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 > WorkChoices - whose side are you on? > Comments

WorkChoices - whose side are you on? : Comments

By Nicholas Gruen, published 21/10/2005

Nicholas Gruen discusses the industrial relations reforms and the impact on low paid and unemployed people.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Based on personal experience, I trust unions and employers to roughly the same degree. Neither of them are the least bit concerned about those who do not have jobs.
Posted by Ian, Tuesday, 25 October 2005 2:24:20 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
Ian, you are quite right, the unions can't help you until you have a job, only the employers can give you a job. However most businesses I have worked for are understaffed, and should hire more people, but take the easy option and work their workers into an early grave, with the workload they expect one person to do. These same people are supposed to be reasonable well adjusted human beings when you sit down with them to sign their AWA. I have news for you mate these laws make it even easier for the employeer to exploit the unemployed.So if you want to be exploited, work for a pittance, sacrifice all the conditions the A.C.T.U has won for the workforce over the last 100 years,and remain unemployed, I'd suggest you vote for Howard again, honest John {bonsai} Howard, bonsai is a little Bush
Posted by SHONGA, Tuesday, 25 October 2005 1:50:15 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
Shonga,

The ACTU is only 78 years old.

Regards,
Terje.
Posted by Terje, Wednesday, 26 October 2005 6:21:06 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
Terje, do you have an arguement, or are you just nitpicking, if you find my arguement difficult to understand, just replace 100 with 78 and that should do it for you, good luck, by your comment, you may need it. If you have something constructive to add to the debate, I would certainly like to hear it.
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 26 October 2005 1:13:16 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
Gruen has a limited perspective on what it means to be relegated to low paid jobs, or no job at all. If you don't fit the 'profile' of what employers demand as potential employees - if you are over 50 or have minor disabilities which exclude you from performing previous skills, then you are denied access to the paid workforce in anything like equitable conditions. Thus we become permanent liabilities on the State.

His "better ways" of managing unemployment evade the reality that no person chooses their parents, and therefore no one chooses to be less capable, less active, less intelligent, less charismatic, or less able to embellish their desirable attributes than others. Governments should be required to ensure everyone who is capable of useful work has the means of acquiring work within their capacities.

The answer is to make the people who have power to affect other peoples' employment prospects feel the affects of their decisions.
If wealthy individuals and corporations were required to pay a surtax based on a specified level of poverty within a community, then they would be less inclined to sack employees to increase shot term profit, and consider long term interests by taking on apprentices and other less skilled personel.
But of course this wont happen while governments represent the wealthy people and companies who pay for their election, rather than representing the people who are forced to vote for them.
Posted by Nous, Wednesday, 26 October 2005 1:34:30 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 latest situation is that an unemployed person has no choice but to accept a position, regardless of whether they offer only an individual contract or not. This makes a mockery of the suggestion that if the person does not lie the offer they may refuse to take the position. Or is possible that any unemployed school leaver is capable of reaching a fair contractual agreement with an employer, with no possibility of being able to refuse the offer of any position.

This tends to suggest that not only is the contract unfair, but with the potential for losing Centrelink support being the result of exercising the employee's only bargaining chip, these contracts would be demonstrably unconscionable. No contract is binding if one side of the agreement may coerce the other into agreement, however in this instance, that is exactly what can, and invariably will occur.

Additionally, there is no way the proposed small-business exemption from either redundancy pay or unfair dismissal will be held to be a valid use of the corporations power. This is because not all business' employing 0-15/0-20 or 0-100 employees are incorporated. The High Court has held that it is not 'sufficient to identify corporations in order to affect others (Re Dingjan; Ex parte McNally).
Posted by Aaron, Thursday, 27 October 2005 5:30:46 AM
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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