Before we even start Joe, what are the odds that you will read and engage us right here OLO?

Are we just talking amongst ourselves - or will you make yourself available?

Please reply -

Obvious and pathetic scaremongering from a business lackey.

I wonder who wrote this editorial for JH?

The idea that the current Australian Gov't is standing up for small business and families is contradicted by its approach to climate change. It is advocating nuclear electricity as a key component of the answer.

Nuclear electricity cannot go ahead without massive taxpayer subsidy and increase in community risk acceptance. Who is going to pay the tax? I do not expect any significant proportion of the underwriting to be made by the proponents of nuclear reactor construction projects. It will be the usual taxpayers, small businesses and families.

Returning to the issue of risk acceptance, we have the difficulties of insuring against radioactive contamination. How is the insurance risk going to be underwritten? Are we expected to leave our lawnmowers in the front yard and flee to Wollongong when our local reactor burps? (I'm hoping there won't be a reactor in Wollongong)

Nuclear electricity, which I wouldn't expect JH to mention in "his" opinion piece, exemplifies the farcical nature of the current Government. They talk about moving into the future, but they offer "black-and-white-TV" ideas like nuclear electricity, that have been discounted as sustainable energy sources since the 1970's. They carry on about how union bosses rule the ALP, while remaining blind to the fact that the large corporations, which stand to gain profits from nuclear electricity deployment projects (for example), appear to be the de-facto bosses of the Howard Ministry.

I wonder if Joe Hockey and his advisors, reaearchers, speechwriters and minders have the subtlety to understand Liberal critics like Malcom Fraser? Nothing in "Joe's" opinion piece suggests it.

So what do we have, an industrial relations policy which is based on what the small minority of mining companies wants, which relates to a miniscule portion of Australian workers and pits individal workre against the might of large corporations when negotiating work conditions or do we have one where the minority in the mining industry are somewhat discomforted but the bulk of Australian workers do not have to face the large corporations alone when negotiating work condition? Sure, there would be disadvantages to Labor's policy but there is no way that it is as one sided or elitist as the Howard policy. Are we an economy or a society/community of people who have some regard for all Australians?
Credibility is not an issue for Hockey. Either that, he has no idea of what real life is like for the bulk of Australians or he just does not care. He certainly refuses to deal with these issues but merely repeats his dogma every time he speaks on the issues.
The Hockey/Howard philosophy is similar to that of Bush's America - that the only people who count are big business.

Joe has left Sunrise for a stint at the Karl Rove Scool of Base Politics.

This sort of drivel obviously plays well with the blue rinsers on the Gold Coast and the "I'm not sure who I'll vote for this time" brigade of swinging voters who really always vote Liberal but want to look like they have thought about it.

I would be concerned if I was Joe that I was having to shore up the base this close to an election because the current line of nonsense being spouted won't mean much to the real swinging voters out there.

Couldn't agree more with the first four posters. As a nurse, I talk to dozens of people a week on the matter of IR and Workchoices and haven't heard one good word said about it, however I have heard more than one of my colleagues state that while these unfair IR laws are in place, they'll never vote again for the Coalition Government, suggesting that they are Coalition voters who have been sadly disillusioned.
Face facts Joe (and Henry Thornton), John Howard is a tired old man whose political ambitions are stuck in the Menzies era. Every policy he introduces, especially Workchoices, is done with a certain dogma that Australian people are getting very much sick and tired of. In many respects, he's followed Menzies political role to the letter. Both even spent time on the back bench only to come back as "champion leaders" but that time has passed. While Menzies was "British to his bootstraps," Howard is "USA to his bootstraps" and that's proven to be a very bad choice.
Howard's race to nuclear is a race to disaster. A race to sustainable energy would have melded him to the hearts of the majority of Australians, but no! Once again, he has to follow out-dated ideas that, as one poster suggested, will prove to be a further burden on tax payers.
I'm sick of proping up Howard and his "big business" cronies and in relation to Global warming (yes, his "mates" have even softened that idea by calling it "climate change"), there's a groundswell of recognition in Australia that realises that sitting on one's hands while our environment fries around us and telling us nuclear power is the answer, is not simply going to save the future of our kids and their offspring. It only goes to show how out of touch Howard really is, but I suppose you have to give the man a break. Dementia, even in it's early form is a terrible affliction.
Wildcat.

a few years ago, the catch phrase du jour was: "expecting a different result from the same system and same input is insanity."

that is, unfortunately, the situation in australia. no one of any stature, or at least of any celebrity, says anything new. 'not done here' is the sum of discussion. but the old ideas have brought us to the brink of ecological disaster. kevvie doesn't know what to do, and johnny doesn't think anything should be done. not their fault, the structure of political society strictly limits what can be achieved.

we need some new policies, and we need them fast. so:

1. the electorate should demand democracy, on the swiss model. people participating in policy formation will be vastly more active in planning and execution.

2. outlaw labor unions. replace them with co-operative labor companies. the co-op will provide the protection of numbers and law while subjecting the workforce to market restraint.

3. remove all taxes. taxation is looting, made customary with time and submission. since it is inherently unfair, by design, it creates an 'us and them' society, resulting in crime, unemployment, and a heavy bookkeeping burden on business. to fund social activities, everyone should contribute to the national treasury in proportion as they receive material benefit. computers have made this very easy: every (non cash)transaction passes through a bank computer now, x per cent can be clipped off.

4. require public records of all public transactions to be uploaded to the web as performed. the result will be 'no fraud' and 'best practice' in business and public affairs.

5. get out of the warfare business. it'll save a lot of money. it will stop inspiring people to teach us they don't appreciate our soldiers on their land.

I like your brave new World DEMOS. I just hope I live long enough to see it, but unfortunately, we don't have any leaders either now or in the foreseeable future that will create the changes we need to implement your ideas. It's tragic that we've allowed ourselves to reach the stage whereby we're forced to vote for one of two political parties who's "future" depends so strongly on the "past."
As I said in my above post, Australian people are beginning to wake up to this political sham, but we have no one to turn to so we vote as we've always done in the short term. The big concern is that by the time we break free from the current mould, it will be too late to put in place the ideas and infrastructure needed to assure some kind of future for our grandchildren.
Wildcat.

BHP Billiton's glove puppet is becoming very boring.

Why worry about "trade" unions if you do not care about other unions.

Nearly all members of cabinet have law degrees and are members of various bar associations (lawyers unions), others used to lead farmers unions another used to lead the doctor's union.

All NSW members of cabinet have law degrees from Sydney University.

No ticket no start is alive and well in the Law and Medicine.

If Chip Goodyear doesn't like Labors IR policy it shows me they are doing something right.

Unfortunately, this man Hockey represents me in parliament.

As a result I have followed his career with more than the usual vague contempt in which I hold the majority of money-grubbing, self-centred trough-swillers that constitute that august body.

And it isn't at all edifying.

One of his briefs has been "Minister for Small Business and Tourism"

Hockey has absolutely no experience of small business, having moved from being a student "activist" (if a young Liberal can be called active) at university into politics, with only a slight detour... into a lawyer's office.

Consequently it was hardly a surprise when he did absolutely nothing for the small business part of his portfolio, while he was a regular "opener" of new resorts, hotels, even ferries. Minister for long lunches, in fact.

But let me not suggest for a minute that this lack of experience (or trough-swilling) is unique to our boy.

Mr Hockey contends:

>>The cost of not representing the entire community is bad policy<<

The implication is that Howard's Cabinet *does* represent the entire community.

I think not.

Of Howard's seventeen Ministers, no fewer than ten are lawyers. Howard, of course, was a provincial Sydney solicitor before entering politics, so that's a total of eleven out of eighteen. 61%. And Hockey's key point?

>>70 per cent of Rudd's frontbench are former union officials<<

I wonder whom the public holds in greater respect, trade unionists or lawyers?

Now, there's a philosophical question for our times...

Incidentally, of the remaining seven, one (Downer) is a career politician. Two were farmers. One was an Estate Agent. One a GP. One a journalist.

And one (Mal Brough) an intriguing (and slightly mysterious) background as a manager of a telecommunications company (unspecified), proprietor of a wholesale business (unspecified) and a partner in a trade show and promotions business. He sounds almost human.

So, Mr Hockey, sling your mud. It just might come back to you.

Here we go again - 'the union bosses' are back under the bed and the insults to the intellect and integrity of the Australian worker keep coming.
Union membership is down because current employers, taking full advantage of the existing draconian labour laws, won't employ union members. Very small business (about one to ten employees) has always employed non union labour because the virtual 'one on one' management/worker relationship tends to attract those workers who love sweetheart deals and are too miserable to pay union dues although happy to take advantage of hard won union conditions - there is nothing new here. Also, if I were you Joe, I would avoid bringing attention to Julia Gillard. Ms Gillard has thrashed you in every public debate so far - you haven't won a point.
I note also, among many other things in your nonsensical rant, that the title of your piece is in the present tense - a Freudian slip? Or an open acknowledgement that you are about to be beaten? As I see it, your best chance is to convene a combined cabinet prayer meeting, and pray for another Tampa. You can fool some of the people......etc.

Yes Joe Hockey - I am in agreement. Labor thuggery is not my cup of tea either.

However, nor are you or your cohorts.

You are also yesterday's man and your short-sighted party policy on nuclear energy clearly portrays the Liberal party as environmental vandals. That's some legacy you plan to leave for the next generation when your very own experts advise that uranium will run out in 50 years - 80 if you're "lucky!"

You may deny anthropogenic climate change - that's your perogative. You cannot deny the desecration of our eco systems and public health through excessive industrial pollution, a result of your party's sycophantic love affair with the big polluters who dump unregulated, uncontrolled and unmitigated toxic emissions over communities and the environment.

Both you and your opposition now want to greatly increase the toxic exposure by allowing the expansion of the very dirty and dangerous industry of uranium mining. We well know that renewable energies are treated as a joke by your ill-informed colleagues, obsessed with profits, where they regard the current and future citizens of this nation as simple cannon fodder.

For what it's worth, Mr Hockey, this Liberal voter ain't voting Liberal no more!

I have news for you, Mr Hockey. Regardless of official figures, we don't live in a era of low inflation. We live in an era of high inflation thanks to skyrocketing rents and house prices. And that's partly to do with conservative policy such as underfunding of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, grants (bribes) to first home buyers and rental subsidies. The result? Around 100,000 people in Australia are homeless and many more struggle to pay their rent, mortgage or rates. And that is one outstanding reason why people can't afford even union membership - even though they may understand unions provide a modicum of protection against their boss' unreasonable demands.

And if you are tuning in, Mr Hockey, I'll ask you this - if Workchoices is such fantastic policy why wasn't advertised in detail in the 2004 Federal Election? And why wasn't the legislation even ready until after the Election? Workchoices has no legitimacy as far as I'm concerned. It wasn't even on the table until the Coalition realised it had a majority in the Senate.

Disgusting opportunism and toading to the Business Council of Australia.

When the GST was being talked about it was Big Joe who fluffed his lines. He was asked the price of a bottle of Coca Cola under the proposed GST (an item costing less than $2). Poor Joe couldn't even work it out. And then Big Joe was accused of being asleep at the wheel when HIH went belly-up because he was the portfolio minister. Joe looked like a fish out of water as the difficult questions were fired at him over that crash. Why doesn't Howard hide this professional idiot somewhere. How 'bout Minister in Charge of Government Stationery.

A letter writer to The Age today reckons that the founder of the Liberal Party, Bob Menzies (Ming) being anything but supportive of the central plank of the Howard Government's AWAs, and that the Howard Government's broader economic settings "also fit neatly into the Menzian mould".

Readers should judge for themselves how some of R. G. Menzies' political life would fit with the Howard way: as a QC, Menzies represented unions in a number of key High Court cases; as attorney-general and minister for railways in the Victorian Parliament, he sought to regulate and control the burgeoning road transport industry, and he sought to make the railways pay instead of subsidising farmers' freight costs; in the Federal Parliament, he was deeply involved in the creation of the National Insurance Bill, designed to provide for medical cover and pensions for all working people, and he eventually resigned from the ministry in protest on a matter of principle; he initiated vast injections of Commonwealth funds into the (state-owned) universities, including Commonwealth scholarships that gave large numbers of students a free tertiary education; his governments funded an enormous expansion in research in universities and in the CSIRO; and on and on.

Geoffrey Heard, Cheltenham

DEMOS we have labour companies at the moment, they make the individual owners of the labour companies very, very rich eg Julia Ross, Rod Carnegie.

Not sure what advantage AWAs give employers who hire staff through labour hire companies?

Not sure how relevant AWAs are to the growing legions of low paid workers working as subcontractors.

Really can't see why mining companies will not be allowed to hire workers on individual contract under Labor, I have worked for a mining company under an individual contract when the Arbitration Commission existed. Oh, I see, workers will be forced to work on contract because the award will be abolished.

What other large employers are there? The army - no one will deny them a pay rise, ditto the police. That leaves teachers and nurses, female dominated professions, they should be a push over.

I can't help sharing Rudd's impression that Joe Hockey is a decent bloke with a crappy job, so I'm not inclined to blame him personally for this drivel. It's his party's line and his job is to spruik that.

When it comes to unions, the difference between the workers unions and the business unions is name alone. Why not be honest about it and change Business Council to Business Union?

These bodies are organisations with spokespeople, set up to represent the interests of their members and they're no more afraid of heavying and scare tactics than workers unions are. I imagine the biggest difference is their access to funding. Corporations unions don't seem to be having any problems there

Your Governmant was not satisfied with their gradual stripping away of Worker's hard fought for conditions that you got so confident you went all the way and gutted what was left Now cop the consequences and understand that it is not 'Union Bosses' who are going to give you lot the big "A" but the working families you have not served in your haste to please YOUR Corporate bosses.

None of the above posters have addressed the real issue:That politically, economically, and socially the Unions have the power, the wings of an eagle attached to a pigeonhead.

See Australia Calls America-http://australiacalls.blogspot.com

None of the posters have addressed the "issue", because the issue doesn't exist. The idea that "union power" is a threat is absolutely ridiculous. This is simply another one of Howard's disgusting attempts to scare people into voting against their own interests.

We know where Joe Hockey stands.

But where does Rudd stand?

Lets have a quick look at his major economic policy anouncements?

First Rudd decides the unskilled and low paid workers, many of who cannot afford computers let alone internet access fees, shall help subsidise a super fast internet service that is mostly of benefit to big business.

Next the unrealistic 6 month period of grace in the unfair dismissal laws. That will simply mean those same unskilled and low paid workers in small business will get a job and the sack every six months. ie temporary employment as small employers take action to avoid the possibility of unplanned large expensive unfair dismissal claims. The ultimate effect of temp employment is an inability to borrow.

Followed by a fantastic proposal that will see those same workers who are renting or struggling to buy their own home will impotently sit by and watch as their taxes subsidise the refurbishment of million dollar homes by owners with incomes of $200,000 a year.

Now with Labor's latest IR proposals Rudd's Labor doesn't just want to put in jeopardy the jobs of those unskilled and low paid and force up their interest rates it also wants to force those same struggling battlers to pay Union Fees and subsidise the Labor Party.

Of course Labor is for the struggling and battling in Australia (yeah, yeah)... it's probably just a case of Rudd not thinking through the ultimate catastrophic effects of his simplistic policy solutions. Or could it simply be a case of a millionaire labor man and his highly paid mates not having an inkling of the lack of choice lifestyle of the real struggling poor bastards.

And hardly a whimper from ACOSS and other welfare organisations. Somethings cockeyed somewhere?

Assertion A: "Unions are big and powerful and scary enough to run the country for their own benefit and bugger up the economy."

Assertion B: "Unions are a discredited relic of a bygone era. They are dinosaurs devoid of relevance or power."

These assertions cannot both be true.

Yet Hockey and the Liberals continue to talk out of both sides of their mouth...

Wow, Joe Hockey descending into the masses. Bet he won't respond to my requests. I'll keep them rational Joe.

First Joe :

Do you belong to a union?

If not how do you and all the other politicians get identical wage and benefit increases of exactly the same amount at the same time? I know it's the Remunueration rort mate.

The question there Joe is why don't you tie your entitlements to the ex Armed Forces and pensioners increases? You know, the discounted CPI figures that always mean your money is losing value over time. Why don't you mate?

Last one. Being the Monster for AWA's so to speak, why are you not on an AWA?

Answer that and you might have some support.

At this stage politicians are :

A collective bargaining group,

A union, unwritten but still a union,

Hypocrites if the Coalition members at least don't all ask their electorates to negotiate an AWA.

What was that Joe? No answer?

Above all Joseph unions are actually people, not groups of politicians rorting everyone else.

How do businesses run without people Joe? Forced labour next is it? Press gangs? Get Reith back mate, he'll do it.

Sure they can Mercurious, they just need to add a few bits:

"Unions are a discredited relic of a bygone era. They are dinosaurs devoid of relevance or power."

Thanks to our glorious liberal overlords, who have delivered unto us an economic utopia. But, if you hand power to the Labor party:

"Unions wil become big and powerful and scary enough to run the country for their own benefit and bugger up the economy."

Which, has basically been coalition mantra for the last umpteen years. It'd be nice if they developed a new script once in a while, but it's being rehashed this year more than ever.

Actually, that's probably why Rudd's riding so high in the polls. We're sick of repeats...

Ruawake and Pericles make good points about lawyers being the ruling class in the Coalition. To be more specific, lawyers who couldn't cut it so they became politicians.

Following RobbyH's questions to the front rower, and knowing Hockey won't reply here how about Pericles, as a constituent of Hockey's write and ask him why he hasn't signed an AWA?

To kick it off Pericles you could offer to double his basic salary and remove every other entitlement.

Buy his own Super etc.

You could include provisions that prevent him from doing anything political during his tenure. He is ewmployed as an administrator not a political tool although he qualifies under both those terms.

Like no Coaltition speeches or rants as he has done on this thread through his writer(s). Loss of salary for every minute spent doing that.

No travel except by RPT and with receipts.

No travel where internet could do the job.

No Party political funding at all which also means no travel to and from Canberra except to sit in the House.

And so on.

How about it Pericles? Any comment from Joe's minders?

I don't think Mr Hockey has much to fear. Mr Rudd has taken on every other Liberal policy (uranium mining, support for US, no winding back of GST etc etc etc) You can be pretty confident that if he comes to power he will also adopt Mr Howards IR laws. He has just about done that anyway. Mr Rudd knows that despite that the average aussie is far better off economically than ever before. Of course you will always have the unfortunate few who for a variety of reasons will struggle. When I went on a workplace agreement back in 1997 my salary increased by a significant amount. This was also the case with all my co workers (many of them union members). Ten years on they will still tell you how much better off they are.

Joe here you go again! with no doubt this is no failure to understand Labors IR plan.
It is clearly a LIE.
Not unlike this governments past history LIEs are that plausible denial the government trades in.
Lies under another name.
If for no other reason Joe than the fate of your party on election night .
TELL THE TRUTH!
just once
workchoices went too far.

I am sorry - Joe is laboringhard to make another foolish point - sure Combet saw the revised policy prior to release are we to beleive CEOs of peak employer organisation weren't involved in the drafting of work choices? Christ on a bike! it is about interests and influences.

The union bogey man may have had some mileage and relevance 20 years ago but not today.

The argument about the miners is an absolute furphy as well - miiners have long been the highest paid of Australian workers - for decades they have inhabited the ranks of the top 5 highest average earners along with GPs the other militant union group - miners were well paid in trhe hey da of the unions and theye are well paid under AWA and their condition will sstay the same under any now regime -

the body politic should stop right now listening to the politicians - simply look at the policyt look at the impact and make u your own mind - the economy has boomed under the old IR regime and the new - Howards crowing about the impact of IR laws on the economy is a fabrication - their is no causal effect at all - the same goes for employment level - sheeesh!

Stuart Ulrich The Boss and founder of The Australian Peoples Party will more than likely see more of Greg Combet as he comes to Charlton a safe, we will see.

If i have to run as an independent i will.

enough is enough

People from our own electorates should represent us not someone who is sent in to represent their own party and interests.

www.tapp.org.au
swulrich@bigpond.net.au

Geez Joe, welcome to the Forum. A bit like the Coluseum and your the Christian. You must know that AWA's disadvantage some, just as they advantage others. Give the disadvantaged protection.
Labors policy should change to allow modified AWA's as well.
If Howard is ante-diluvian then any move to reinstate a Centralised wage fixing system is a barren beast that should have missed the Ark.
As a subbie in the NSW building industry, I can tell you, nobody has missed the unions and their disruptive,corrupt behaviour at all, and I've not heard anyone who wants them back.But the way the industry works, both you and Lacor are both pretty irrelevant.
There's an awful lot of generalisation going on on both sides of this debate;not very helpful.Too much fear and loathing.
At least both sides agree that some flexibility is needed, but both have gone too far. I am worried just how far Rudd would go given the chance-he's still a bit of an unknown quantity.
But based on what we do know your comments are over the top.
Come back soon

None of you no-good lefty peaceniks understand. You just don't get it.

Don't you know that unions are evil? Really evil. I'm mean, they're all about power. Power, power, power. Sure, they're run by members for the benefit of members, give voices to the voiceless, and enable employee's to bargain on an equal footing with employers.

Sure they may be responsible for the 40 hour week, OH&S laws, minimum wages, maternity leave, and many other gains in IR. But they've stood in John Howard's way! They stand up to large employers! Evil, bad unions!

Good on you Joe! Don't let those pesky unions get in your way. After all, the only way to keep a strong economy is to remove all fairness and equality from the workplace. As a matter of fact, let's go one further. We could complete with China on a much more equal footing if we re-introduced slavery.

Sheesh, everyone misses the point! Why not just let people themselves
decide what they want?

If I was a highly qualified mining engineer, I could negotiate my
own terms to suit myself, my family and my employer. No need for
any union to hold my hand, sorry.

If I was unskilled, not very good at my job, not very good at
negotiation, I might want a union to hold my hand.

So have a system that allows both!

Tony Maher of the CFMEU issued the following press release http://www.cfmeu.com.au/index.cfm?section=5&Category=42&viewmode=content&ContentID=281

Maher’s press release states:

Recent ABS data (6306, Feb 2007) underlines that Australian mining does NOT rely on AWAs -- just 31% of workers in metal ore mines, and only 16% of the mining industry’s workforce are on AWAs. Mining relies more on common law contracts (as provided for in ALP policy) rather than on AWAs. About 55% of metal ore miners are on common law contracts.

The ABS data also shows:

Unionised coal miners earn an average of $46.40 per hour. Largely non-union metal ore miners earn $35.20 per hour. Coal miners earn an average of 32% more.

Maher also cites figures on productivity growth. Since 1996, productivity growth has been negative in gold mining in WA, and average annual productivity growth in the largely collectivised coal industry has been 2.87%, while over the same period it’s been 0.33% in the largely de-unionised WA coal industry.

thanks Crikey http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20070502-Are-AWAs-really-the-backbone-of-the-mining-industry.html

So the ABS has released statistics to demonstrate that the rationale for introducing Workchoices is codswollop. And everyone knows that Freehills wrote the legislation, and wrote 500 pages of amendments, just the thing for small business to wade through and trip up on.

Only 35.20$ an hour Billie! ? My god, the poor dears would be
starving :)

The reality is, that union numbers have dropped through the
floor, workers have voted with their feet. Enforcing
legislation to guarantee union leaders a job, has to be
bad news.

I can sell my house, my livestock or whatever, with or
without an agent, as I choose. Why should selling my
labour be any different?

Let people choose, its as simple as that.

I think that Kevin Rudd is a very talented guy, but
the bad news is that along comes this association with
say in the case of WA building unions, what is no more then
thuggery at taxpayers expense.

One intelligent guy won't make a political party, that's
the reality.

No question the Labor Party is in cahoots with the unions and prostituting itself for its support. Consider this...

When 80 per cent of the workforce negotiates employment terms with the employer, of which salary is but one component, why should there be legislation to address the "perks", ie, what the unions call "the worker's hard fought rights"? Who would work for anyone offering say no holidays, no sick leave or other "entitlements"? Employers have to competitively bid for employees but that is conveniently ignored by unions. A very thin con.

Employment regulations could be compared to legislating for cars to have a certain amount of leather, suede, gadgetry or plushness. Hey, if you dont like the car's finish, what do you do? You buy another.

Joe is right to point the finger. Emperor Rudd is pandering to Trade Unions representing the minority in Australia - most in the government employ with their little perks and reluctant to let them go.

Under Labor, 'no ticket, no start' is back;

Now that's a furphy for a start...That's compulsory Unionism which is not what AWA's and 'work choices' are all about....
The effects of Howard's IR legislation is all about stripping away conditions and removing Union negotiators out of the scene so that the vulnerable become more amenable to the demands of Employers on a one to one basis.

What does an inexperienced young worker say to his employer who introduces a monthly salary payment when he hasn't got the clout of a Union behind him ?

What does he say when told he won't be paid overtime or penalty rates for working week-ends but will be granted 'time in lieu' at a time acceptable to the employer.

And what about unfair dismissal... That's not about getting rid of trouble makers; That's about employing juveniles in place of young workers who reach adulthood and have not made the grade to promotion.
Let us not forget that Employers have always been entitled to reward diligent workers with higher pay.
Awards have only been minimums and Common Law agreements have been around as long as the 50 plus years I was in the labour force.

The long term strategy of conservative governments has been to weaken the Trade Union movement precicely to implement laws such as AWA's and Work Choices. The Patrick dispute was engineered to further that objective. The Rudd / Gillard proposals will only correct some of the excesses of the Howard Government and is far short of Compulsory Unionism.

Kevin Rudd is going too far in demanding 'secret Ballots' before strike action and outlawing 'strike pay'

Secret Ballot is simply a euphemism for court controlled ballot designed to circumvent lightning strikes.

Outlawing strike pay is only a means to starve striking workers back to work without achieving gains.

No Joe ,the sky is not falling because of Labors proposals, Just a step towards a fair and equitable system.

Joe I at least thank you!
Yes fairdinkum you appear on TV as full f lies as a drunk is full of grog and we just have to listen without the chance to tell you how we think.
So now you know, lies are not policy Joe.
You seem blinded in the spotlight unable to defend Howard without the new yardstick lies.
Once more Joe put your self forward to election night, it may well not be too late.
Get rid of Howard and his number one adviser his wife, before the election or wait for Australia to do t.
After Howard you could steal the ALP IR policy's as your party is so often doing and maybe just stumble over the line .
Come back to the threat Joe show us you have some heart.

It seems that one person has said what i have been saying and also it in tapps policy

choice

well said yabby.

if any of you had decided to read it, and any other policies you would see.

www.tapp.org.au

The sooner those people with money get the hell out of Australia, the sooner the Left can take over and supply the necessary employment as well as dictate the conditions. You would think the wealthy would be leaving in greater numbers than they are. Of course there is always tomorrow and planes leave everyday. I wonder if the Left have worked out how many Mickey D's are necessary to keep the welfare system afloat?

Same old merry go around... j.h. puts his name to an article and (media) wants us to think that he is in control of this area and driving its direction...unfortunately j.h. is probably a tool like the rest of us...if it backfires, usual solution is publically remove the 'face person tool' (like olmert in israel) but the 'usual suspects' whom actually been running the show for a while can continue with their untouched power and authority to create another disaster with much herald promise of benefits to public...but especially for themselves...

Union numbers are down, and many reasons given...fact is unions are formed by a need among workers to counterbalance commerce need to produce profit...so the balance of forces between money as profit to money to put food on the table...both needed and balanced outcome essential. The IR unbalances this by statue empowering one side...result is immediate benefit for one side but without usual 'checks and balances' the pressure will built later and then...yep another disaster in the waiting to happen...

Union should never have entered into politics as labour, and liberals with pro-business causing the same balance of struggle between the opposites of the money equation...though money is important for society well being, it is not the only thing, but the current political parties are essentially about money...unlike the origin of democracy like roman senate, where each member was supposed to be elected by the free public among their area ie no 'parties' but good-individuals hopefully chosen for their true community spirit...and aim was to achieve a balanced 'administration' of the country by the people- note 'people' (not vested interest groups) which politics should be about ie rise above the money equation line of forces...

Sam

pegasus, your suggestions for Hockey's AWA are most definitely a good and positive start.

But I think what is really needed is a wholesale re-evaluation of the position, not the man. He is after all just one extremely visible manifestation of the problem, which is that there is no form of contract, at all, between the government and the people, nor between the elected member and his constituents.

We are asked to vote for an individual, who represents a party, on the basis of a manifesto. This manifesto is effectively the terms and conditions of an agreement between the candidate and the voter.

The problem is that we are not allowed to sue the elected member for breaking the terms of that contract.

We should be.

Given that we have a representative democracy, we should be allowed to hold our representatives responsible for the commitments they make.

Nowhere else would you be allowed to get away with it.

No business manager would countenance an employee who said "I changed my mind about doing the job you asked me to do, and did something else instead"

A theatre-goer would justly demand their money back if they found themselves watching "Waiting for Godot" when they were sold tickets to "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert".

Or you pay a builder to build an extension to your house, and he spends the money on a vacation to Florida.

Yet we put up with failure to act, and policy substitution, on a regular basis.

Who voted for Howard's IR reforms? No-one, because it was not in the manifesto.

And what about all those "non-core" promises? Remember those "ministerial guidelines" that were going to sweep away the rorts? "The guidelines that were laid down in this document will be complied with in full", said Mr Howard, only to ditch them quickly as the rush to the door became a flood?

Politicians' pay should be inextricably linked to their performance against their manifesto commitments. No performance, no pay.

Just like it is in the real world.

Joe Hockey is a Liberal MP and yet dares to raise such furphys?

What about all the bosses in the camp of the Liberal Party? What about ex Liberal staffers Peter Hendy and Heather Ridout where they are now in two of the key employer lobby groups?

And what about the Tasmanian unions that gave John Howard two seats last election?

This is one of the dumb things that Libs use to terrorise people

Labor is NOT in the control of the unions as Kevin Rudd declared publicly.

Let's look at more serious issues like why Bill heffernan is an utter disgrace and should be sacked from the Howard parliament benches

Dear Sam said,

Joe Hockey a "tool"? I couldn't have said it better myself.

"If I was unskilled, not very good at my job, not very good at negotiation, I might want a union to hold my hand"
posted by Yabby

My dear crustacean, since when have negotiating skills determined the pay and conditions of the average Australian? 10 years of AWA's pre-workchoices and only 5% of workers chose to negotiate one. Of course the actual amount of negotiation that takes place between employer and employee is arguable to say the least.

Yabby, you know as well as I do that there is a very big difference between having bargaining SKILLS and having bargaining POWER. Without bargaining power to back them up, bargaining skills are little more than bluff and bulldust. You can learn bargaining skills, but you cannot learn bargaining power, it is inherent in the position. This is the unfortunate lot of at least 2 million workers in this country. Their labour is never scarce enough to give them any leverage at the bargaining table. Note that many of those who currently do have bargaining power will not always have it. Much of it will evaporate when the resource boom winds down, leaving them with little more than the hope that their employer is still feeling generous.

I wonder if their bank managers will allow them to "average out" their mortgages?

The Coalition Government only serves one group within the communty that being the big end of town. So why so much spin about workers being members of a Union?

At the last election, we the electorate, were given virtually no information in relation to the ideological mean IR legislation that was going to be unleashed onto us. The legislation was pushed through the Senate very hastily and with a great deal of arrogance. At the last election we were given rubbish about interest rates. Mr. Hockey would no doubt recall that when Mr. Howard was Treasurer that interest rates were exceptionally high. What about all the mortgage sales since the election Mr. Hockey?

Since the last election $55 millions of tax payers monies were squandered in trying to tell us that we should be thankful that benefits earnt over many years would be taken from us. The miners being a group that has done well from AWAs; there being several groups though where the opposite is true.

If the process created by the ironically titled "Work Choices" was so good; then there would be no hesitation in releasing data about the AWAs that have been created.

Fozz, you are clearly from the old British school of "them and us"
and have never in your life been an employer.

I've seen other systems, (Switzerland) where employers realise that
its the best workers who make them the most money, so pay them
accordingly. Fair enough!

I also live in a different part of Australia. We in the West, with
10% of the population, generate 40% of exports, to keep you lot going.
I cannot think of a single friend of mine, who has any kind
of talent, who would bother with an award. Shearers, mechanics, you
name it, if they have talent, they negotiate their own deals, no
need for anybody to hold their hands. But then we are not the
industrial backwater of Vic/NSW :)

If you had ever been an employer, you would know that good workers
are hard to find, under any circumstances. Those with common sense,
a work ethic, an understanding that their welfare is tied up with
that of the employer, are far better to hire then those who turn
up for work drunk, on drugs, don't bother, or watch the clock all day.
Workers who destroy machinery etc are not cheap, no matter what they
are paid by hour.

Smart employers, as distinct from less smart ones, know that top people
are the people to hang on to, and paying them extra is well worth
it for the company, as they generate the profits, not the hangers on.

Good labour is always scarce, but then you've never been an employer
to understand that.

Given that Julia thinks that women don't need advice about how
to live their lives, what makes you think that some workers can't
make their own decisions?

Let those who want and need a union, hold their hands, but let
the rest have choice about how they want to live their lives.
If its good enough for Australian women, it should be good enough
for Australian workers!

Actually Yabby, I do not reside in any "industrial backwater".

I live in booming Queensland, which supplies the other half of the country's current prosperity. My town is one of the country's major outlets for those resources, a home of industrial giants. But I digress.

Yabby, I must repeat: the ability to negotiate a decent living wage and working conditions is beyond the reach of a large portion of Australians. As another poster put it, many simply lack the clout. Not long after workchoices was introduced, my local 24hr service station sacked almost it's entire staff without warning and employed a whole new staff on AWA's. The fact that every sacked staff member was a union member was a liitle suspicious. One of them was photographed holding her recently awarded employee of the month certificate. Where was the ability to negotiate if they could be sacked on a whim and replaced with (even) cheaper labour?

Or the meatworks in the next town that sacked all of it's cleaners and replaced them with visa 457 holders because they are irresistably cheap.

Or, for good measure, an aquaintance who was sacked for arguing with a reduction in pay. And he is a boilermaker - in a resource town screaming for tradies and he still could not negotiate.

My beef here is too long for one post, suffice to say that all the evidence that I have ever seen is that the ability of employees to truly negotiate is a myth. And when the boom winds down (and it will someday) this will be even more telling.

I will return and address your other points later.

The trouble is there are two wages being paid. I don't know how true the numbers are but, I have read that only around 30% of the labour force is unionised. So there is the wage earned by a union worker and the wage earned by everyone else in that relative job market. Why pay six unionised workers to do the job two real workers can do. Why pay four to stand around leaning on their shovels. One of the best jobs I ever had went by the wayside when an employee pressed for a union. We were all told we could have our jobs with future advancement and pay increases as the market developed or we could have our union. The day the union showed up 70 people lost their jobs. Our little plant closed. No longer able to compete in the real world of market forces and real world economy. Today with advances in robotics the labour market is shrinking and so is the power of unions. If a machine and one guy is all it takes to do a job where once it took ten men, the unions loose the power to coerce exorbitant wage and benefit packages. This aint the '70s anymore, and China and India be look'n fer werk

Workchoices is about all who work.
Not just those who are also in unions.
Joe is a small part of this government but represents it well.
He lies with ease, he uses miss information, and refuses to give information that would expose workchoices for what it is.
In posts done here months ago I said Howard and his circus of a government would make changes to workchoices before this election.
Howard said he would not.
He now says he will.
It is too late, he fails to understand the chooks have come home to haunt him.
Lies, endless contempt for the people, AWB the list is endless.
Conservative Australia after election night you will debate this mans failures why not now?

The Federal Government has shifted ground on its WorkChoices legislation, introducing a "fairness test" it says will better protect workers.

Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey says the Government will introduce a stronger safety net for workers.

He says under the new laws, workers will be awarded compensation when they agree to trade away conditions such as penalty rates, annual leave loadings and public holidays.

"It was never the intention that it should be the norm for penalty rates to be traded off without proper compensation," he said.

Mr Hockey says the Office of the Employment Advocate will be renamed the Workplace Authority, and will be given stronger powers to conduct a fairness test to ensure people are awarded adequate compensation.

So Joe has outed himself and given us a clue to what he knows, the norm is for penalty rates to be traded off.

Does this mean Joe is going to tear up existing AWAS? I think the polls are starting to bite. Why was the no disadvantage test removed in the first place?

I completely agree with Hockeys assumptions that the Union movement will be back when Labor takes the Commonwealth in the upcoming elections. Currently, union movements exist by stealth. However, after more than ten years of starvation from both power and the fiscal teet, the Union movement and its heirarchical dominators the ACTU, will return with a vengence. They will move quickly and profoundly. It is more likely too, that the Union movement will be even more insidious than it has ever been in the past. With the opening up of the economic market, many Union sympathisers will take perfunctory roles allied with the ethos of Reunionfication of the nation, and will take an ABN. Still more will hide in cyberspace (worse than present arrangements); many there will inculcate censorship on the internet and in legislation.

The immense social capital available to the Union movement will prove a boon, with compulsory Union membership harvesting untold billions from the public. And given that Labor is in every state, Unions will move to secure legislative Unionisation in each state immediately after coming into power.

adding insult to injury will be the old 'No ticket, no Start' ehtos. This will be expanded to include all sectors of society, from the Public Service, down to the broom pusher. It will be easily monitored by Labors jackboot Unionists on ABN's and state and federal contracts.

With the likes of mad Barron Shurrows running the ACTU, more damage will be done to civil society, than has ever 'progressed' in the Australian past. We are yet to see the worst from the Unions and Labor and the ACTU.

Fascinating how Rudd and Gillard are setting the political agenda these days, ain't it?

The sort of scare mongering by Joe Hockey and his admirers such as Gadget can only come from people who have never been a part of the Union Movement.

Sure, it is not perfect but its success or failure depends on whether or not they serve their members and remain true to their purpose which is to protect members from the excess of rampant exploitative Employers and obtain work conditions which promote workers welfare,safety,prosperity and dignity.

We know about militant Union behaviour and standover tactics of the bygone era just as we know about the ruthlessness of some Employers that fostered such behaviour .

The modern Union addresses a wider range of issues facing their members, the need for access to reasonable finance, Safe working environment, protection of Superannuation, Job security and an awareness of the needs of small business to remain profitable.

The ever rising profitability of companies, dividends to shareholders and gross inflation of management perks are an indication that it is time for a redistribution of the wealth in this country and a rethink about the indecent haste towards globalisation and understanding who are the eventual beneficiaries.

maracas -

I doubt if "gadget" has read the rest of the discussion, let alone sought to understand the comments posted.

For his/her benefit, he ought to reconsider his views about the person responsible for the following socialist actions:

" ... As a QC, [X] represented unions in a number of key High Court cases; as attorney-general and minister for railways in the Victorian Parliament, he sought to regulate and control the burgeoning road transport industry, and he sought to make the railways pay instead of subsidising farmers' freight costs; in the Federal Parliament, he was deeply involved in the creation of the National Insurance Bill, designed to provide for medical cover and pensions for all working people, and he eventually resigned from the ministry in protest on a matter of principle; he initiated vast injections of Commonwealth funds into the (state-owned) universities, including Commonwealth scholarships that gave large numbers of students a free tertiary education; his governments funded an enormous expansion in research in universities and in the CSIRO; and on and on."

I am reasonably informed by [X]'s biased memoirs (mine will be biased, to, I hasten to add)about his politics and do not share them.

If "gadget" were to use the "Ctrl+F" gadget to find the quote above in its previous post, what will be the outcome? Will he/she write JWH and/or Joe FoosBall a letter expressing justifiable puzzlement?

"The ever rising profitability of companies, dividends to shareholders and gross inflation of management perks are an indication that it is time for a redistribution of the wealth in this country and a rethink about the indecent haste towards globalisation and understanding who are the eventual beneficiaries."

Maracas, I remind you that by far the largest shareholders and
beneficiaries these days, making record profits, are in fact
workers, through their 1 trillion$ invested in the market through
their super funds.

CEOs, management etc, are at the end of the day, glorified, overpaid
workers! They work for a wage, having negotiated themselves a well
paid package, after convincing boards that they actually know what
they are doing. What that shows me, is that there are no limits
to human greed.

What we've seen in say the building industry in WA, is that when
unions have too much power, thuggery sets in and its poor old
taxpayers picking up the tab. Building companies simply pass their
costs on, the Govt pays the bill for infrastructure projects etc,
they pass it on to the small people, who cough up with little choice. Do you really think there is justice in that?

"We know about militant Union behaviour and standover tactics of the bygone era just as we know about the ruthlessness of some Employers that fostered such behaviour" says maracas.

Well really. That comment demonstrates just how confused you are about the Union debate. Because, we are in the post industrial era, leaving all that debate behind. And because, you Say you know about Union brutes, but yet you give em a big hug. So you arent really all that bright; or else you Sir aint been near a Unionist.

As for Sirvivor, well here is a Student Unionist. This person is irrelevant in all contexts, because his/her hell house has been abolished (as it deserved); and because he/her is a muesli muncher.

Finally, what is a 'workers' job, but to turn up and perform work. Where does all the other drivel espoused by union lovers such as national economics, socialism at the work place, sex in the political ranks, and all the other spewmongering, come into workplace activities?

I make it known to all- you are being led around by the nose as the Union movement causes you to be distracted by socialist concerns at the workplace. It makes you all bitter spiteful people, in a land with the best working and living conditions money can by.

All Unionists and their lovers ought bow your heads in pure shame.

Gadget

If you think a workers job is "but to turn up and perform work" you show your total ignorance of the modern workplace.

I am sure if you asked employers the overwhelming majority would be horrified to think their workers just did this.

A progressive workplace values the input of all its employees, who knows better how to improve a work role than the person actually doing it.

A recently privatised company has 9,000 people on the IDENTICAL AWA, this sure looks like a collective agreement to me. Except the 9,000 individuals had no say in the content of this agreement.

I suggest you try eating muesli it may curtail your fecal manifestations

I have had others "play the man" before, but no-one has ever been so perfidious as to call me a "meusli muncher".

I can arguably infer that gadget had, as I suggested, not read any of the posts, but simply knee-jerked into "post" mode.

It makes me wonder whether Joe FoosBall and/or JWH ever have the odd bowl of meusli.

The Federal Government had almost a dream run towards the end of the last election; they didn't need to divulge their mean and nasty "Work Choices" legislation.
Clearly the Howard Government is running scared now so they are supposedly tweaking "Work Choices". Incidently, Mr. Hockey was very specifically asked last Sunday morning on a tv intervew whether "Work Choices" was going to be modified. He said "no", so either he was lying, or the Coalition is making policy on the run.

You've exposed yourself with that last post Gadget.
Personal vitriol towards contributors is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Perhaps the latest damage control of your idols in seeking to amend their vicious 'Work Choices' to present it as an acceptable alternative to a fair go might give you some insight into the reality that the proposals are unacceptable to Australian Workers who are supporting the lead they have received from Australian Unions.

Well Pericles you had a chance to actually do something but it appears you pass on that opportunity. As Howard would say, "No ticker".

You agree it is highly relevant to use this opportunity but choose silence. Oh well, don't complain here about politicians anymore as clearly you really don't care at all. Time for action Pericles, not dribble.

The things you are suggesting have been raised many times over many years but only by a few. I am one such. Will you continue the ointless whining or actually do "something"?

You have the relevant Minister as your rep and yet you choose to whinge here about what he does and doesn't do. Why?

Before you turn it around and accuse me of doing nothing I have written to my "drover's dog" about this very issue. And got nothing, not even a courtesy response. He's Labor and doesn't have to do anything yet does he? Hockey? Different story. He even goes so far as to put his name to the drivel he calls his here on OLP. Go for him Pericles. I'll draft it for you if that's too hard mate.

Is that what you want for all of us? Nothing?

Then go ahead and just keep doing what you are doing, all of you here. That is, nothing. Just passing wind really.

I suppose I should thank you Pericles for seeing the light but really, what's the difference if you just sit on your hands?

Bushbasher comments on Hockey being referred to as a tool. Twice on this thread where he is also referred to as a front rower.

I go further. I would suggest he has the, err, ability to be the entire front row. Hope the opposing hooker has a very good mouthguard. I mean, have you seen Mr H standing up straight in all his suited glory? He holds two seats at least.

Under Workchoices its currently "No AWA, no start".

There are 306,393 AWAs lodged with government but the mining industry accounts for only 22,000 AWAs. The miners in WA may be contented but at least one miner in NSW was not happy to sign a contract that penalised her $200 for failing to call in sick 12 hours before start of shift.

"Last month the Herald revealed that based on the Government's own unpublicised figures 45 per cent of AWAs lodged had stripped away all of the award conditions the Government promised would be "protected by law" under Work Choices.

"The same figures showed conditions were stripped from most agreements examined by the Office of the Employment Advocate, set up to police Work Choices. Shift loadings were removed in 76 per cent of the agreements, annual leave loading was removed in 59 per cent, incentive payments in 70 per cent and public holidays in 22.5 per cent." see http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/work-test-will-pass-thousands-by/2007/05/04/1177788400641.html

There is also a rise in openly unfair actions taken by employers. see http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/no-fairness-test-for-teens-on-front-line-of-ir-change/2007/05/04/1177788399422.html

ABS “reported that 1.12 million employees in Australia are working as contractors, a number almost five times higher than previous estimates. Contractors are workers engaged to perform a given service or project at an agreed price: think consultant engineers, IT professionals or your local master plumber.

“Those working on a contract basis were most common in education, health care, retail trade, professional services and construction.

“Alongside this phalanx of newly discovered contractors (in earlier surveys the statistician did not count how many employees with leave entitlements worked on a contract basis), the bureau found there were 1.22 million owner-managers of unincorporated businesses, and 673,000 owner-managers of incorporated businesses.”

“Put all of these people together and it turns out that 3 million of Australia's 10 million-plus workforce are "enterprise workers" - small-business owners, franchisees, consultants, contractors, farmers and the self-employed - whose allegiance is neither to union nor to employer, but to themselves. “

“By comparison there are 1.79 million union members.”

See http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/memo-to-labor-how-about-the-other-3-million/2007/05/04/1177788400644.html

I am a reluctant contractor who wants award protection.

I think a lot of people don't realise this debate over how people decide to arrange their employment with prospective as well as their current employers is only occurring because of the unusual economic conditions of nearly full employment and shortages of skilled workers. Similar happened in the '50's and 60's. Then it was the unions who won higher pay and 'perks'. I wonder how much higher the 'pay and perks' would have been had there been AWA's? Realistically I think they wouldn't have gained much more or less. I think my point is clear.

I think if a downturn ever occurs, unemployment rises or the ratio of skilled to unskilled alters in favour of the skilled then the wages and conditions offered by employers, faced with less competition in finding staff, will drastically fall.

It's a temporary debate. At the moment economic conditions favor those who have real flexibility in negotiating their own conditions and wages.

When the reverse applies we'll see union membership rise and a much greater aggitation in the wider community (Not just Union and media circles) for the abolishing of any AWA's that are truely unfair, as they really do start to hack away at conditions and wage rates.

I'm all in favour of making hay while the sun shines. I think in a Australia that's seen as a fair go.

I also think John Howard's re-instatement of a stronger 'No disadvantage test' on incomes up to $75,000 reasonable and truely a fair go for ...'battlers'.

"I am a reluctant contractor who wants award protection."

The other option of course is to be a great contractor,
so that it is in companies interests to hire you!

This whole debate is playing out in France, the country
with heaps of rules, regulations, lurks and perks.

Ms Royale, the well meaning motherly type who wants to
be French prez, sadly doesn't have a clue about
economics and markets. She wonders why smart young
people are heading for London or America. She wonders
why French wages are relatively low by European standards.
She wonders why French unemployment is so high. She
wonders why large French companies are quietly upping
stumps and moving elsewhere, even high tech companies.

So she thinks even more lurks and perks, rules and regulations
will solve it. I guess she might learn the hard way.

It sounds like there are plenty of Aussies who don't understand
either. Its a global economy folks, wake up!

And we should trust the impartial apolitical advice of ex Howard staffer Heather Ridout and ex Peter Reith staffer Peter Hendy, right?

Give me a break.

I grew up in small business and `have many family members in big business. But I will not be fooled by the garbage from Mr Howard and Joey Hockey

Hey Gadget your post is absolute nonsense. However i wish you were correct. Imagine Peter Hendy and Heather Ridout attempting to fill the 'G' in protest against new laws that provide balance in the workplace.
They couldnt fill a phone box, even if they could find one.

Joe Hockey when are you for once showing a grain of courtesy to respond to correspondence? Or is this just refleccting your ignorance to the people who are paying yout wages?
Last week, I wrote to Steve Knott - Chief Executive Australian Mines and Metals Association (AMMA)about his comments on ABC 7.30 report and have since provided him with quotations of the Framers of the constitution, such as about "civil rights", "Common law rights", etc.
Today, I received a 26 page response setting out why AMMA is opposing the ALP intentions. Sure the document was dated 22 March 2007 but while it argued about freedom of association, a State "common law right", it failed further to rely upon State "civil rights" etc.
to me it appeared to be bashing the ALP rather then being a well balanced document setting out what the relevant State provisions were it had been opposing, etc.

I am due to publish now;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation
A book about the validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), ISBN 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), ISBN 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)

IN IT I INCLUDE THE AMMA DOCUMENT ALSO AS WELL AS WHY THE SO CALLED WORKCHOICES LEGISLATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND HOW I VIEW THE JUDGES SWINDLED WORKERS OUT OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

This book is neither against employees and/or employers but rather against the unconstitutional conduct having gone on for far too long by all major political parties.

I challenge you to a debates as to the constitutional validity of the so called WorkChoices legislation, do you dare to put your money where your mouth is? I doubt it.

The unions are not a threat.

That's because a lot of workers these days are not financial enough to join them.

I would have loved to participate in the Labour Day Rally this Monday past, but I couldn't. That's because I only had $3.00 in my bank account. Having paid my mortgage, rates, car insurance, food, petrol, I had the pricely sum of $3.00 to see me through the long weekend.

I'd love to join a union as well, and can see it as more relevant than any other time in my history. But for some reason prosperity has simply side-stepped me. Or is this quite normal for a lot of people?

Liz,

Have been done that, so to say.

Some twenty years ago I had to walk with one of my daughters (then little) because I didn’t even have 50 cents to pay for a bus.
I was then re-financing my house again because of borrowing money on bankcard, so I could help others with their court cases. Actually. some of my children held I was stupid.
Yet, now the same children are saying that after all I was the smart one, because I didn’t care about money. I lived my life as I wanted and now reap the benefit of having done so.
Because I know what it is to be struggling I also know what it is not to struggle and to enjoy life.

At least you still got $3.00 in the bank (well by now perhaps gone) but as long as you have your dignity, that is more important then money.

Money might be handy to have but also can be a curse!

As for unions, I view they are a necessary evil. They are needed but more then often they do the wrong thing. But, needed they are. In one incident, I discovered that one of my workers had been underpaid for some time and management refused to back-pay. So, the union called out a strike. The worker got his back pay all right! Now, that was a strike not because of wrongdoing by the union but the company wrongly robbing a worker of his rightful entitlements and refusing to follow my recommendation to back pay. After wards the workers thanked me to having exposed the rot. In turn my production went up and that was after all what I was on about, as without proper production the customers wouldn’t get their goods. Yet, the company could have avoided the strike if just they had been reasonable.

What was that Joe? You got it wrong? Workchoices was a mistake after all? Wonder why you didn'ty listen to the crowd yelling that at you for a year?

No response expected here, or anywhere. Hock off Joe.

To be fair to Joe, it's pretty decent of him to publicly acknowledge they got it wrong.

Takes a good man to do that.

And he wasn't the Minister of that portfolio at the time.

So thanks for that Joe.

But I will be joining a union, and I dread the thought of Liberal being re-elected.

What seems to be ignored here is that John Howard became a constitutional TERRORIST to force Federal Members-of-Parliament to vote on the so called WorkChoices legislation without many having been provided with a copy of the Bill.
Why have elected Members-of-Parliament to represent constituents if all they are doing or force to do is to vote on a Bill many never even saw, let alone knew the content off.
Why indeed do we have to elect Members for a seat if all they are doing is to vote along the lines what the leader of the political party dictates?
Keep in mind that people, anyone, who can be in breach or is deemed in breach of WorkChoices can suffer severe financial harm, and then if in the end it turns out that there was a defect in the legislation your local Member merely may respond “I didn’t know, etc".
What else is being pushed through the Parliament where Members vote upon it without having a clue what the legislation stand for?
While you may accept of not accept WorkChoices the issue is here that we elect Members-of-Parliament to represent their constituents and they clearly do not do so and are prevented from doing so because of the dictatorship and TERRORISM now used to force Members to vote blindly upon whatever they are told to do.
One day, some bill might be voted upon where your Members-of-Parliament blindly voted for something, disregarding any attempt or opportunity to consider what he/she voted upon, and next you know your personal life might be totally destroyed because of whatever legislation was passed!
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the High Court of Australia could declare legislation ULTRA VIRES if it failed to have been allowed the appropriate processes. Hence, I view, the High Court of Australia by allowing this unconstitutional conduct of voting itself by this must be seen, as I view it, to have supported this kind of TERRORISM, and this from a Court that is supposed to be a GUARDIAN OF THE CONSTITUTION!