I wonder what states you are talking about. In Victoria if you don't have the correct work card you don't get the job.
If people have been working in ceilings without the right work card, the employer is the one at fault. It is up to the householder to check that these persons have the card. There is a list of approved insulators to choose from.
Some states may not have the laws in place.

As i have already posted this i will thus place it now in the right place.

The workers at beaconsfied where put in a position of a unsafe workplace not due liberal party incompetence but due to political barstardiation of the unions and labor.

I am not one to have an allegience to any political party as being an independent and when i see an issue i will call a spade a spade.

Quote

h) action by an employee if:
(i) the action was based on a reasonable concern by the employee about an imminent risk to his or her health or safety

end quote

WORKPLACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT (WORK CHOICES) ACT 2005 - SCHEDULE 1
Division 4 -- Industrial action
503 Additional effect of Act-- industrial action
Without affecting its operation apart from this section, Part VC also has the effect it would have if:

(1) For the purposes of this Act (other than Part XA ) , industrial action means any action of the following kind:
(a) the performance of work by an employee in a manner different from that in which it is customarily performed, or the adoption of a practice in relation to work by an employee, the result of which is a restriction or limitation on, or a delay in, the performance of the work;
but does not include the following:
(e) action that is not agreement related (as defined by subsection (3));
(f) action by employees that is authorised or agreed to by the employer of the employees;
(g) action by an employer that is authorised or agreed to by or on behalf of employees of the employer;
h) action by an employee if:
(i) the action was based on a reasonable concern by the employee about an imminent risk to his or her health or safety Posted by tapp, Saturday, 20 February 2010 12:25:07 PM

So like certain others can attack me that is ok as that is how they are brought up instead of the issue.

I return to this thread for the last time.
I will avoid one contributor no matter what.
My post history ,and his, are worth a read.
Unions, mine and the one serving other forms of mining, have fought for safe workplaces forever.
Deaths in mining AND construction, and believe me road transport is and always has been out of control.
Tasmania's tragic mine story took place while John Howard was in office.
Two union men, both make me proud, went and stood with those family's.
Australia applauded them for their actions.
Some people screaming abuse at unions for not acting PROTEST ABOUT UNION POWER?
Some read those posts history's, have no idea, need help, but the insults are barbs in my flesh.
Till the day I die, it will get me in trouble time and again, I will search for better unionism, be proud to be part of our very best.
And be happy to know workers and a great number of bosses share my views.
We here in OLO are quite lucky, we in truth are not closely controlled, free speech is held in high regard.
And I see no reason to change, but never forget some are unable to look at issues in an honest way.
I spell it wrong but Roth berry, the miners riot memorial, not my union but it still brings shivers down my spine to stand and think of how awful workers got treated that day, unions are Representatives of workers not fat cats without them?

Oh Belly

Yes liberals were in government when beaconsfield happened.

The workers didnt go on strike

Was it the unions told them they couldnt due to workchoices, i have already proved that to be a lie if the case.

The unions blamed liberals

So we have the insulation scheme labor/rudd is in power so we must as per laber and the unions blamed liberal for beaconsfield and the single death we must place the blame wholy on labor/rudd for the 4 deaths 86 home fires and more to come..

As you said belly some cannot see the issues in a honest way.

As we know the workers at beaconsfield did have the right to go on strike, so why didnt they really.

Dear Mr Tapp,

They didn't go on strike because they were told
in no uncertain terms that they would lose
their jobs if they did. The unions were told to
back off - all they could do is warn the company
of the safety risks - which they did numerous times.
The workers did not want to lose their jobs - and
these were under threat. Corporate profits were
more important to the owners than work safety.

But you already know this - as I have given you
several websites that confirm this information.
You may be also interested to know that the Company
Director who was responsible for issuing the orders
to the workers prior to the accident - resigned from
the company after the accident. The Company had the
full support of the Government in their legal battle
after the incident.

You do the maths - a rich large Corporation - versus
workers - with the Liberals in power - what do you
think were the workers chances of success?
As the legal battles between the two that followed the
incident proved.

Get real!

You said you call a spade a spade?
Well, you actually don't - you merely know
how to shovel!

Ah Foxy

so many excuses from you we can start a new story book, you should speak to kevvy as he has the time to write stories.

So the union was in fact incompetent as they would have read workchoices and as i have posted the workers where in fact protected for industrial action for ohs, safety issues.

The unions were told to back off, yeah right, shorten, combet back off, well now they are in government their heads are burried in sand hiding.

A spade is a spade

It is plain to see blatant incompetence from the unions, deliberate lies.