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."

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.

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


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.

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 ??
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.

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


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.

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.

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?

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


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.