was it addressed.  How does a 'Government Department' recruit?  It is a nothing......an entity.....a nothing.....no heart...no voice......so how does it do this amazing thing?  Mary...remember her...the bird in the Pharmacy at Nambour Hospital.  She gets a new workmate, and she passes the name on to the Union.  Is that a problem?  If so, why?

WOW, you're stupid! :o

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 8:07pm:

Aussie wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 8:02pm: Quote: That's not what they mean and you know it (or ought to). This directive will mean government departments will effectively become recruiting offices for Unions and will have to pass on the personal details of new employees to Union officials. What directive?  Who did it come from and to whom was it addressed.  How does a 'Government Department' recruit?  It is a nothing......an entity.....a nothing.....no heart...no voice......so how does it do this amazing thing?  Mary...remember her...the bird in the Pharmacy at Nambour Hospital.  She gets a new workmate, and she passes the name on to the Union.  Is that a problem?  If so, why? WOW, you're stupid! :o

And I say you are a giraffe, but I acknowledge that my saying so, does not in fact make you one.  So, instead of running with that garbage......answer those questions.  Put some meat on your scrawny bony cheer leader garbage.

Put up or shut up.

Looks like your argument was obliterated once again armpit, if the libs have you on the books based on performance you're probably paying them  :D

Aussie wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 8:11pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 8:07pm: Aussie wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 8:02pm: Quote: That's not what they mean and you know it (or ought to). This directive will mean government departments will effectively become recruiting offices for Unions and will have to pass on the personal details of new employees to Union officials. What directive?  Who did it come from and to whom was it addressed.  How does a 'Government Department' recruit?  It is a nothing......an entity.....a nothing.....no heart...no voice......so how does it do this amazing thing?  Mary...remember her...the bird in the Pharmacy at Nambour Hospital.  She gets a new workmate, and she passes the name on to the Union.  Is that a problem?  If so, why? WOW, you're stupid! :o And I say you are a giraffe, but I acknowledge that my saying so, does not in fact make you one.  So, instead of running with that garbage......answer those questions.  Put some meat on your scrawny bony cheer leader garbage. Put up or shut up.

this sounds like your sillyt gaffe when you question why the Bible use those 'silly names' like Simon an John and Andrew, thinking that somehow they should be Mohommed an Achmed.  Feelnig a bit stupid over that one?

No.

How about you answer the questions?

Its time wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

When you give up the standard of living that the unions have given you we may take you serious .

most of the dramatic increase in the standard of living in Australia over the past 35 years have ironically paralleled the DECLINE of unions,  the ending of compulsory membership.  the ending of union dominance over companies.  And what happened as a result?  BEST STANDARD OF LIVING EVER.

Aussie wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 7:42pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:41pm: Aussie wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:32pm: Gee......who'd a thunk it was evah possible that a Labor Government would encourage union membership? Bizarre isn't it! Encourage, eh? Yeah - like, "Okay, we can't give Tom the promotion - it's got to go to Harry." "Why?" "Because Harry's a paid-up member of the PSU, while Tom refuses to join!" So.....you really reckon Palaszczuk makes that sort of decision?

You might be surprised.  A lot of promotions and appointments int he public service actually are approved by cabinet.  It might normally be justa rubber stamp, but the capacity to deny promotion or appointment to non-union members is very real.  I had one of my contract appointments go before SA cabinet.

Dnarever wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 7:55pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:42pm: Its time wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:41pm: When you give up the standard of living that the unions have given you we may take you serious . What a load of crap. The Unions gave me nothing. I went to University, studied hard, got my qualification, a job, worked hard and saved hard for my lifestyle. The Unions can go jump if they expect a thankyou from me - I got where I am today all by myself. People were doing that when they had to work 60 hours a week and had 1 weeks leave, didn't get paid when sick and didn't get reasonable pay rates or increases at a time where the workplace was a dangerous place to work.

circa 1850

dope

longweekend58 wrote on May 19^th, 2015 at 11:48am:

Aussie wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:42pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:41pm: Aussie wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:32pm: Gee......who'd a thunk it was evah possible that a Labor Government would encourage union membership? Bizarre isn't it! Encourage, eh? Yeah - like, "Okay, we can't give Tom the promotion - it's got to go to Harry." "Why?" "Because Harry's a paid-up member of the PSU, while Tom refuses to join!" So.....you really reckon Palaszczuk makes that sort of decision? You might be surprised.  A lot of promotions and appointments int he public service actually are approved by cabinet.  It might normally be justa rubber stamp, but the capacity to deny promotion or appointment to non-union members is very real.  I had one of my contract appointments go before SA cabinet.

I would not at all be surprised if Cabinet or a Minister has some input into very, very senior appointments/promotions (like Department Directors or judicial appointments), but they will have zero to do with nuts and bolts placements.

Employment in the public service is not in any way similar to an independent body (which I assume is yourself) entering into a contract with government to provide goods or services.

Aussie wrote on May 19^th, 2015 at 12:38pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 19th, 2015 at 11:48am: Aussie wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:42pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:41pm: Aussie wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:32pm: Gee......who'd a thunk it was evah possible that a Labor Government would encourage union membership? Bizarre isn't it! Encourage, eh? Yeah - like, "Okay, we can't give Tom the promotion - it's got to go to Harry." "Why?" "Because Harry's a paid-up member of the PSU, while Tom refuses to join!" So.....you really reckon Palaszczuk makes that sort of decision? You might be surprised.  A lot of promotions and appointments int he public service actually are approved by cabinet.  It might normally be justa rubber stamp, but the capacity to deny promotion or appointment to non-union members is very real.  I had one of my contract appointments go before SA cabinet. I would not at all be surprised if Cabinet or a Minister has some input into very, very senior appointments/promotions (like Department Directors or judicial appointments), but they will have zero to do with nuts and bolts placements. Employment in the public service is not in any way similar to an independent body (which I assume is yourself) entering into a contract with government to provide goods or services.

whilst I consider it highly unlikely that the QLD premier would do this, I was articulating that the possibily exists.  However, in Victoria I would not at all be surprised if they made union membership a prerequisite to promotion or even employment.  Andrews is so pro-union is is concerning.

Unions...lol.

those who risk nothing, do nothing and produce nothing.
white-anting those who risk everything, do everything and produce everything.

Anyone who supports a rise in union activity is akin to someone who thinks that the best outcome for a divorcing couple is an achromonious and suspicious relationship with the relative lawyers dictating terms.

Employers and employees need to trust, honour respect , and obey each other...just like the marriage vows....this leads to great teamwork and a situation of peace, joy , harmony and prosperity.

keep the white ants as far away from your workplace and let the relative parties (employer and employee) enjoy their sacred vows.

longweekend58 wrote on May 19^th, 2015 at 11:50am:

Dnarever wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:55pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:42pm: Its time wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:41pm: When you give up the standard of living that the unions have given you we may take you serious . What a load of crap. The Unions gave me nothing. I went to University, studied hard, got my qualification, a job, worked hard and saved hard for my lifestyle. The Unions can go jump if they expect a thankyou from me - I got where I am today all by myself. People were doing that when they had to work 60 hours a week and had 1 weeks leave, didn't get paid when sick and didn't get reasonable pay rates or increases at a time where the workplace was a dangerous place to work. circa 1850 dope

8 Hours ACT.  NSW In 1916 work hours were reduced to 48 hours per week in some industries.


1941 Metal Trades award results in one week of annual leave becoming standard.


1973 Four weeks annual leave for public servant union members granted by the
Federal Labor government.


1900

Truck Act 1900 required the payment of wages in money, and prohibited employers from influencing how employees spent wages.

1907

Basic wage set for male employees only.

1916

Eight Hours Act 1916 created a standard 48 hour working week

1944

Annual Holidays Act 1944 introduced a standard entitlement to 2 weeks holiday leave

1955

Long Service Leave Act 1955 introduced a standard entitlement to 13 weeks long service leave after 20 years of service.

1982

Employment Protection Act 1982 created minimum redundancy entitlements for NSW workers under awards. 

1983

Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983. New occupational health and safety (OH&S)

Qld govt backs unions in public service

Very sensible of them.

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2015 at 7:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 19th, 2015 at 11:50am: Dnarever wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:55pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:42pm: Its time wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 7:41pm: When you give up the standard of living that the unions have given you we may take you serious . What a load of crap. The Unions gave me nothing. I went to University, studied hard, got my qualification, a job, worked hard and saved hard for my lifestyle. The Unions can go jump if they expect a thankyou from me - I got where I am today all by myself. People were doing that when they had to work 60 hours a week and had 1 weeks leave, didn't get paid when sick and didn't get reasonable pay rates or increases at a time where the workplace was a dangerous place to work. circa 1850 dope 8 Hours ACT.  NSW In 1916 work hours were reduced to 48 hours per week in some industries. 1941 Metal Trades award results in one week of annual leave becoming standard. 1973 Four weeks annual leave for public servant union members granted by the Federal Labor government. 1900 Truck Act 1900 required the payment of wages in money, and prohibited employers from influencing how employees spent wages. 1907 Basic wage set for male employees only. 1916 Eight Hours Act 1916 created a standard 48 hour working week 1944 Annual Holidays Act 1944 introduced a standard entitlement to 2 weeks holiday leave 1955 Long Service Leave Act 1955 introduced a standard entitlement to 13 weeks long service leave after 20 years of service. 1982 Employment Protection Act 1982 created minimum redundancy entitlements for NSW workers under awards.  1983 Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983. New occupational health and safety (OH&S)

But... but.. but... didn't all those things come from the goodness of bossie's heart?

And every time a non-Union scab gets a mandated pay rise, whether it be salary or wages - guess who goes in to bat for the workers including them?

Not the bosses... not their employer if it's government... THE UNIONS.

They put in the work to present figures and a case for a rise, and have to argue it agaisnt the always much lower figures put forward by ALL employers, private or government, so when your average school teacher, public servant, police officer, ditch digger, accountant etc cops a salary increase in line with the national benchmark - THE UNIONS DID THE SPADE WORK FOR IT.

What a narrow-minded and shall I say it - selfish and stupid bunch many of you make up.

You reckon you're so good?  Go out and negotiate without that safety net.

Quote:

Unions have won a High Court bid to have a Newman government decision to exempt Queensland Rail from the federal Fair Work Act struck down on constitutional grounds. But the Liberal National Party, now in opposition, had no regrets about its actions in light of the legal loss. The 2012 introduction of the state Queensland Rail Transit Authority Act transferred all QR employees to the new QRTA. As a consequence, workers were no longer subject to existing enterprise agreements, which the five unions representing QR employees argued was unconstitutional QR was, they argued, a "trading corporation" rather than a statutory authority and, therefore, subject to the Fair Work Act. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/unions-win-high-court-case-against-newman-government-changes-to-queensland-rail-20150411-1miyhk.html Last week, the High Court unanimously agreed. http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2015/hca-11-2015-04-08.pdf

This is the sort of outrageous arrogance that creates one-term governments - and RIGHTLY SO
Newman had such an ENORMOUS majority - he thought he could strip away worker's rights back to the bone, if he so chose, overriding the LAW

He was WRONG