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?