The Forum > Article Comments > Business fails the Howard Government > Comments
Business fails the Howard Government : Comments
By Michael Baume, published 26/6/2007Business's failure to invest in supporting workplace reform is responsible for the success of the ACTU Your Rights at Work campaign
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
-
- All
Posted by Peter Shmigel, Tuesday, 26 June 2007 8:45:04 AM
| |
As most Australians are aware, you are defined as being employed if you work for 1 hour per week, paid or unpaid. This is not the same as counting the number of persons collecting unemployment benefits as was the case in 1974. I bet there are more people on Newstart than the official number of unemployed.
Maybe Mr Baume doesn't come across "Aussie battlers" doing it as tough as the "Aussie battlers" I am in regular contact with. When the trolley contract was renewed the local intellectually disabled trolley collectors were thrown out of work and the new contractors don't know their way around town or where people dump their trolleys. see Sydney Morning Herald yesterday http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/dumped-9-an-hour-no-security-for-vulnerable/2007/06/24/1182623748477.html I am pretty disgusted with Spotlight. In March 2006 they slashed their wages bill by putting their workforce on AWAs. In june 2006 the Jewish ambulance opened a new headquarters in Orrong Rd in a refurbished building. The major sponsor is Spotlight. Posted by billie, Tuesday, 26 June 2007 9:22:01 AM
| |
Its about par for this bloke another union basher of the Howard ilk,with a bit of luck they will all be looking for something else to do soon enough
Posted by j5o6hn, Tuesday, 26 June 2007 9:35:07 AM
| |
The latest styles of cheap shoes; Nike Jordan shoes, Nike air force one, pabe, Adidas, Timberland, Prade, Puma, Gucci and air force one shoes brand t-shirt, jeans, handbag. www.shoes-room.com
Posted by airmax, Tuesday, 26 June 2007 10:11:53 AM
| |
I would love to see the Liberal Party's election manual - I bet it says some interesting things - spend massive amounts of taxpayers money on promoting WorkChoices (50% +/- of Australians don't support that), attack union officials for swearing!, use abused Aboriginal kids to drive a race wedge, pretend to care about the environment etc etc.
Posted by westernred, Tuesday, 26 June 2007 11:27:46 AM
| |
I wondered why the article was such a shrill diatribe until I read who the author was. No wonder there is no balance in the point of view he puts forward.
Howard never gave the electorate any indication that Workchioces would happen before the previous election, imagine what the Lib's have in store for us all if they get back in this time. My bet is bascially outlawing unions altogether and changing welfare so that if a welfare recipient refuses a job, no matter how bad the pay, conditions or safety are, they will get their payment cut off. I always thought Howard dreamt of taking Australia back to the mythical golden era of the 1960s but it is now clear he is more keen on the 1860s. Whether you are pro- or anti-union, the idea of Australian society without unions should give you pause for thought. Throughout Australian history unions have fought for, gained and protected rights for working people which apply to ALL in the workforce, not just their members. I don't think that anyone can seriously argue that there is no intimidation, harrassment, underpayment, exploitation, safety concerns or unfair treatment in the workplace. Without unions to bring these issues to light and support workers enduring such things, these kind of conditions will become the norm. Most workers in Australia appreciate having weekends, annual and sick leave, workers comp cover, a safe workplace and protections of their few remaining workplace rights. All of these are in place because of the Union movement. I am a professional with post-grad qualifications and sought-after skills, but I still don't think I have any chance of "bargaining" on an equal footing with any boss other than perhaps in small business. I don't need a union to look after my interests because I have choices and opportunities in the workplace, but I am aware that thousands of minimum-wage, "unskilled" workers and those whose skills are not highly sought do not have such luxury - their only hope for fair treatment comes from their union standing up for their rights. Posted by 1340, Tuesday, 26 June 2007 2:01:12 PM
|
Indeed, a cursory look at the Your Rights at Work campaign reveals real cause for concern. While the campaign is attempting to portray the union movement (read: leadership) as benign and friendly, there are some truly interesting characters behind the scenes:
1. Dr Hannah Middleton is the convenor of the Sydney Inner West Your Rights at Work “Community Forum”. (There are 40 such forums throughout NSW which exist to do “grass roots” mobilization.) She is also President of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Australia.
2. Phil Sanford is the convenor of the Parramatta Your Rights at Work “Community Forum”. He is an active leading member of the Socialist Alliance and publishes regularly in its journals.
3. An advisor to the whole campaign is Vic Fingerhut, an American pollster and spin doctor. Fingerhut’s website states that “Vic was and is the only Democratic strategist who knows how to reach the swing non-union white workers in this country". Indeed, Fingerhut was an advisor to the failed Tobacco Institute in the US which mounted all the denial campaigns on behalf of the tobacco industry. The dubious Institute was forced to disband in 1998 as part of a legal action by government prosecutors.
Are these the people that industry association leaders want to have greater policy and political influence in the future?