Belly,
Maybe you should read more than the smh before you accuse someone of being extremist. The smh will publish anything that is critical of the current government or any of its members.

You maybe surprised to find you agree with some of Benardi's views. Like on Islam, I notice his are similar to yours. Maybe also on the illegal boat arrivals as well. Some Labor MPs do not agree with homosexual marriage or abortion on demand, so does that make them extremist or give the ALP a lurch to the right.

I wonder if you agree with the immigration views of one particular Labor MP or should he be removed for not toeing the party line.

There are many that do not agree with the word marriage for homosexual unions and many who have serious reservations about the number of abortions carried out, including myself. Does that alone mean I am extreme and what about your views on Islam.

Cory speaks to much truth for even his own party to stomach. Good to see a man who speaks the truth.

Yuyutsu, When Maria the cleaner sits down with the boss to sign a new workplace agreement. Will the the scenario go like this;
Jim the boss has popped around (called first to see if it was okay) to Maria's house to nut out a workplace agreement.
All very lardy dah, with Maria producing her version of the agreement, with what she would like, and boss Jim with his. After some warm and fuzzy discussion a mutual agreement is reach which includes some of Maria's points and some of Jims, oh so nice. Maria got $5 an hour more and a extra weeks holiday, she did ask for $10 and 2 weeks more holidays, but compromise was reached, considering Jim offered nothing more. In fact Maria gave up her 17 1/2% loading to get the extra.
Talk about cloud cuckoo land
The real scenario will be;
Maria like all employees in turn will be summoned to the Bosses office presented with a workplace agreement to be signed as a 'fait accompli'. Any dissension will be treated as rabble rousing and trouble making. "Find another job" will be the alternative offer to workers without industrial clout, poor English, no union, few skills, the young, many females, which will be the majority.
Are some just naive or do they peddle that BS line about workplace agreements because they want to take away a workers right to collective barging and better outcome for themselves. Agreements reached with union input are always far better for the worker that any kind of individual agreement, ever will be.

Dear Paul,

In one paragraph you made at least 10 assumptions:

1. Jim is a boss.
2. Maria is an employee.
3. Jim has other employees.
4. Jim has an office.
5. The agreement is standard and was not discussed.
6. The situation is "industrial".
7. The conversation was in English and Maria doesn't speak English well.
8. Maria is young (yet doesn't speak English well...)
9. Maria has few skills.
10. Jim and Maria are essentially hostile to each other.

So for the sake of the worst scenario you are willing to intrude and inflict yourself on innocent happy people whom you don't know and who never asked for your assistance:

For example:
Jim is a busy person, so he asked his aunt, Maria, a skilled technician who recently retired and feels bored, to fix his computer. They agreed (in French) that she would do so for $5/hour. They are fond of each other and exchanged no papers about this deal.

Knock knock, comes the union official with two policemen: "Jim, you are an employer; Maria, you are an employee; this is an industrial situation and you are engaging in an illegal activity, so off you two to jail!"

By the way, I never suggested that workers cannot use collective bargaining and the services of a union - those who want.

This will not go down well, a line has been crossed. The mad monk will see to it that he has been taken out of context.

Paul 1405,

You're on the ball.

In union there is strength.

If anyone doubts then just ask a veneer in a sheet of ten ply.