Here you go Steve it actually was the first in this post
It may have been a bit poor on the question

stu

What is it with the Labor and Liberal party on this issue. They can not work together and thus fight who has more testorone than the other.

As Labor has said from the start we ill tear up AWA's.

Now it is very indepth and must walk carefully and that is why we have a 3 year transition.

My question is

1 If Labor was just going to tear these up, they must have been incompetent to the issue and it was an exercise to generate membership, for not only Labor but the unions as well.

2 On the other hand Labor is just lying and has full intention of keeping AWA's.

So what are your veiws and thoughts.

OK I think I found your questions: Usually a question has a ? after it.

"If Labor was just going to tear these up, they must have been incompetent to the issue and it was an exercise to generate membership, for not only Labor but the unions as well."

This is not a question and is based on a false premise that Labor is not going to ban any new AWAs, since Labor has categorically stated that there will be no new AWAs consider it answered.

"On the other hand Labor is just lying and has full intention of keeping AWA's."

See the answer to psuedo question 1.

All Labor is saying is that it will take 2-3 years to undo the mess that John Howard has made of IR.

Grasping at straws Stu, got 500 members yet? Have you nominated for a seat as an independent, bet you don't.

Soon the thread will slip away to that place threads die in, the lost thread heaven or is it hell?
However until the last day of this election campaign it will be very near the top of the list of issues.
Tapp you are being evasive and then saying it is me! you lead a party and make the policy's yet you can not answer?
I am a committed rank and file member waiting for our national conference to speak, surely a difference exists?
AWAs do favor highly skilled , and low income earners are often nothing less than victims of them.
Workchoices bought less strikes by bringing less rights, while our country sails in China fueled clear waters we can not see the full impact.
Tapp as the leader of a whole party can you say lower income for low income workers is good?
Can importing workers on lower than Australian rates of pay be justified?
Can we forever refuse to train our own?
Why miss use the worlds poor?
If we need workers why not bring them here forever on the right rates of pay?
The thread will slip away Aussie fair go must not.

had enough off you two playing around

THE PROBLEM

Labor stated they would tear up AWA'S when they got in
Labor has now stated it will be up too a 3 year transitional period.

THE QUESTIONS

1 Was Labor and the unions incompetent at beleiving they could just tear these up when they got in.?

2 Did Labor and the unions know they could not just tear these AWA's up.?

3 If Labor and the unions did know they could not just tear these up why did they LIE to the people.?

4 Was the stated fact off tearing these AWA's up as soon as Labor and the unions got in merely just a membership drive , and thus not only LIED to the people BUT ALSO acted in a fraudulant manner.?

Answer the question.
You are going on how bad they are, and this will keep going until the election.
So this doesnt negate either from these points to be answered, unless of course you are too scared off being expelled.

www.tapp.org.au

Stu

What Kim Beazley actually said was "I will tear up Howard’s extreme industrial relations changes".

So it is you that is being untruthfull.

IF Labor win the next election one of the first things done will be to tear up the governments IR legislation.

If you care to check your facts the person who has been saying "Kim Beazley says, We're going to tear up AWAs." Is none other the Jovial Joe Hockey.

If you wish to spread falsehoods at least do some basic reserch and get your facts right.

You have no idea of the truth
what date did Joe Hockey say that

Now answer my questions

www.tapp.org.au