Rehctub-<the country boomed under the Liberals>.
The Liberals presided for years over the shonky Banking System that collapsed and sent the world into GFC meltdown about 3months after Labour gained office.

The Capitalist banking system then required a Socialist bail out by the Taxpayers of Australia.
We live in a Democracy. Which means Government for Demos- the people as a whole.
This means the government does not just pander to the Capitalists or the Socialists but keeps a reasoned control on both for the good of the nation as a whole. They failed to keep this reign
On the Capitalist bankers and put the whole economic future of the people of Australia at risk.

It was the Labour party who gave us Medicare, which successive Liberal governments not only scrapped once, but tried to scrap again as an election platform, but it was too popular by then for them to do it. The Liberals also opposed Superannuation, this again was another Labour Party Innovation. What community beneficial policies can you think of that the Liberals have ever bought in except maybe the GST and Work Choices. The benefits of which a both dubious.

579....says one thing before an election and does something different after

I guess something along the limes of the carbon tax is what you are saying hey.

Unfortunately, CN has no choice other than to rid the public service of lots of dead wood. Unfortunately, some good people will be caught up in the clean out.

At the end of the day he is trying to unwind the mess created by labor's twenty odd years of reckless governing.

If he succeeds, he will be a hero, if he fails, we will still win as many of this dead wood he would have sacked is protected under labor's IR laws.

CHERFUL
What the libs provide is confidence and it is confidence that drives the nation, not borrowing in an attempt to keep the wheels turning.

I also recall they had a pretty workable boat people policy.

Although work choices didn't effect me, it went too far, according to the masses but so to has FWA, what we need is middle ground.

As for the GFC, few can deny what a task it was for labor, especially given their lack of experience, however, it was looming well before labor took an axe to IR.

As I have said before, uncertain times are not the times for change and, not only did they change IR, but they also changed our boarder protection policy, and the results speak for themselves.

Individual workplace agreements by whatever name are a technique to undermine collective agreements and union influence. Negotiation between and individual employee and a corporate employer is not a fair one - the power really resides with the employer.

If you want good performing teams you need reward teams not individual workers. You want a championship team not a team of champions.

In my last job there were individual workplace agreements but they had to be all the same!

However I was keen to have my own agreement to reduce my unpaid work. I worked a lot of excess hours and I could by giving up a 1 week of annual leave for an extra weeks pay. This meant that I could be paid for the extra work without losing any time off (just substituted extra hours for accepted flexible hours then took days off which compensated for the loss of annual leave). Even though this was a win-win for me it was frowned upon by the union.

My choice was to enter an individual agreement (which had to be the same for each level) or stick with an enterprise agreement (negotiated by the union) which didnt allow much optional flexibility. Neither the the union nor the employers were operating in the spirit of the WRA and consequently very little addressed the matter of productivity of the enterprise.

I am not in favour of individual agreements I favour flexible enterprise agreements.

The problem with collective agreements are that they are a one size fits all approach, whereas AWAs have the potential to be abused.

The combination of both is where conditions between employer and employee can be negotiated to the benefit of both, with the fall back to the EBA if no agreement can be reached.

We used exactly this scheme very effectively, and when the AWAs were prohibited under FWA, the workers were the most annoyed.

If you want proof of how bad the FWA system has worked, just look at the sackings, (non gov) the union interference and the number of under employed.

People must be able to work under conditions that suit them, not the unions.

Remember that under the previous regime if you have any problem with such agreements, "you can always bring your mum in to negotiate for you".

"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?
(On the other hand, why even bother with agreements - same argument?)

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.
(Not so. Pay rates are determined by the LOWEST rate being offered, not the highest - that's how competition really works. You have to match your competitor's costs to stay in business, especially wages).

The real outcome of the last arrangement spoke for itself, as seen in the post-Workchoices election. To repeat it and expect a different result is just crazy.