This should set Pass A Frozo right off!
Nunc est bibendum
Thread Starter
This should set Pass A Frozo right off!
Spotted this in the online edition of the Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...38-601,00.html
How about it PAFie? What's your take?
I love the straight faced hypocrisy of Labor though. You can't beat it.
Gillard calls for flexibility clauses
JULIA Gillard has called for "flexibility clauses" in workplace awards to modernise the nation's industrial relations system.....
JULIA Gillard has called for "flexibility clauses" in workplace awards to modernise the nation's industrial relations system.....
How about it PAFie? What's your take?
I love the straight faced hypocrisy of Labor though. You can't beat it.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt PAF will have done a course or quote a study done by some academic and will therefore have a hypothesis that he will use to form an opinion in relation to this.
Meanwhile in the real world
Meanwhile in the real world
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eagle 86,
Thats a cracker and I've heard that the only ones in the Libs who supported No Choices were Johnny,Nick,and Tony.
In fact the Libs after the election were like Germany after the war.
"No guys we were never in favour of Work Choices"
"Johnny made us"
"We didn't have a thing to do with it"
"We were only following orders"
Yeah right eagle
Thats a cracker and I've heard that the only ones in the Libs who supported No Choices were Johnny,Nick,and Tony.
In fact the Libs after the election were like Germany after the war.
"No guys we were never in favour of Work Choices"
"Johnny made us"
"We didn't have a thing to do with it"
"We were only following orders"
I have heard that certain members of the labor party actually supported, to some extent, work choices!!
The Labour Government abolished WorkChoices and AWA's in one of their first post Election legislation.
But did they?
Today I have an Individual Transitional Employment Agreement (ITEA) - it is my old WorkChoices AWA with a new name and new coversheet only.
What politicians say they will do in their pre Election rhetoric, and what they actually do when they achieve Government, are two totally different things!
The Prime Minister had no more intention of abolishing AWAs, than he had handing industrial relations back to the Unions by retaining the Award system.
Those that believe the Labour Government will bring in an employee Utopia are living in a dream world.
But did they?
Today I have an Individual Transitional Employment Agreement (ITEA) - it is my old WorkChoices AWA with a new name and new coversheet only.
What politicians say they will do in their pre Election rhetoric, and what they actually do when they achieve Government, are two totally different things!
The Prime Minister had no more intention of abolishing AWAs, than he had handing industrial relations back to the Unions by retaining the Award system.
Those that believe the Labour Government will bring in an employee Utopia are living in a dream world.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without wanting this to evolve into yet another sour grapes session from Liberal supporters....
Didn't Joe Hockey say "We got it wrong with Work Choices" on election night and again after the fateful night......
Get with the program guy's...the election is over...time to move on...
Didn't Joe Hockey say "We got it wrong with Work Choices" on election night and again after the fateful night......
Get with the program guy's...the election is over...time to move on...
Nunc est bibendum
Thread Starter
Didn't Joe Hockey say "We got it wrong with Work Choices" on election night and again after the fateful night......
I have heard that certain members of the labor party actually supported, to some extent, work choices!!
So what you mean is that after an election no-one is permitted to say anything critical of the new government?
Don't get me wrong, Labor deserved to win. They played 'politics' beautifully and ran a very clever and cunning campaign- against the bloke they themselves labeled 'clever and tricky'. I just find it hypocritical to talk down an economy and the nation screaming 'the sky is falling' and then prance off overseas on a junket and talk about how good we're going and how well we're placed to ride out these economic times. In the mean time they're still trying to hammer the government on their economic history whilst riding the advantage of mega surpluses whilst cutting spending to the core- an impact felt a lot wider than you may realise with young people in real danger in some areas due to the immediate cut backs that were implimented. What have we got from this government in the mean time? All talk, no action, a call to further increase our nanny state and calls for bigger government.
The Coalition wasn't perfect by any means but I don't think that Labor is going to advance the nation in the way that most voters expected them to.
Last edited by Keg; 29th Apr 2008 at 09:26.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
......................................The Coalition wasn't perfect by any means but I don't think that Labor is going to advance the nation in the way that most voters expected them to.
'Keg' i think yr above statement couldn't be more truer
, time will tell obviously but I believe & this is just a personal opinion that the voting public has been 'hoodwinked' by one very clever smiling Polly.
We can only hope that SICmd "Gee Gee" doesn't take the helm of this country if the "RUDDer' falls off the Ozzy ship!
CW
'Keg' i think yr above statement couldn't be more truer
, time will tell obviously but I believe & this is just a personal opinion that the voting public has been 'hoodwinked' by one very clever smiling Polly.We can only hope that SICmd "Gee Gee" doesn't take the helm of this country if the "RUDDer' falls off the Ozzy ship!
CW
Last edited by Capt Wally; 29th Apr 2008 at 10:35.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Jaba,
Recently seen in S.E Asia - t-shirts with "SAME SAME" on the front and "... but different" on the back
Keg,
I fear Aus may have voted in Tony Blair - and so should not make the mistake the Poms have made in keeping him on past his use-by date. And then letting the incumbent into the cockpit
.
That said, Johnny and friends had run out of ideas and were taking an ideological trip - and Mr & Mrs Mortgage in Doonside don't give a rat's about ideology. You stop thinking about how people pay their bills, you lose their support. So hopefully, the Libs will use this time as a chance for a bit of navel-gazing, install Malcolm before the next vote and return to power.
Every good government needs a good opposition to keep it on its toes, just like a sportsman will only produce his best when pushed by good opposition. Labor were unelectable in '98, '01 and '04 ("drover's dog", anyone?) and so didn't push the Libs onward and upward for the last few years; the Libs ossified and became arrogant. So the moment the ALP looked reasonably reasonable, they got up. It's not rocket science.
BTW at what point does taking a trip to meet major poilitical, trading and military partners become a 'junket'? Every PM has done it and I'd be worried if a new PM wasn't quickly off glad-handing the great and the good and pushing Australia. Just as airlines' bottom lines depend on business people preferring face-to-face over video-conference, so too is it not better that a nation's leader do similar?
Recently seen in S.E Asia - t-shirts with "SAME SAME" on the front and "... but different" on the back
Keg,
I fear Aus may have voted in Tony Blair - and so should not make the mistake the Poms have made in keeping him on past his use-by date. And then letting the incumbent into the cockpit
.That said, Johnny and friends had run out of ideas and were taking an ideological trip - and Mr & Mrs Mortgage in Doonside don't give a rat's about ideology. You stop thinking about how people pay their bills, you lose their support. So hopefully, the Libs will use this time as a chance for a bit of navel-gazing, install Malcolm before the next vote and return to power.
Every good government needs a good opposition to keep it on its toes, just like a sportsman will only produce his best when pushed by good opposition. Labor were unelectable in '98, '01 and '04 ("drover's dog", anyone?) and so didn't push the Libs onward and upward for the last few years; the Libs ossified and became arrogant. So the moment the ALP looked reasonably reasonable, they got up. It's not rocket science.
BTW at what point does taking a trip to meet major poilitical, trading and military partners become a 'junket'? Every PM has done it and I'd be worried if a new PM wasn't quickly off glad-handing the great and the good and pushing Australia. Just as airlines' bottom lines depend on business people preferring face-to-face over video-conference, so too is it not better that a nation's leader do similar?
To give it an aviation theme too
How about the work done so by Labor into the RAAF, or more rightly the waste of time spent by raafies dealing with the wish to get some dirt on the previous government.
So far we have learnt
Yes, the JSF is the right aircraft for the future of the RAAF.
Yes, we do need to get out of the F111 business...and thats a quote from the CAF.
Yes, the Super Hornet is the right aircraft to bridge the fact the F111 is past its use by date and it won't last until the JSF is here in numbers.
And the best to last
From Mr Rudd before the election. WE WILL MAINTAIN THE DEFENCE BUDGET after the election, We WILL take 10 Billion dollars out of defence (but it won't affect the frontline BS!).
Now I guess that was a non core promise!
How about the work done so by Labor into the RAAF, or more rightly the waste of time spent by raafies dealing with the wish to get some dirt on the previous government.
So far we have learnt
Yes, the JSF is the right aircraft for the future of the RAAF.
Yes, we do need to get out of the F111 business...and thats a quote from the CAF.
Yes, the Super Hornet is the right aircraft to bridge the fact the F111 is past its use by date and it won't last until the JSF is here in numbers.
And the best to last
From Mr Rudd before the election. WE WILL MAINTAIN THE DEFENCE BUDGET after the election, We WILL take 10 Billion dollars out of defence (but it won't affect the frontline BS!).
Now I guess that was a non core promise!
Some of you might like to read the article beforreopening your mouths. What's proposed seems like a sensible idea to me.
What's not to like if we are talking genuine needs from both parties?
The purpose of such a clause is to enable an employer and an individual employee to agree on individual arrangements to meet the genuine individual needs of the employer and the employee. The commission is to ensure that the flexibility clause cannot be used to disadvantage the individual employee.”
Ms Gillard said today the clause needed to be simple and practical.
"An employer and employee need to be able to make an arrangement under the clause without seeking legal advice or sitting down to read 40 pages of `ifs' and `but fors',” she said.
"It needs to allow an employer and employee to make a genuine arrangement that suits them both but ensures that the employee retains the protection of the safety net.
Ms Gillard said today the clause needed to be simple and practical.
"An employer and employee need to be able to make an arrangement under the clause without seeking legal advice or sitting down to read 40 pages of `ifs' and `but fors',” she said.
"It needs to allow an employer and employee to make a genuine arrangement that suits them both but ensures that the employee retains the protection of the safety net.
What's not to like if we are talking genuine needs from both parties?
"What they got wrong mainly was the marketing of it. You can't argue or deny that even the Labor party agrees that flexibility between employer and employee is a good thing. The two big thing the Lib's got wrong (and they did get it wrong) was not ensuring the fairness test straight up and ensuring that people properly understood what they were trying to achieve and why they were trying to achieve it."
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wanna Be Up There...
Age: 53
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Ok folks here is a view from someone who represents employers in the Industrial Relations field.
WorkChoices was an unmitigated disaster. It was ill conceived, poorly considered and poorly implemented. The legislation was very poorly written and confusing.
Many of my clients hated the legislation because it made hiring staff so much more complicated and costly. The beaureacracy in Industrial Relations has exploded to idiotic levels that the original social democrats would have wet dreams about creating. The organisations created are not even attempting to assist employers in any way. The processes and procedures are hopelessly complicated and very technical in nature.
The Fairness Test introduced by Joe Hockey to "fix" the worst excesses of the legislation was also an illconsidered mess. Believe it or not it reduced flexibilities available in agreement making to levels that existed prior to the Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993 which was a Paul Keating initiative. Furthermore there was no consistency in how it was applied. I had one client who submitted a series of AWA's for the same position (high staff turnover in hospitality) and each one came back saying that a different rate of pay was needed to pass the test. This was the same position, same hours with the only change being the name on the Agreement. Absolute lunacy.
Only one problem with this supposition and that is that the original aim of the legislation was to enable the removal of the very things the Fairness Test was subsequently designed to protect. I attended many briefings and meetings with Minister Andrews and senior staffers during this process and the repeated theme was that employees value different things differently and if they wanted to lose their weekend penalty rates in exchange for a non financial benefit then they should be able to agree to it.
Of course the flip side to that is that if the employer wants to remove a benefit and the employee is content to stay in the role then what is wrong with that. All of this was then completely denied later and at a lunch with Joe Hockey he actually said that no one realised that such a thing was possible.
Also please let's not confuse AWA's with WorkChoices. AWA's were introduced in 1996 in the original legislation passed in the first year of Howards Government. The ITEA's now in place must have an expiry date no later than mid December 2009. They cannot be replaced or amended after that date. Furthermore, employers who have not used AWA's prior to 1 December 2007 cannot use ITEA's at all.
Labour has always said that they would abolish AWA's because they were fundamentally opposed to anything other than collective bargaining. Hopefully before they draft the new legislation next year they rethink that view.
WorkChoices was an unmitigated disaster. It was ill conceived, poorly considered and poorly implemented. The legislation was very poorly written and confusing.
Many of my clients hated the legislation because it made hiring staff so much more complicated and costly. The beaureacracy in Industrial Relations has exploded to idiotic levels that the original social democrats would have wet dreams about creating. The organisations created are not even attempting to assist employers in any way. The processes and procedures are hopelessly complicated and very technical in nature.
The Fairness Test introduced by Joe Hockey to "fix" the worst excesses of the legislation was also an illconsidered mess. Believe it or not it reduced flexibilities available in agreement making to levels that existed prior to the Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993 which was a Paul Keating initiative. Furthermore there was no consistency in how it was applied. I had one client who submitted a series of AWA's for the same position (high staff turnover in hospitality) and each one came back saying that a different rate of pay was needed to pass the test. This was the same position, same hours with the only change being the name on the Agreement. Absolute lunacy.
The two big thing the Lib's got wrong (and they did get it wrong) was not ensuring the fairness test straight up
Of course the flip side to that is that if the employer wants to remove a benefit and the employee is content to stay in the role then what is wrong with that. All of this was then completely denied later and at a lunch with Joe Hockey he actually said that no one realised that such a thing was possible.
Also please let's not confuse AWA's with WorkChoices. AWA's were introduced in 1996 in the original legislation passed in the first year of Howards Government. The ITEA's now in place must have an expiry date no later than mid December 2009. They cannot be replaced or amended after that date. Furthermore, employers who have not used AWA's prior to 1 December 2007 cannot use ITEA's at all.
Labour has always said that they would abolish AWA's because they were fundamentally opposed to anything other than collective bargaining. Hopefully before they draft the new legislation next year they rethink that view.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: over the rainbow
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eagle86/RedTBar. I don't know if the very wealthy wife of a very prominent,some might say the most prominent,member of the Federal Labor government is actually a member of the Labor Party but it was widely reported that she was more than happy to engage her employees on the dreaded AWA's.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LewC,
Mate I really don't care what Kev's missus does just the same as I didn't care what Janette did either.There will always be employers who make the most of any regulation.It's the gov that i am interested in.
At the same time anything that is widely reported has to be taken with a grain of salt.
I find it funny though with some here that are having a go at Labour for wanting a system that is flexible.The doomsdayers were telling us that if Kev won the socialists would rule the country and it would be another GW type gov.Now that they are doing the opposite they still can't win.
This is just another chance for the Lib supporters here to have another cheap unaimed shot.
PAF,No probs mate for having a go or being critical of the gov but just be critical about something that deserves it not just because your side didn't win.
Mate I really don't care what Kev's missus does just the same as I didn't care what Janette did either.There will always be employers who make the most of any regulation.It's the gov that i am interested in.
At the same time anything that is widely reported has to be taken with a grain of salt.
I find it funny though with some here that are having a go at Labour for wanting a system that is flexible.The doomsdayers were telling us that if Kev won the socialists would rule the country and it would be another GW type gov.Now that they are doing the opposite they still can't win.
This is just another chance for the Lib supporters here to have another cheap unaimed shot.
PAF,No probs mate for having a go or being critical of the gov but just be critical about something that deserves it not just because your side didn't win.