WORKCHOICES IS DEAD?

Howard Stinks · Post by **Howard Stinks** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:23 pm

Wilson Iron BarTuckey says the trouble with WORKCHOICES was the name, can you believe this geriatric, why doesn't he retire in a peanut farm with a monkey?

Rainbow Moonlight · Post by **Rainbow Moonlight** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:16 am

I was very against work-choices. No way it should be reintroduced. What do you think though about some of the things that are said to be happening under the "award modernisation"? And what of the commission's statement that teh reduction to less awards cannot be done without making some people worse off- I'd like to see that explained in some detail. My guess is that to put everyone in a category on the highest award awarded anyone in the category would cost employers too much money.

Rainbow Moonlight · Post by **Rainbow Moonlight** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:18 am

An alternative i guess would be to maintain some industry specific awards how they are with transistion arrangements once others from that category catch up. Or to widen the number of awards aimed at.

Leftofcentresalterego · Post by **Leftofcentresalterego** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:17 pm

Serf choices was one of the worst pieces of socio-economic policy introduced in the history of this country.

I notice that union membership is now trending UP for the first time in many years. Unions were generally expecting membership to fall as unemployment/underemployment rose through the downturn but the opposite appears to be happening. That ratty and tip are gone and Labor is in power are obvious reasons but there are probably others as well. Most workplaces contain a mix of unionised and non-unionised workers. A significant number of enterprises have gone belly up in the downturn (although the governments stimulus packages have definately minimised this). The unions have gone in to fight tooth and nail to secure their members entitlements - but plenty of non-unionised workers have had to cop it on the chin while watching their unionised co-workers at least get what is owed to them.

I have seen this situation time and again in this resource town over the last 12 months, as well as unions fighting hard to secure deals to keep as many of their members employed as possible.

Working people may be starting to re-awaken to the fact that unions are not "evil communist agitators" or any other such garbage but exist to defend their interests.

As true now as ever · Post by **As true now as ever** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:38 pm

Just plain old commonsense:

Working man needs a union.

Leftofcentresalterego · Post by **Leftofcentresalterego** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:45 pm

As true now as ever wrote:Just plain old commonsense:

Working man needs a union.

Hear hear.

(oh, and working women as well

)

cheers

Stronger than you · Post by **Stronger than you** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:47 pm

What a weak lot you are.

Betcha you still run crying to mummy to fight your battles for ya

Leftofcentresalterego · Post by **Leftofcentresalterego** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 6:38 pm

The proposal appears to be: either break yourself up or we'll do it for you.

About the same amount of choice the privatised monopoly has given to Australians

Good on Rudd!!

Leftofcentresalterego · Post by **Leftofcentresalterego** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:11 pm

Another thing - when I became the successfull applicant for the job I do now, the boss asked me if I wanted to join the relevent union. I remember reading the form that said something like " in the interests of preserving and furthering democracy, successfull applicants will be offered the choice to join the relevent union" (it was 13 years ago, can't remember all details). This was the Queensland public sector. Even under serf choices, the state public sectors remained bastions of trade unionism, while membership in the private sector had fallen to around 15%.

Not sure if the private sector were required to offer new employees the choice of union membership or if this was stripped away - most people aren't going to argue for something that hasn't been offered on their first day.

Howard Stinks · Post by **Howard Stinks** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:15 am

Leftofcentresalterego wrote:Another thing - when I became the successfull applicant for the job I do now, the boss asked me if I wanted to join the relevent union. I remember reading the form that said something like " in the interests of preserving and furthering democracy, successfull applicants will be offered the choice to join the relevent union" (it was 13 years ago, can't remember all details). This was the Queensland public sector. Even under serf choices, the state public sectors remained bastions of trade unionism, while membership in the private sector had fallen to around 15%.

Not sure if the private sector were required to offer new employees the choice of union membership or if this was stripped away - most people aren't going to argue for something that hasn't been offered on their first day.

The trouble was under Howard if you asked them if there was a union to join the employers would see you as a trouble maker automaticaly and give the job to someone else.

Political Animal