Aaron, ALL AND HEDGEHOG, THis is the answer to why C.E.O's have increased their earning to 40 times the average worker's pay, it seems to be "because they can" although the boycott seems to me to be an increasingly good idea, I have also suggested a Boss Watch, to dob in employer's who do the wrong thing by their employees, perhaps the two could go hand in hand, what do you think...Perhaps an award could be drawn up for C.E.O.'s which paid them 4 times the avererage of the other workers in their organisation, and watch the average workers wage jump then....

A Boss watch, name and shame approach, is an essential tactic that should be adopted by the ACTU over the next two years. It is clear these draconian laws will not bite openly over the next three years. Many unions have locked there members conditions down for the next couple of years. Howard and his cronies know that this is the slow boiling of a frog in a pot. He hopes to sneak through the next election claiming that the roof is not falling in.However he and the bosses will understand that the (white ant) dishonest legislation has weakened conditions ready to be knocked over.The ACTU needs and is obligated to keep working Australians fully informed right up to 2007.

TUS,

I agree that it is time fo ra new approach. However I do not see how the ACTU and indivdual unions coul justify spending their members money to assist non-union (non-paying) employee's to negotiate. Similarly, thanks to the new laws, the unions no longer have any mandate to negotiate on the behalf on non-union employee's, therefore there is no need for the unions to monitor the wages and conditions afforded non-union workers by employer's.

Moreover, my proposal would work by requiring producers who wished to use (and qualified) the logo / design on their packaging or promotional material to pay for the privelege. They would probably do so, for the simple fact is that it is miniscule in comparison to their advertising budgets. I also envisage that their will be an explosion in the number of union affiliated legal firms in this country, providin cheap / pro bono services (including negotiation) to member's.

SHONGA/HEDGEHOG
I do believe that a journal could be used to effectively out BAD employer's, whilst remaining within the constraints of political free speech. This would have the additional effect of adding a negative consideration to employer's, as they would be likely to lose their accreditation if they employed such person's.

I am nearly finished with the detailed proposal, however I am struggling with the marketing side of it - any assistance gratefully accepted.

I am really interested in the idea of 'boss-watch' - it would be very easy to set-up a blog, but how to keep it free of claims of defamation? Also could be mis-used. However would love to place my previous employer at top of list as warning to prospective employees.

Aaron looking forward to the details of your proposal - unfortunately don't know enough to be of much assistance.

There is nothing family friendly about IR changes and it presupposes an equal playing field which doesn't exist. Also, while I am skilled and articulate I do lack confidence and desperately need a job which pays enough for (modest) mortgage - not an equal playing field where employee needs job more than employer needs employee (administrative workers are a dime a dozen).

Also changes are based on buoyant economy, what happens when economy slows?

By the time the effects of IR changes are fully realised Howard will have long since retired. He full well knows that the sky won't fall in immediately. Loss of living standards will be slow but inevitable.

Aaron/Scout: Aaron re your proposals mate I sent mine via my Union Secretary, who then passed them on to the A.C.T.U. I suggest you do likewise mate, they will have the expertise to do the marketing, good luck. Scout, the way to avoid defamation is to post the good companies, leaving out the bad, that way if you want to buy an appliance, and the business you were thinking of purchasing from is not on the list, you simply change to one that is, no defamation. Hopefully this could be incorporated into Aarons ideas, of having the A.C.T.U. approval sticker, we can apply pressure to the largest of employeers if we apply ourselves, and stick together. It seems that the almost defenceless workers will be the first to feel the wrath of the IR laws, e.g. retail and hospitality we have to suppot them, because if they are defeated, we will be next.

Aaron, as I said on another thread, I think the idea of unions giving a tick of approval to businesses has some merit, although it would easily be open to abuse.

Would the ACTU with hold the 'logo' from a business which didn't have a union but otherwise treated its employees fair and well.

There is also a problem with public service employees. Unionised labour is much more prevalent in the public service than in the private sector. Would the ACTU approve of State or Federal Governments or individual departments such as police or health.
There is also conflict of interest when you have a Labor Party government in power (as is the case in every state at the moment.)

Here you would have the Government seeking an official endorsement from a lobby group which was not only a major political donor but also a major source of candidates and members. Certainly there is the potential for corruption. Would all the publc servants be told to vote for the Libs if the Labor government didn't treat them well.

At least though the idea is a positive one (kinda like Australia made logo) not the name and shame method endorsed by others (which I suppose would be like denouncing foreign goods rather than promoting Aussie goods).

It is definitely better than backdoor thuggery and bullying, which has happened in the past.

And (I suppose ironically given some of the opposition to "the market forces" I have promoted for) it would be a capitalist response to the IR changes. Employers would be rewarded in the marketplace if people thought they were doing good and they would be punished if they were doing bad.

t.u.s