What has the ALP Platform as decided at conference got to do with the policy of the Parliamentary Federal ALP?

The ALP federal cabinet makes policy in government always has always will, the federal shadow cabinet makes policy in opposition always has always will.

Conference has always been a sham, always was, always will be.

Waht do strikes achieve? Sweet FA

What I always find a bit amusing is references to someone or something being undemocratic. Sure, such things may be. However, imagine the opposite scenario, if you will, where some (or maybe even most or all) in a party want one thing, but the leader takes a "principled stand" or does "what's right for X" (where X = the party/the nation/Aussie battlers/people who like riding ponies). I guess it depends very much on your perspective (as well as a person's political success -- try finding anyone who ever voted for Howard by next year: amazingly, there won't be a single person!) as to whether someone is a visionary or a dictator.

Probably what a lot of people on the hard left of politics don't realise is that Kevin Rudd and the ALP won't get in by being hard left, just like the Coalition won't stay in by being hard right. Okay, maybe there's a difference between really being centrist, and being able to talk yourself up as one (and your opposition as being out on the extreme), but that looks to me why Kevin Rudd is going to be successful and why the hard left (either in the ALP or other parties) will get to come along for the ride (rather than missing the boat yet again).

The post from billie (9:26:14 AM) seems to be an attempt to connect opposition to AWAs with the ANZAC spirit.
Let us not forget how the maritime unions used their human right to withdraw their labour during WW2:
In January 1942 while the battle for Singapore was raging, the Waterside Workers' Union (WWF) went on strike in Sydney, forcing the Curtin Government to order Naval personnel to unload ships. The workers went back to work when the PM threatened to remove the workers' exemption from military service.
In March 1943 during the battle for Guadalcanal, there was a 16 day strike in Sydney forcing the Curtin Government to order in troops.
In September 1943 and December 1943 strikes by the Seamens' Union forced the Curtin Government to order Naval ratings to crew ships.
"Lest we forget" indeed.

If we are going to have"unfair dismissal" shouldn't business have the right to claim "unfair resignation" when an employee is trained for months or years then decides to up and leave on a whim or fancy?

There should be no economic recompense in unfair dismissal cases since the lawyers just make merry with semantics.Kevin Rudd says that after 12mths unfair dismissal should apply,but many could just bide their time in the anticipation of getting a big payout.Many in the past made a career under Labor of claiming unfair dismissal,moving from one business to another.

Unfair dismissal should go,but the real issue is the devil in the detail with work place agreements.I see very few notions of equality in these arrangements.The employer draws them up and the employee has to take or leave it.We can simply arrive at a situation whereby oil companies have an unstated agreement to put up the price of petrol on certain days and screw the customer.There should be negotiable and non-negotiable items that are hammered out by an independant body.

If John Howard does not make work place agreements more equitable,he will lose the next election to a bunch of no talent wonders and we will see a really false dawn of economic lies with banana republic senarios,that Paul Keating so infamously alluded to.

The devil is always in the detail,and the framework for these workplace agreements have not been well thought out or well executed.

I agree with Kevin Rudd that strikes should be avoided at all costs, and I'm sure that the author would agree with me.

However, strikes can be vital in ensuring that unreasonable demands, safety concerns and instances of intimidation are met. Yes they should be a last resort, but no, they should never be illegal.

Most employees, union and non-union alike, wish to avoid strikes, but there are times when a strike is the only instrument left to employees. In many cases, these desparate situation are not within a bargaining period.

I will always support the right to strike. The provision for a ballot to be held before industrial action can take place, while seemingly benign, are a hurdle placed by the Howard government to prevent or delay strike action and place significant financial costs on those orgainising industrial action. Rudd appears to be going along with
this.

Communicat:

"When you work you are a servant of the person who employs you. Negotiation of terms and conditions is a privilege, not a right."

I've never been a servant. I've always been a person. With the right to a safe, fair workplace that pays a living wage. Perhaps you should read up on the working conditions of children in the industrial revoution to see what effects your ideas of IR would have.

Here's one to get you started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour#Industrial_Revolution

People are not slaves to their employers.

communicat,

do you run a business? If so, please give me the details so I can post them around the country, along with a copy of your own post.

Servant of the employer? Wages and conditions a privilage?

I have a paragraph-long description for someone like you but I would be banned if I posted it. You are a contemptable individual. Take your warmed-over Hayek recipe for modern-day slavery and shove it up your neo-conservative, economic fundamentalist quince.

The right to withdraw one's labour is truly the difference between freedom and slavery (or serfdom at least). I am deeply disappointed by Rudd's IR policy, it is little more than a revised edition of workchoices. It is only better than Howard's version by the fact that workchoices is the most appaling IR policy in the industrialised world, so nearly any change is an improvement. It is, however, to my way of thinking, unacceptable.

Good on you Tristan for openly embracing socialism. After a long discussion on another forum, we concluded that most Australians do want some measure of socialist policy in government, they are simply unaware of the true meaning of the word as decades of conservative propaganda has firmly embedded in their minds images of goose-stepping red army soldiers, repressive regimes and collapsing economies.

Keep up the good work mate.