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 > Right to withdraw labour is a human right > Comments

Right to withdraw labour is a human right : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 24/4/2007

Rudd’s position on WorkChoices is likely to prevail with barely a whimper, with a pre-conference stitch-up reducing ALP democracy to a media stunt.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. All
Doc Holliday is extremely naive to think that "withdrawing your labour" can work today, with Howard's No Choice legislation. Withdraw your labour and find another job is more to the point mate.

Once withdrawn the AWA can be ripped up and re offered, with any conditions and you know it mate. If Doc thinks people are not sacked for refusing to sign AWA's he's living in the Wild West where his beliefs belong. Being sacked doesn't always mean just told to nick off. It also includes a new AWA you can't survive on so refuse. That's not choice.

Could Doc explain to us why John Howard isn't on an AWA? Why he hasn't negotiated away his entitlements for extra $? You know why. It wouldn't work and he wouldn't even get an offer from his electorate today.

If we are going to persist with the silly Left and Right business and you have read or experienced a few elections you should know that Rudd is doing exactly what Hawke did. That is stealing the ground Howard initially trod on. That's why he will win.

Howard has moved dramatically to the right (ask Malcolm Fraser) and left the slightly right of centre ground vacant. That's where Rudd is now. There is no Left in the major parties at all. The Greens are as Left as it gets.

Where does Rudd differ from Howard?
The right to strike is the workers ONLY weapon. Without that they are back to the 1800's and everyone should know that. What else can workers do but unite and work together in the face of the advantage an employer has.

By the way a survey today actually shows business itself is not that keen on No Choices at all. They know the matter is one of negotiation, not bullying.

Those employers that are using Howard's atrocious legislation will fall by the wayside and the moderate employers will benefit, as ever. In the short term things will though devastate many and that falls at the feet of one person (I can't call him a man), Howard.
Posted by pegasus, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 3:43:23 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
perhaps workers should create labor companies, rather than labor unions?
a labor co-op could provide a flexible 'no lost time' labor force, while assuring members an income and protection in contract negotiations.

that would assume that workers were willing to work, to combine in mutual support, and were willing to put their labor to the test of the market. does seem unlikely, but the current system leaves all the cards in employers hands. best then to collectively become an employer, and by joining them- beat them.
Posted by DEMOS, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 4:22:33 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
The right to strike is a right that should be used only when every other avenue has been exhausted and only if people are at genuine risk of injury or death.
Unfortunately the right to strike has been abused by the union movement over many years. Strike action has been taken with no consideration at all for the flow on effects to other workers or the potential loss of pay or even employment of innocent parties.
Unions have a "rights" philosophy rather than a "responsibilities" philosophy. Even Rudd is looking to curb the power of the unrepresentative minority of left wing socialists who still believe that they should run the country.
The examples given by at least two of the correspondents to this column are unlikely and, if true, represent unconscionable contracts.
I know of at least eleven people delivering material similar to that described and none has had to set up a small business to do it. I also know of a number of people teaching in franchises whose contracts are nothing like that described. I suggests the correspondents advise their two young family members that they should have explored the situation further before signing anything - if indeed that is what they did sign up to.
Posted by Communicat, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 4:35:52 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
Communicat:

If unions are so 'irresponsible' in using strike action, why is the level of industrial disputation the lowest it has been in 45 years, and why have levels of industrial disputation been so low in general since the 1980s?

Yes - strike action should be a last resort in collective bargaining - but when unfair conditions are foisted upon woekers, there is no other choice but to take action, or to curl up and accept the injustice. Strike action ought be an option - for the sake of redressing the great imbalance of power that exists between capital and labour.

re: 'unrepresentative' 'left-wing socialists' wanting to 'run the country'. Under Hawke and Keating manufacturing was left to wither on the vine, and privatisation of utilities, banks, GBEs occurred - often in breach of the ALP Platform - and hence the ALP's mandate - against the will of the Australian people.

Most Australians are not socialists, I agree. But most socialists in the ALP and elsewhere promote compromise policies that fall way short of any 'socialist objective', and which hold the support of a great many Australian voters and citizens. They seek industry policy, progressive taxation, a strong social wage, a mixed economy, a fair labour market.

The socialists, who you seem to so loathe, are actually more representative of Australian citizens than the neo-liberal ideologues who dominant both major political parties in this country.

Tristan
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 4:53:57 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
When you work you are a servant of the person who employs you. Negotiation of terms and conditions is a privilege, not a right. While unions continue to believe that they have the right to dictate terms and conditions to employers then there is no chance that everyone will be employed for a fair and reasonable terms and conditions. Unions and their members may get what they want but too many others will miss out as, endeavouring to meet unreasonable union demands, other businesses fold or go off-shore and Australians lose employment opportunities.
The union movement has prevented my employment on more than one occasion despite agreeing that my humanitarian volunteer work is incompatible with union membership - I got told to give up helping others by the "caring union movement". Sad really.
That's it for today of course.
Posted by Communicat, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 5:14:00 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
In most cases, a new employee is presented with an AWA and given the choice of 'sign this or work somewhere else'. There is no negotiation. In the case of existing employees, it may be illegal to sack them for refusing to sign, but employers can make a workplace hell for those not behaving in a desired manner.

If an employee excercises their right to withdraw labour by quitting due to unsafe workplaces or unworkable AWA's, they are then called bludgers if they fail to walk straight into another job. And what will happen when all workplaces have these conditions?

Anyone who thinks that there are no unsafe workplaces because of OH&S laws and no bullying or intimidation due to harassment laws is either very naive or kidding themselves. Employers break laws all the time and many are not caught because workers either don't know their rights or are too intimidated to excercise them.

While I agree that striking for political reasons ought to be illegal, it is absolutely necessary for unions and workers to have the ability to look after our working conditions. Employers have proved time and again that they can't be trusted to look after them for us.

Statistics may show low unemployment, but jobs are still hard to get. Unskilled workers, like myself, are aware that the consequences of standing up for yourself are less hours or unemployment.
Posted by iloveasunburntcountry, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 5:20:03 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. All

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