Given all the current debate, I thought it was time to look at the government Work Choices website in the hope it would shed a bit of light on how ordinary employees are affected by the system.

My presumption was that there would be lots of easy to understand information to help win over the doubters. I was surprised to discover that the lawyers seem to have won the day over the politicians. There are 36 fact sheets which are meant to explain how it all works plus some case studies that include your ABC.

What do you find there? It seems that your 'Greenfields Agreement' may face a 'Reasonable Person's Test'. The worker may face 'individual performance measures'.
It helps if you're in a constitutional corporation or an unincorporated business in Victoria because then you won't have to come to grips with NAPSA's or PSA's and The Standard'.

It is perfectly clear that you may be have a right to Preserved Notional Entitlements and Protected Notional Conditions.

I came away confident that John Howard's Aussie battlers would be more than satisfied with this explanation of their rights and responsibilities at work. Not!

On reflection the Work Choices website might fail the plain English test but it probably passes the political one. Keep them in the AWA dark! Log on and see what it's like.

Can this legal speak be deliberate? Is it incompetence or cunning? As an ALP member and active trade unionist for 35 years I have come to expect both from our wily opponents.

Kevin Rennie
Broome

You will not understand workchoices from a government web site.
If you just explore the sites the word workchoices gives you it may start to sink in just what workchoices is.
Site after site offers advice on how to use it to make savings on wages and conditions.
The worse will tell you how to pressure your workers in to AWAs that see agreements signed that give as little as no increases for the 5 year term of the agreement.
That take away, its true! public holidays, weekend over time, shift allowances, the list is truly endless.
Hidden from your eyes and mine by this federal government is the dreadful truth of the impact of workchoices.
After no less than 5 training days, 20 new documents, and and endless update system I can tell you an easy way to understand workchoices.
It is the most unfair effort any government put in place aimed at lower costs so Australia can do what it never can, compete with cheap Asian labour.
It hides behind the China India driven resources boomb and claims employment driven by that but it has no right to the claim.
After that boomb workchoices left unchecked will bring mass suffering to those Australians unable to fend for themselves.
Workchoices is an act of spite from a leader who never had to work to eat, who has no understanding , even the worst union member is a human being, most are just your neigbors.
And most victims are not even unionists just workers

Over night actions from John Howard will show you much about workchoices.
Can this man? this man history may well unmask as no nice bloke think now that a last minute minute give back is the answer?
Just 2 months ago the tool of a man said he would never back down.
Just a week ago he said Labor would undo the economic benefits of workchoices.
Today this leader who is aging mentally faster than most advises us new AWAs will have protections old one do not.
That 2 people each on a 5 YEAR AWA working side by side will be paid as if they are working in different country's!
And that will be ok?
Howard Sir go now!
Leave with some dignity!
2 Australian workers one may take sick leave one not?
Workplace harmony?
Fair go?
Grubby John ask the wife its grubby!

Belly
Part of the Aussie fair go system is to be fair to everybody.
I have already posted somewhere else The Prime minister has already "said" there may be some things that will need another look at.
It would have to be hard belly to introduce something that big and not have to go back and Re visit SOME points.

Your problem like so many is you seem to have a mentality of looking at people who own business and supply jobs as the enermy.

You say why should two workers be treated different?
I will tell you why Belly- Because if one bloke is doing his job he will be valued BUT if his work mate is a lazy theiving bludger I should be able to say- There is the gate.
I dont want some union guy walking over to me saying- You cant sack him

If he steals from me for example I should NOT be forced to keep him on

Bosses mostly treat good workers like pure gold because they are hard to get.


Also if you "really look " you will see "everybody" can be made to pay towards union fees regarless if they are in a union or not!
It seems pretty clear to me thats the intention.

If that's a real question, I have to answer: not much at all. I'm retired and am not affected by Work choices, AWA's and the rest of the nonsense which is gradually whittling away Australian manufacturing and Australian jobs.

Some people say that they are better off; others say they are worse off (although I have heard this latter only from Greg Combet, not from real workers who will not have the chance to switch jobs - from the union to Canberra - with the ease Combet will).

So who really knows. Only the people affected, and they will be able to vote against Work Choices this year if they choose to do so.

There is really not much point in continuing a discussion. Every four years we have the chance to change things, and that's all we get.

I expect some propaganda from the government to appear on the Work Choices website following their latest backdown. It was interesting to see smiling Joe Hockey recently use the desperate excuse of all struggling governments: It's not the message, we just need to communicate it better.
Anyway,'Fair and Reasonable Test' is to be added to the 'Reasonable Person's Test'. These are testing times! Even the Mining bosses are having a bet each way. Wouldn't want to shoot any potential goose which helps deliver the golden mining boom.
If our only choice is at the next elections, let's hope it is a more informed one about Industrial Relations than last time. Where exactly do the minor parties stand on this debate just in case we have a hung Senate?