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?