The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Questions of conscionability > Comments

Questions of conscionability : Comments

By Anthony Marinac, published 29/5/2007

Should the WorkChoices legislation be amended to provide protection against unconscionable conduct?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
Unconscionable and at Odds with our Australian collective conscience, knowledge and livelihood practices in reality.

Function Vs Structure is a question of purpose. In the case of the IR's it is a question of "productivity" be it based on (visible) "divisions of labor" or political and legislative "industrial" science.

Note: The art of governance is indeed a political arithmetric.

A nation state is a practical state power when it takes all the different respective forces into account. ie. "statistics" is a states knowledge base and the knowledge of the different respective foreces.

Family Vs Work.

It is uncooperative, out of balance, negletful and "unproductively" witless to think that in the year 2007, we are lawfulfully arguing about TRADING "normal" or "humane" working conditions for issues of basic practices in the workplace over basic common (health) needs. That workers are forced to "BARGIN" continuously BASIC deals in the WORKPLACE.

Yes I am serious.

Without all the techno, I believe to trade peoples "morining tea" or "lunch breaks" and or public hoilday/over-time hour rates of pay... for things like "leaving work early so parents can pick up the kids" (for example) has nothing to do with FEXIBLITY... but rather attends to an immoderate kind of wealth, that exceeds normal or appropriate bounds in its extreme.

To suggest these types of "choices" are FAIR is archaic, intermittent derangement and associated with lunacy.

What is it we are asking our society to DO?

How is a worker to cope with No TEA BREAK, LUNCH BREAK... as a means to get the time to rush around (instead) for the family.

Cricky... you would think we would be instead... trying to encourage more intelligence to address the "unpaid" work related to households and promote "everyday" life-style options that could support a cultural economic and savy geared workplace, within a "whole" health-safe learning society.

We need middle ground, more balance and some equity.
Posted by miacat, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 1:49:19 PM
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
As a “constitutionalist” my concern is first what is constitutionally appropriate.

On 16 April 2007 I provided the High Court of Australia with a DRAFT of my response to its 14 November 2006 judgment (WorkChoices) and how constitutionally floored its judgment was.
Hod on, the judgment being constitutionally floored, now that is something else besides the legislation being constitutionally floored.
I called for the High Court of Australia to set aside its judgment also because they themselves had failed to consider all relevant material as well as that it could do so because the judgment was the product of fraudulent conduct by the lawyers and as such any Court has then the power to set aside such judgment.

Seems that the alternative now is for the Federal Government to seek to amend its legislation, but that does not go with me.

The limitation on this post does not permit me to set it all out, albeit my Yahoo blog and my website does address some issues.

On 27 may 2007 I published on the 40th anniversary of “Aboriginal DDOMSDAY”
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision

For starters, where in the judgments did it relate to “CIVIL RIGHTS” “FACTORY LAWS”, civil contracts under State laws”, etc, which the Framers of the Constitution made clear applied, such as on 27-1-1898 well after Subsection 51(xx) was already inserted in the constitution in 1897.

Oops, I just let the cat out of the bag, so to say, the High Court of Australia quoted Griffith CJ "after" federation but remarkably not what he stated during the Constitution Convention Debates. Likewise so with other quotations they made.
I for one have the view the High Court of Australia conned us all, as my book sets out in considerable details, for a considerable long time!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 1:48:56 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

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