WorkChoices is dead, dead, dead and dead!

[Jovial Monk]

Of course not Mantra, as I said earlier financial hardship that means that businesses having to let people go is not unfair dismissal and never was.

[Rainbow Moonlight]

seconded

[Jovial Monk]

The unfair dismissal was put in so crap businesses owned by sleazebags could sack their workforce and rehire them for a lot less money on AWAs. AWAs had hardly been a success except for miners.

Before the 2004 election the coalition had been trying to get approval to remove the unfair dismissal laws for small business. The rationale was that a person might use the laws to make themselves useless knowing they couldn't be fired and hoping the employer would give them "go away money." (hey, that is Ok for execs. . .)

During the WC debate I heard the Parlt. debates and both in Reps and the Senate ONE SINGLE CASE of this was quoted, the same case in both houses. That is, WC was sold on fraudulent grounds.

No, if a small business is seeing declining sales it can sack workers if it cannot afford to keep them on the payroll with no danger of being sued for unfair dismissal.

[Postul8]

Workchoices isn't dead. It's only in the legislative deep freeze. Like the Frankenstein's Monster Gillard referred to, it'll be back as soon as Labor loses government. Might be next year, might not be until three more terms but it WILL be back. It's a creature of ideology and only needs resuscitation to up & around again. Don't ever kid yourselves. As long as the Liberal Party remain a party of purist Conservatives, it'll be back.

[vanessa~]

the unworkers are glad they voted for the alp..they didnt want jobs..the bank will not kick them out of their house if they cant pay the mortgage..will it..mr rudd will look after them..wont he..

Incisive comment from the right.

egocentric comment from the left..what do you think of all the new unemployed people..off the radar?

[vanessa~]

It's easy to say that this is great news - but what about the businesses who can no longer afford to keep their employees on? Times are tough at the moment - wages are being reduced and many are losing their jobs. Isn't this just going to exacerbate financial problems if small companies over 15 people have to jump through hoops to dismiss someone?

no..they will not hire them in the first place..problem solved..

[Postul8]

ooooooo.....unemployed people, DT? Spooky eh? Just like the living dead aren't they? Of course, you mean the spirits of the undead Workchoices, don't you. Sour Grapes, Pelican-Puss? Suffer in ya jocks, pal

[Jubial Priest]

So now vanessa~ is DT?

Make up your mind confused fat arsed paedophile. Are we all the same DT or are we different DT's?

[vanessa~]

am i dt now too..i used to be auzgurl..then i was tweety and sylvester..now dt..

is pustul8 a pedophile?..i will tell my mothers group about him and nominate him for the blacklist..

[Jovial Monk]

Vanessa is, of course, quite wrong.

Business can still fire people if their business is contracting. The rationale, the whole fucking official rationale, is that some people (and only ONE case was cited by the Fibs in the WC debate) is that some people use unfair dismissal protection to make a nuisance of themselves to get 'going away' money. There are enough protections against this that unfair dismissal is no longer necessary.

In real life, a lot of people sued their employers for unfair dismissal under WC and got big payouts. That is a fact. WC was also that complicated that early adopters, like Spotlight, ended up approaching the unions and negotiating enterprise agreements. WC put a HUGE administrative workload on companies using it, it was very far indeed from 'deregulating' industrial relations. Ideology gone mad is more like it!