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 coalition’s costly obsession with individual workplace agreements > Comments

The coalition’s costly obsession with individual workplace agreements : Comments

By Luke Williams, published 7/9/2012

On Industrial relations, three is the magic number – Abbott is absent on detail and big on the verbigeration of bland three-pronged slogans.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
As far as IR policy is concerned, the coalition has been waiting for FWA's chickens to hatch.

With the union thuggery at Grocon with the FWA impotent to act, the FWA's incompetent action on the HSU and Thomson, and the record spike in work days lost to strike action, it is becoming clear to all that the Labor government has serious IR issues.

To sell changes in policy to the public, a clear reason to do so is a big help. As the reasons become apparent, Labor's argument for maintaining the status quo start to look more ideological than in Australia's interest.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 7 September 2012 11:18:58 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
People can't have it both ways.

On the one hand, labor keeps telling us how clever they are and, how low our unemployment is.

So, what's there to worry about with ind agreements?

Let's face it, with so many jobs out there for the taking, (there must be as unemployment is s-ooo low), any GOOD WORKER would simply tell a dodgy boss to go FYS, should he/ she be offered anything but a fair wage.

So, what is it, are we in great shape, as Mr Swan and CO continue to tell us, or, is this simply another lie.

BTW, if a not so good worker wants a fair days pay, for a poor days work, then how does that work.

remember, they can't have it both ways.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 7 September 2012 3:06:19 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
What nonsense to equate free individual agreements with the interests of big business!

Laws that forbid individuals to enter agreements as they please are an insult and hurt the so-called "employee" at least as much as they hurt the so-called "employer". What we are having is two individuals in agreement, and the government intruding into their personal relations. That is unacceptable!

As for big business, true, both Labor and Liberals support them, at the expense of ordinary people, tax-payers and small businesses - and that has to stop (but not at the expense of forbidding individuals to make whatever agreements between them as they see fit).
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 7 September 2012 5:44:06 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
I think we need a new version of Godwin's Law (which says that the first person to liken someone to a Nazi loses the argument) to embrace discussion on industrial relations. The first person to introduce the term "Union thuggery" and/or "Craig Thompson" loses the game! Ooops! That probably coumts me out!
Posted by Stevenroger, Friday, 7 September 2012 6:08:47 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
Yuyutsu, while I agree that governments from both sides favor big business over small, the reality is that the PEOPLE have the power to stop big business, we, myself included, simply choose not to. And thats a shame, but they have simply become too convenient by half.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 7 September 2012 9:01:39 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
We've always had common law agreements, which allowed employers to offer individual agreements that stood the no disadvantage test.
We could even trade away, so called unfair dismissals, for far higher, if limited, unemployment benefits?
Albeit, those benefits could impose an entirely inflexible learn or earn responsibility on the able, where the taxpaying community was able to realize some tangible return for their largesse?
My preferred model, would include work for the dole schemes that obliged the able-bodied, to give one months labour in return for two months worth of "average wage" support.
This would get them into the habit or rising early and arriving at the designated location at the predetermined time, ready and dressed for work! It would also include time to apply for available jobs or consider/opt for relocation?
Work for the dole, could include grubbing out and burning noxious weeds, planting trees, or hand placed rock work, designed to remediate erosion, or repair roads, etc/etc.
If they wanted to avoid that drudgery, they could attend courses and pass meaningful exams, that would re-skill/accredit them for real jobs.
Such schemes would self terminate at the end of say, six/twelve months. But could be large enough to encourage employers not to be too choosy or "discriminatory", by limiting the then available workforce or labour pool.
The ability to dismiss any genuinely unsatisfactory worker, without penalty, would encourage employers to take on and give more partly qualified useful productive workers a go; and finish training them, honing their new skills, on the job.
[Repealing payroll tax would also assist in that outcome!]
Some of those jobs could also fit in with obligatory work for the dole schemes, for mature age/adult workers?
I agree, Abbott needs to get on the front foot and flesh out his workplace policies ASAP, if only to hose down work choices flummery?
This scheme would all but pay for itself, with more people added to the tax paying pool and increased discretionary spending demographic, that would surely follow!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 8 September 2012 12:30:34 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. All

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