The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Industrial relations reform: pros beat con jobs > Comments

Industrial relations reform: pros beat con jobs : Comments

By Peter Hendy, published 12/7/2005

Peter Hendy argues the unions are in engaging in a con job over the new proposals for industrial relations reforms.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
I wonder if Peter Hendy has ever tried to feed a family on a Adult min wage job? Next question does he think the min wage in the US (Federal Adult min wage is $5.15hr) as enable it the compete with china?
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 11:45:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Hendy misses a crucial point about the current IR changes being suggested by the Government. The Howard Government has no mandate for it. They did not give voters a chance to decide their elected representatives based on the legislative agenda currently being debated in the public arena: the only forum left for those who have been justifiably horrified by the suggested reforms.

Had the Government done so, perhaps the outcome of the last election may have been different. In any event, the case made by unions currently would not have the vigour it does now.

I actually agree with the concept of industry consensus about changes to industrial relations: this was the basis of the Accord system of the 1980s. I don't think that's what we have here.

Also: it appears that industry groups have forgotten the crucial factor in this debate...without labour there is no industry.

I wonder if John Howard will be cashing in the holiday time he lost in having to come back to work after discovering that the unions were beating him at his own game: the PR wars.
Posted by seether, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:02:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Hendy is of the deluded view that "flexibility" in workers contracts must be a good thing. Being forced to cash in your leave is not flexibility most workers would necessarily want. Secondly, Peter Hendy also believes that an unlawfully dismissed worker is just as likely to begin costly and time consuming legal proceedings through the courts as they are unfair dismissal proceedings through the IRC. Somehow I doubt it.
Posted by Jude, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:06:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Howard has now defended changes to the rights of workers by declaring that 'a new class of "enterprise workers" willing to put Australia's long-term economic needs before their own.

Single mothers and struggling Australian families are much too busy putting food on their kitchen tables and paying the bills to ever think about 'being enterprise workers', they are much to busy to indulge the ideological nirvana that this Primeminister and his disciples have dreamt up for our nation.

Peter Hendy makes NO reference to the dozens of broken non core promises, lies and deceit of John Howard on a number of issues and levels. But then again you'd expect this from someone who was chief of staff for Peter “kids overboard” Reith.

The truly tragic aspect of this development is that when these reforms do not work and Australians endure hardship and sorrow, you won't find the likes of Hendy apologising for getting it for instigating a con job here and now. These are evil evil men with evil evil plans.
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:36:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe there should be one federal award for the whole of Australia, it is only sensible this alone will gain some small amount of productivity. But it should be taken from the highest standards in each state. The government is there to protect Australians rights not business profits. With this legislation the rights of a worker with a company with 80 employees will be different to a company with 110 employees how can that be fair?

In a recent report Australians work more hours than anyone else in industrialized countries. The reason for this and part of the gains in productivity is from people working overtime to be able to earn a wage to live on and deal with the crippling taxes, health costs and afford a family home thanks to the Liberal Government.

I would think that Australians would want to strive for the best life possible nationwide not who can bargain the best with there own situation. Look around you how many people do you know that are workers and how many are business owners? Don’t swallow a Government and Business con job about dire economic consequences. If the Government and Business were serious about wages blow outs and tying wages to productivity they would have addressed the skills shortage long ago. From doctors to carpenters there are current or looming shortages and all this will do is increase wages. Its simple supply & demand.

The Government has been riding on the back of high resource prices and a over heated housing sector which added to increases to domestic growth in the past few years, take that away and our growth & balance of trade figures go out the window. In the long run these can not last there will be a point when interest rates will raise world wide demand will slump where will we be?

Also I wouldn’t be comparing Australian industry regulation with other countries in Asia. (Yes lets work for $10.00 a day like so much of Asia) We should be comparing industrial regulation with Europe & America.
Posted by sydney_sergei, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:36:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"second, unions are claiming that employers want the right to force workers to take less than four weeks annual leave. False. Laws and agreements (including union agreements) already exist that allow workers to choose to cash out portions of leave. That existing flexibility should be retained. "

turns out west australian newspapers is forcing new reporters on individual contracts to sign away 2 weeks of their leave. no sign no job. and they keep on telling us that its an employees market.
Posted by its not easy being, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:44:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy