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 > The politics of IR policy > Comments

The politics of IR policy : Comments

By Fred Argy, published 22/5/2007

Who is winning politically on industrial relations policy?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. All
If one takes a closer look at Labor's policy one will find that Rudd has placed the Unions in a box, something Howard could never do. They can no longer represent non-union members nor do they have the automatic right to negotiate during any negotiations. They must be ask by their members before they can represent them. So one may say that Labor has won the battle. Business certainly thinks their on winner except on the issue of AWAs.

Right now there is no good will been shown by all parties. Unions cannot accept the fact that the concept of Equal Pay for Equal Work is dead and Business believes that profits can only rise when they cut pay and working conditions or export business to a Third World Country.

But the facts are, there are no winners. There is only one way this Nation can be a winner, when Work Choices are abolished. When all parties return to collective bargaining and take a business like approach to Industrial Relations in this country.

The solution its quite simple, when all parties take the approach that the end result produces a win for the Employer and a win for the Employee. Who will be the big winner this nation, we call Australia.
Posted by southerner, Tuesday, 22 May 2007 10:29:48 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
Good on you Southerner for an excellent analysis, as a retired old cockie who always believed in fair play, and in his retirement has gained Honours in political philosophy, could reckon that its about time terms like economic rationalism and free market should be changed to what they both really represent, economic skullduggery with mostly racketeers running society.
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 22 May 2007 1:48:56 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
The major problem with the labour market is that at one end you have an open market with no worker protection and forced wages and at other you have the unionised, high regulation labour force which impedes productivity growth. The new IR laws fail to address the necessary reform to find a comprimise and a fairer more productive labour force.

A new system need to look at unions being more involed in increasing productivity increase and responsible for meeting productivity targets set by a independent body to reflect international competitiveness.

We cannot afford to aleinate our workforce our our businesses in the new global economy and need to look at comprise rather than sweeping conservative reform to create a more 'capatilist' economy, and seek an economy in partnership with our society
Posted by kaggen, Tuesday, 22 May 2007 9:40:37 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
The Coalition keeps talking about employment be at a historical high; however, the casualisation of working hours means that a period of relatively few part time jobs is being compared with the current situation where 30% of jobs are part time. When figures and statements are provided by the Coalition that are not quite true and we know that we have been conned elsewhere ("Work Choices") then the credibility of the government waivers in relation to their claim they have been good economic managers.

Mr. Hockey has just acknowledged that they made a blunder with "Work Choices", it means that the $55 million dollars spent on the add campaign might as well have been shredded. Those millions and other millions squandered on add campaigns could have been used to better develop communities. But infrastructure is a dirty word as far as the Coalition government is concerned.

Mr. Howard has indicated in todays news that the Liberals will be rolled at the next election; lets face it, he is trying to manipulate the electorate.

Divide and conquer is the mantra of the Howard Government; dividing employers and employees ("Work Choices") during a difficult time of International development doesn't make sense.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 23 May 2007 7:44:13 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
The government still hates the worker. Not only does WorstChoices destroy pay and conditions for workers but the government is still hell bent on sending jobs to India.

Despite the fact that some sections of Australian business are trying to establish Sydney as a financial hub for Asian money the government has let the contract for managing the Future Fund to Northern Trust a small north american bank i.e. we are talking less than 5 branches.
Does this tell us the colour of Peter Costello's parachute?
What is the relationship between Peter Costello and Paul Costello?
How much money has been passed in bribes?

I am sick of ringing a share registry help desk and having to state my query 3 different ways because the person on the phone doesn't speak English well enough to do any thing other than reset passwords providing the query is phrased in Chinglish with tonal lilt.

Awarding management of the Future Fund to Northern Trust is yet another example of how the Liberal government promotes Ausralian industry.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 23 May 2007 8:13:17 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. All

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