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 > Right to withdraw labour is a human right > Comments

Right to withdraw labour is a human right : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 24/4/2007

Rudd’s position on WorkChoices is likely to prevail with barely a whimper, with a pre-conference stitch-up reducing ALP democracy to a media stunt.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. 12
  10. All
Lest we forget that on ANZAC Day last year 3 miners were trapped underground. Two miners emerged after 19 days. The mine had been bought for a song by Macquarie who had placed all workers on AWAs.

I am shocked that the right to strike over safety issues will remain illegal.

I enjoy looking at the grand of dames of 19th century architecture which would have been demolished if Jack Mundy and the BLF had not placed Green Bans on those sites.
Posted by billie, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 9:26:14 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
Well, I guess as my Daddy used to say Tristan, never let the facts get in the way of telling a good story. I guess what's in your favour here is the fact that the WorkChoices legislation is complicated and most people reading your article will not have read it. Let me therefore correct a few matters of fact: the new legislation [and therefore Kevin Rudd's alignment with it] far from removing the right to strike has, in fact, entrenched that right -- for both employees and employers. When negotiating collective agreements both parties are permitted to "withdraw their labour"; it is called "protected action". It is only in the negotiation of individual workplace agreements [AWA's] that industrial action is not permitted, by either party. But this is only appropriate, as strikes are collective action and logically inappropriate for AWA's. It is also illegal for an employer to terminate an employee for refusing to sign an AWA. Wake up and examine the facts, Tristan: of the entire Australian workforce, only 21% are members of unions -- and that becomes 17% if we eliminate public employees. Your antiquated socialist views have been rejected by the majority of the world's workforce, not just Australia's.
Posted by Doc Holliday, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 10:34:12 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
I take it Doc Halliday that you have never signed an AWA.

I have signed contracts where I knew what the award wage was and my contract was paying well above the award that was fine. As an experienced young professional at one stage I didn't keep track of the relevant award and was surprised to discover the Western Australian mining company I was working for was paying me 2/3 graduate starting wage, so I left that job and quadrupled my pay within 12 months with 3 job hops across a few state boundaries.

I have also in recent years signed an AWA. There was no pretense of negotiating ability, you may be rostered on once you return the signed AWA. When there was a dispute about minimum call out times, I discovered that the only copy of the full agreement existed at the employers office. I had signed an abbreviated copy of the agreement that only covered full time employees. The employer was using pattern bargaining to write the AWAs of their casualised 1000 strong workforce.

My 19 year old nephew has had to set up his own company to earn the right to distribute glove box size Yellow Pages at shopping centres. He is responsible for his tax payments and superannuation and public liability. Puhleeze!

In the mean time we have corporate moguls celebrating his 70th birthday with amazing displays of excess published on the front page of The Australian and according to rumour he attempted to screw the events suppliers into the ground.
Posted by billie, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 10:54:14 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
My poor billie. It is obvious that you have not noticed that a few fundamental things have changed in the 45 years since Jack Mundy and his mates Joe Owens and Bob Pringle ran their BLF fiefdom. Workers no longer have to strike over safety issues, as Australia has some of the toughest OH&S laws in the world, with personal penalties of up to $2.5 million and 5 years in jail for failing to provide a safe workplace. Any person can make a complaint to an industrial inspectorate, which will be vigorously followed up. You might also bear in mind that Jack and the boys used their Green Ban strategy as a cover for, and a threat in relation to, their practice of industrial extortion. The BLF used this cover in devastating conjunction with the (then) new strategy of strikes in the middle of concrete pours.
Posted by Doc Holliday, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 11:01:18 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
Doc - yes there is a semblance of 'protected industrial action' in AWAs, but it is only during the negotiating period for an enterprise agreement and there is no flexibility to respond to redundancies, unfair dismissals, health and safety concerns, and other workplace issues such as the victimisation of employees. Also - and this is the crunch - the Minister or the AIRC has the ability to declare any strike action illegal, and especially in the case of the building industry - excessive sanctions apply to both unions and individual workers. It's true that under Keating there was only limited protection industrial action. But I think we need to go further - for the right to withdraw labour is a human right - without which we are practically slaves.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 11:12:20 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
well said

slaves yes

all these conditions are nothing

the one thing that labor has not agreed to is the most important.

just like our anzacs and those who followed what was it about labor has no idea about that either when it comes to the people.

why have anzac day if labor is doing the opposite to what our defence for fought for.

Labor is the traitors party

www.tapp.org.au

if you want real change become a member or candidates as both wanted.

I am a ex army med discharged soldier.
I am treated as a waste byproduct by labor and liberal, all like me are treated this way and all others the same except for anzac day

become a member become a candidate

and fight for what is right

www.tapp.org.au
Posted by tapp, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 11:58:52 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. 12
  10. All

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