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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > What do AWAs really pay? > Comments

What do AWAs really pay? : Comments

By David Peetz and Alison Preston, published 20/7/2007

Research indicates that AWAs are frequently used for cost cutting or union avoidance.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. All
The authors are both professors but while they do present details as to monies paid, etc, I would think they would at least have some background knowledge that despite the High Court of Australia 14 November 2006 ruling constitutionally “WorkChoices cannot and does not apply to non Federal Government workers unless they are special classes such as waterside workers.
.
Despite that a now retired union official urged me to provide unions with details I have set out in my book;
.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1
.
It may be noted that none bothered about it. It seems unions are better of to gain membership then to seek to overturn the ill-conceived decision.
.
To give you some examples;
.
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution-Convention-Debates
Mr. SYMON.-
The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it occurs.
And
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-
We have heard to-day something about the fixing of a rate of wage by the federal authority. That would be an absolute impossibility in the different states.
And
Mr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the laws of the place where the contract was made.
And
Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question.
And
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
The people of the various states make their own contracts amongst themselves, and if in course of their contractual relations disagreements arise, and the state chooses to legislate in respect of the subject-matter of them, it can do so.
.
Keep-in-mind-that-Subsection-51(xx)-the-High-Court-used-was-inserted-in-1897-and-the-later-(dated)-statements-quoted-above-clearly-underline-that-"CIVIL RIGHTS CONTRACTS"-remained-with-the-States.
.
Those and numerous other details the High Court of Australia concealed from its judgment. One should ask : Why this deception?
.
HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. SOLOMON.-
We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
.
See also my website at http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Monday, 30 July 2007 12:23:16 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
HANSARD 11-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. CLARK:
What we want is a separate federal judiciary, allowing the state judiciaries to remain under their own governments.
.
This underlines the Commonwealth cannot dictate State Courts, despite doing so now!
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. BARTON.-
Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
And
Mr. BARTON.-
Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
.
We have found however that the High Court of Australia with WorkChoices and numerous other matters has diverted from what is embedded in the Constitution to what the Court desires on their own views. A very dangerous pathway to follow.
.
On 19 July 2006 I succeeded in both appeals against the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, after a 5-year legal battle, on all constitutional grounds UNCHALLENGED, because as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I pursue the RULE OF LAW within constitutional context.
.
If just unions did address the issue to challenge the ill conceived High Court judgment, as I extensively exposed in my book, the could prove then to really care about the harm caused to so many, rather then just now benefiting from swelling membership by allowing this ill conceived judgment to remain.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Monday, 30 July 2007 12:33:55 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. All

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