WorkChoices zombie rises
|
Tony Abbott has stumbled into yet another WorkChoices problem with his commitment yesterday to save $25.4 million by forcing unions to pay the cost of ballots. The proposal goes far beyond the draconian requirement of WorkChoices, which required all ballots for industrial action to be conducted by secret ballot — but with unions only paying 20% of the “reasonable costs” of the ballot. Under the Abbott proposal, unions would have to bear the full cost of conducting protected secret ballots. Secret ballots for industrial action were long a goal of Coalition IR policy. By forcing unions to conduct secret ballots, WorkChoices ostensibly aimed at ensuring there was no intimidation of union members who may not have wanted to take strike action. However, even the Howard government declined to impose on unions the expense of organising, running and counting a secret ballot involving possibly hundreds or thousands of trade union members. Section 109ZH of the Workplace Relations Act 2005 required that unions only meet 20% of the “reasonable cost” of secret ballots, with the Australian Electoral Commission picking up the rest, or the Commonwealth picking up the rest if an authorised authority other than the AEC conducted the ballot. In 2008-09, the AEC conducted nearly 230 industrial action ballots. The Rudd government kept the requirement for secret ballots for protected industrial action, but removed the 20% cost requirement. The issue of liability for costs of often-expensive secret ballots is covered in the Fair Work Act, s.464(2), which says
The Daily Telegraph this morning seized on the contradiction between the imposition of full costs on unions and Abbott’s repeated insistence, complete with signed statement, that the Fair Work Act would not be changed in the first term of a Coalition Government. In response to the story, Eric Abetz, Joe Hockey and finally Tony Abbott all claimed that the imposition of full costs on unions could be done without amending this section of the Fair Work Act. Instead, they claim, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 can be amended to address the issue. Section 7B of the Electoral Act says:
Section 7A allows the AEC to enter into contracts to supply services such as running elections to outside parties. Conceivably, s.7B could be amended to override the Fair Work Act without amending the latter, but difference is purely legalistic — in effect s.464(2) of the Fair Work Act would have been repealed, even if the repeal was done in another Act. As if it would help his case, Abbott declared this morning that his advice had come from Shadow Attorney-General George Brandis “one of Australia’s finest lawyers”. Undoubtedly, Brandis holds the view that he is in the top rank of Australian jurisprudence; whether that view is widely shared is another question. In any event, the Coalition proposal announced yesterday is, in effect, five times worse than Workchoices, which at least kept union liability down to 20%. Strictly speaking, Abbott won’t be reintroducing any elements of WorkChoices — he’ll be going much, much further. |
|
|
|
76 Comments
Maybe you should read this BK
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/21/2960021.htm?section=justin
After what he done to Pauline Hanson I would not believe Tony Abbott if he said the sun was shining , I would have to go out-side and check for my-self. Last time I checked Keven Rudd was still walking around, Tony said he was asssinated, see what I mean, he’s an idiot. If a member of your foot-ball team wasn’t playing up to stand you would put an0ther player in his place, wouldn’t you? so all the nasty BACK STABBING and ruthless word’s the Liberals keep saying is just thug talk.
BK wrote; “George Brandis “one of Australia’s finest lawyers”. Undoubtedly, Brandis holds the view that he is in the top rank of Australian jurisprudence; whether that view is widely shared is another question.”
How could I decline Bernard’s invitation to comment on George Brandis? It is probably just a deep personality trait reinforced by being a barrister of the “shark attack” kind, layered with political dogma and total certitude and arrogance that no one else in hearing range has anything worthwhile to say, but George is a serial interrupter and shouter-over of any opponent or indeed interviewer. All of Australia sees this from time to time on Lateline, 7.30Report and especially Q&A. He is an inadvertent advocate of the proposition that politicians are better seen not heard.
Queenslanders get a half hour dose of his constant interruptions in the weekly discussion, held by Madonna King on ABC612, with Craig Emmerson. Emmo shows the patience of Job when Brandis constantly and loudly interrupts 5 seconds into any reply or explanation by the Labor minister, yet in Brandis’s own replies he is long-winded, constantly shouting “please let me finish” after King or Emmo (or this listener) can stand it no longer. He also deploys his barrister skills to the max with his often economic-with-the-truth blatherings. For the last two weeks he has been MIA on Madonna’s Wednesday slot, being replaced by Peter Dutton who is the model of fairness and calm compared to GB.
The sole thing which would indicate Brandis is not a total waste of space is his fame/infamy for labelling Howard as the “rodent” which shows that if he stuck to short snappy statements and the truth, he would find his audience more tolerant.
Abbott and his mates can use the ‘dog and goat’ act if they wish, the end result will be the same.
The (most) recent legislation will prevail - (ABC The World Today interview?). They’ll make the Unions pay the costs of their elections, in contravention of the Rudd Govt. Fair Work Act!
Abbott’s so-called promise not to change the Fair Work Act was only a matter of language - in fact, he’ll do exactly that, as you’ve stated Bernard! I said I didn’t trust him as far as I could throw him - which, with my arms and small stature is nowhere!
So Maccas - where was your beloved krudds rights under joolia goolards IR laws to unfair dismissal hmmmmmmmmm - IDIOT.
No-one really believes a word Tony Abbott says, but are they prepared to have the courage of the ALP and get rid of him before the election? No, they’ve had their three chances.
They are compelled now to take their own advice about Kevin Rudd and leave it to the people to defeat their Leader. So many “never, evers”! Just watch those polls slide.
Brush up those dusty suits, Malcolm!
One of many “Boo! Workchoices!” articles we will get.
I guess we can expect a steady stream of vapid, partisan, shallow, tabloid-style, party political broadcasts like this one from Bernard Keane right up to election day. Do your bit for Labor Bernard, but it’s sad. It cheapens Crikey.
Surfer that seems to say that we only care about the semantics of what is said, ergo I can leave the wording of the legislation unchanged but alter its effect and that’s keeping my promise? You’re probably right but we should hold such slieght iof hand up to scrutiny.
And Lorna, thanks for displaying such utter and complete ignorance of what employment rights exist in this land and from where they derive. Good work.
@Surfer,
What an extremely interesting link! …
Dr Lynch has told ABC Radio’s The World Today program that changes to the Electoral Act will override provisions in the Fair Work Act.
“That’s not technically a change to the Fair Work Act, but it does bring about an alteration,” he said.
“If there’s two pieces of legislation that are inconsistent with each other, then the one that’s more recent in time is the law.”
So it turns out that the Liberals do not actually NEED to change the Fair Work act to bring back WorkChoices? They just need to override it with more recent legislation?
Shall we have a competition for what the Libs will call the new act when they introduce it?
Perhaps the “No More Fair Work (Choices)” Act?
I like Peter van Olseren’s comment that IR reform is a core Liberal value, and that if Abbott is not prepared to support it he is a sell-out
“if Liberals won’t stand up for workplace reform, why bother ever electing them?”
so Abbott is either a sellout or a liar. he has wedged himself.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
Nikki and Bernard thanks for the research I think you are probably spot-on with your analysis.
I love the rather cheeky mathematical formula though.
When the ‘bring back work-choices’ team finally prove you right it may be a formula you can sell for cash to the starved for thought media brigade.
What’s with this ‘joolia goolards’ rubbish?
Is this Crikey or the Herald Sun/Daily Telegraph?
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
Is LORNA displaying a liberal bias or visiting from another planet?
While the argument that the government can just amend the Electoral Act is legally correct, and has the support of a constitutional lawyer according to the article Surfer linked to above, if that is the standard that Abbott’s promise is held to, the promise is a hollow one. Any legislation passed by the Parliament will impliedly repeal earlier legislation to the extent of any inconsistency.
Forget amending the Electoral Act - an Abbott government could pass a whole new Act governing industrial relations. This Act could bring back the whole of the workchoices regime, impliedly repealing the Fair Work Act to the extent of any inconsistencies (ie almost entirely). While legislation will generally expressly repeal the old Act covering the same area, the absence of such an express provision does not stop the new Act overruling the old one. This is exactly what the amendment to the Electoral Act would do. If passing or amending separate legislation causing parts of the Fair Work Act to become ineffective without a specific repeal is not considered to be amending the Fair Work Act, then anything can be done without amending the Fair Work Act.
If Abbott seriously contends that amending the Electoral Act to cause a part of the Fair Work Act to be impliedly repealed is not amending the Fair Work Act, his promise is not worth the paper it is written on.
Does Abbott have to amend the Electoral Act to recoup the cost of State and Federal Elections, or could he just do that? Save lots of money, and knock out all those pesky low income earners.
Tony Abbott has had 4 different positions on Workchoices in 4 weeks. Anyone who believes his latest promise needs their head read!! There is no doubt that he, and the Liberal National Coalition, and big business, and small business are deeply committed to the principles of Workchoices. Whether they call what they do next time they may be in government Workchoices, or something else, it will be based on the same principles.
Making unions pay the full cost of elections is just another part of the Workchoices longer term strategy to hit the finances of unions. And secret ballots are to allow the employer time and resources to intimidate employees and to undermine the solidarity of workers in a workplace.
Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!
Heaven forbid that the electorate should have a say!
Bernard hardly needs the encouragement, does he?
Ah Lorna as the day gets longer, so your sobriety diminishes. Bringing on a greater degree of stupidity. Sleep well oh slush one. Tomorrow will bring a new dawn and the promise of more of your foolishness.
Abbott won’t be happy until we’re back in the mines, up chimneys and sweeping streets. He can’t cope with a rapidly changing flexible society in which individuals enjoy rights and people speak their minds. If he had his way women wouldn’t vote, kids would be ‘seen and not heard’, there’d only be one God and apartheid would be rampant. Robert Menzies referred to his ilk: “A man may be a tough, concentrated, successful money-maker and never contribute to his country anything more than a horrible example”. It’s a sick Party that advocates dodgy, unfair and harsh workplaces and it has no place in this or any society.
In support of Michael R. James, let’s not forget that a few years ago George the Genius was publicly asserting that his research had shown Greens policies to be virtually indistinguishable from those of A. Hitler, the Nazi Party and the Third Reich.
Why is it that if the fiberals get elected they have to screw over the small man and ensure the rich get richer.
It never gets much publicity but in no action man’s workplace, employees who pre wankchoices earned $22-25/hour working casual for an employer ended up on $14-20 per hour as the labour hire companies took their cut.
Most take $4,70 per hour from the rate the employer pays ie $18 + 4.70 ($22.70),
Out of that the companies pay super, workcover and any other working costs for each employee.
So in the wash up, the employee is now paying himself all the costs previously paid by the employer for his employment and also a profit for the labour hire company.
And now these companies have been allowed access to the Job Network/Centrelink unemployed data base. Refusal to work for what they want to pay means losing one’s Newstart allowance.
If Abbott introduces Legislation that changes the Electoral Act, and he leaves the present Fair Work Act as it is now, even though the new Legislation over-rides what ever is now present in that area, won’t it still produce a conflict of Legislation in practice? Would he then have to change the Fair Work Act anyway, so there’s no perceived conflict? Or as Joe Hockey alluded to this morning on ABC AM, will the lawyers sort it out in Court - while we pay? Again! Very slick throwing our money around in these areas aren’t they?
In case I’ve confused people. Scenario! Abbott gets Legislation through the Parliament re the Electoral Act, but leaves the Fair Work Legislation as is - he’ll create confusion? So?
To people like TROY and LORNA and their love affair with Abbott, I suggest that they take a look at some of the many studies undertaken investigating the effects of WorstChoices. The results were pretty awful, particularly for women and young people. Young people are particularly vulnerable due to their inexperience, and the frequent situation where they feel intimidated and insecure to even ask questions. This happened very frequently, and in my area, there were several multinationals who were called to account. In the majority of cases, the parents took up their cases with the Sth Coast Labour Council, who consulted with the relevant Union who acted on their behalf! How many young people in regional areas were not able to do this? I’ve also learned, that death and serious injuries in relation to young employees (aged 16-25) is very high - much higher than I realised - almost all could be prevented I believe!
The relevance of this inclusion in my discussion, is that where workers are members of unions, and have a positive role in their workplaces re safety, the incidents of death and serious injuries is lowered. Abbott would get rid of this, and it would include workers being paid while they participate in this vital information/courses etc! This situation was reinforced during the rescue of the Beaconsfield miners - those who rescued them were trained in this manner! Howard was going to stop it - Abbott would too!
DAVID HAND displays all of the debating skills so typical of his (right-wing) ilk: Not one fact or logical argument - just name calling. Can he explain to us in simple terms why WorkChoices is (in his view) so wonderful?
Tony Abbott may say that WorkChoices is “dead, buried and cremated”, but can he be believed? Is it a “Tony Truth” (only when it’s scripted) or a “non-core truth”? WorkChoices is so deeply ingrained into Coalition philosophy that it will simply rise from the ashes, Phoenix-like, with a different name and, so it now seems, even more draconian aims. Remember, too that it has to be dug up again before it can be cremated!
@MACK THE KNIFE - “Why is it that if the fiberals get elected they have to screw over the small man and ensure the rich get richer.”
Because they’re in Government to represent their interests FIRST! Howard said as much a few years ago. He believed that any or all businesses should be able to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week! We’re just the slaves to help them achieve their goals. If they could get away with it, they’d pay you zilch!
Further, prior to the 2007 Election, Gerry Harvey advocated, that workers from outside the country be brought in to work, and only receive half of what Australians are paid. He was adamant, that there was agreement with Coalition members, although they wouldn’t admit to same, so that’s another area to be concerned about - I certainly am! They’d probably like to have these people working and living like some do in Indonesia for example, or China or????
Scary!
Mack, I like “fiberals” by the way!
Could the coalition get any more stupid? They’re stuffed until they reinstate Turnbull, at least he has a bit of nouse.
I like how the proposal would hit unions hard without giving any advantage to business. Wedge politics at its most stupid… PvO is right, why would you elect them?
Hey Doug,
I’m wounded! Accusing the other lot of “name calling” is my line! You’ve stolen my line!
If you really want to know, I rarely comment in these strings because most of the discussion is, you know, so vapid, partisan, shallow, tabloid-style and party political - just look at most of the comments above. But you’ve stung me so here goes.
Work Choices was bad policy, introduced by a leader who had the hubris to believe that his absolute majority in both houses gave him a once in a generation opportunity to kill the union movement. In my opinion, the single biggest flaw in Work Choices was the unequal relationship that exists between employees and their bosses, where it is almost impossible for an employee to negotiate any choice in working conditions. Workers need protection in law from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers. But I still believe in labour market flexibility and that our prosperity as a nation will be enhanced as new working conditions are applied to changing circumstances. Discussing how this can occur is too big an issue for this string.
Your view that “Work Choices is … deeply ingrained into Coalition philosophy…” shows that you equate any modification at all that untroduces more flexibility into the workplace as “Work Choices”. It is this labelling of the issue in the election campaign that led me to call Bernard’s item as a “Boo! Workchoices!” story
Well you can bang on with Bernard and that poor soul who is afraid of going “up chimneys and sweeping streets” about the Work Choices bogey man. But Bernard deserves to be called names. His shameless headline, that any room the Coalition tries to create to support more flexibility in the workplace is a “Workchoices Zombie” is simply the partisan shallow leftie electioneering polemic that his work increasingly displays. As 21 August looms, I expect it to get worse.
@DOUGLAS MCK - “Remember, too that it has to be dug up again before it can be cremated!”
Indeed! “buried and cremated” was a bit of an overkill wasn’t it? (ooops! sorry - couldn’t resist?)
Abbott & his mates think we’re as thick headed as he is! People have no idea what is before them if they vote the Libs in - I shudder to think! Cardinal Pell in the Lodge? One scary thought! Equality for women? Equal pay will go back even further than it is now! A woman has to work an extra 63 days before she earns the same wage as men. In some areas, it’s even higher! Lest we forget!
DAVIDK - I’d like to hear an indepth interview with Turnbull re the ETS? Does he go around his electorate supporting the so-called climate change policy of Abbott and his right wing mates? He worked with the ALP and then was done over by his mates! Don’t they have “blood on their hands?” Interesting isn’t it?
A decent (if one-sided) article Mr Keane, until that flourish of exaggeration in the final paragraph:
Are you saying that the worst thing about Workchoices was forcing unions to pay 20% of the cost of secret ballots? So you had no problem with criminal laws against striking and so on; you think the costs of doing ballots was the entire measure of Workchoices’ badness.
I hardly think Workchoices would be such a big boogeyman if that were all that was wrong with it.
The central problem with Workchoices was the same as that of the Labor-sanctioned legislative monopolies on labour that it was intended to break down. The old Labor IR system could be used to legally force a worker not to come to work and unilaterally shut down a business. Workchoices could be used to legally force a worker to come to work - in other words, slavery. Either of these, in a free country, is unacceptable.
But the cost of doing ballots? Come on, you are blowing the dog whistle, and it’s unworthy of you. Just out of curiosity, the Corporations Act regulates governance of corporations, how much does the AEC pay for the voting process in a shareholder meeting?
I watched Hockey standing in for Abbott on 7.30 Report tonight. Abbott couldn’t appear because he had a commitment to be on the Hey Hey It’s Yesterday program in the Red Faces segment — both quite appropriate places for Abbott. Interesting how Julie Bishop doesn’t stand in for her leader when he’s otherwise engaged.
Under sustained questioning from O’Brien, Hockey prevaricated about changes to the Electoral Act designed, planned it seems, to avoid changing provisions of the Fair Work Act as they relate to covering the cost of secret ballots conducted by the AEC.
I look forward to the same questions being put direct to Abbott when he appears on 7.30 Report next week, for the so-called “gospel” version.
David Hand - I’m more and more convinced that a certain well-worn phrase needs to be re-jigged to the effect of “the first person who accuses the other of personal attacks, name calling, playing the man etc loses the argument”.
99% of the time this line is used it’s the accuser who most displays these characteristics and lacks evidence to support their position.
Workchoices? Julia’s new laws worked really well for Jason Akermanis? How’s that for unfair dismissal? The guy now has no chance of future employment, it’s all working well isn’t it?
ROHAN, very true.
When DAVID HAND lampoons the tone of this and other “news” stories, not the writer, DOUGLAS MACKENZIE responds with name-calling together with, ironically, a false accusation of name calling …
… and a Straw Man attack:
… distracting from DAVID HAND’s point by accusing him of making a completely different point, that Work Choices was “wonderful”.
But I’m still waiting for someone even to acknowledge DAVID HAND’s point, let alone agree or disagree with it. I tried a softer approach earlier by partly praising the story, but I see now that DAVID was the more honest one.
BERNARD KEANE, along with the entire mainstream media, is using any proposed change in IR to scream “WORK CHOICES” from the rooftops, like an agitator in a crowd trying to kick off a riot. The same way he has previously accused both sides of blowing the dog whistle on boat people.
It reads like a cheap, irresponsible, cynical, dog-whistle way to push the election the way he wants it to go by appealing to the base fears of people who don’t know any better.
DOUGLAS MACKENZIE, you will note that neither DAVID nor I have called any person names here. But this “news story”? It’s a disgrace.
@JOHNFROMPLANTEAR Workchoices? Julia’s new laws worked really well for Jason Akermanis? How’s that for unfair dismissal? The guy now has no chance of future employment, it’s all working well isn’t it?
Didm’t Jason get the sack because he breached/leaked internal confidences? People lost their jobs under WorstChoices for less than this! Taking their wives/partners to hospital to give birth, or in the tragic situation of threatened miscarriage; (what sort of heartless bastard would do that?) or just because the boss didn’t ‘like your face’? The Howard Govt admitted, that there didn’t have to be a problem with your work or punctuality problems etc? Any reason really!
I also heard that they fell on their arse over this, as workers with the assistance of their Union sought legal advice, and instead of either not going to the ‘conventional’ court or just a District Court; in really awful situations, they went to the Supreme Court and so gained a higher settlement - served the bosses right!
To those who think Bernard is overdoing the Coalition’s desire to have the Legislation of WorstChoices, but obviously change the name, have short memories. I recall Nick Minchin addressing a group of right wing business people(H.R. Nichols Institute?) and apologising for WorstChoices not going further - he promised, that if re-elected(2007) that would happen!
Notice that Abbott and his gang members always say, ‘that Workchoices is dead’? They don’t refer to any of the ‘rules’ never being introduced again - just the name? And sadly, they’re very rarely queried re any of the individual aspects of this anti-worker legislation. They’re also not quizzed by msm about Howard lying to the electorate about IR Laws prior to the 2004 election. And now, after only a matter of days, they’re going to remove the right of Unions to use the AEC free of charge(apart from what we all pay for as taxpayers?). As someone asked, what happens in the ‘big business’ elections?What about the $10 BILLION of our money that goes to the fossil fuel industries each year via subsidies etc? How do I benefit from that investment?
Who can recall the 7.30Report program re the count in the 2004 Federal Election, when the Coalition gained that last Senate seat that gave them the majority - I do! Ron Boswell was filmed having a conversation with Howard via mobile phone, and he was giving him the ‘happy’ news. His comment started as, ‘yes, prime minister it’s open……..’ and abruptly stopped! It doesn’t take a Rhodes scholar to realise, that the word left ‘hanging’ was SLATHER? Did Howard stop him? Probably! Funny how, whenever the ABC re-played this, they always left the last bit out! I’ve pointed it out to different people, who saw the original and the follow ups!
This is why they used the ‘gag’ and the ‘guillotine’ on both the IR Legislation and the Anti-Terrorism Act - they were introduced into the House of Reps on sucessive days - one was Melbourne Cup Day - while the people and the media were busy elsewhere - clever! Perhaps that’s how Howard got his ‘mean and tricky’ label? Perhaps even Brandis’ alleged comment of him being a ‘lying little rodent’ was deserved! Funny how Brandis isn’t challenged over his interpretation of the concept of ‘loyalty’ these days? He didn’t show much did he?
When will workers be able to engage with the Treasury Dept re their taxation charges? Come to a suitable arrangement - downwards of course? Some subsidies also perhaps? It’s workers taxes that pay for big business ‘subsidies’?
@Johnfromplanetearth…what are you trying to stirup now? You do not have the slightest idea, ignorance must surely be blisss, or in your case an affliction. The man was dismissed yesterday, 24 hours have not yet passed. He has a contract. He will now with his manager and lawyer work through any implications. Grow up.
@davidk
‘Could the coalition get any more stupid? They’re stuffed until they reinstate Turnbull, at least he has a bit of nouse.’
I think the Coalition expect to lose this election, possibly they really don’t want to win this time. Turnbull must have been made some sort of doozy of an offer to lure him back. I’d say it was along the lines of ‘We know we won’t win this election, Abbott, poor sod, is just a stooge. How about coming back? You’ll be leader after the election and prime minister the election after that’. Pretty obvious really. There’s no-one else left with any leadership ability.
There’s really no point in talking about Work Choices and what Abbott will or won’t do. Anything he says is irrelevant because he has Buckley’s of becoming prime minister. Unless he spends an awful lot of time with his rosary beads over the next four weeks, that is. Maybe he can find a potential saint who needs to provide a miracle to listen to his prayers.
All this talk about the ‘workchoices zombie’ is a beat up, If the Coalition were to get into power they wouldn’t bother doing any major fiddling with the IR system in their first term, they’d be too busy fixing all of Labor’s stuff ups anyway.
Why isn’t more being made of those stuff ups? They were bad enough to bring down Kevin Rudd yet people seem to forget that Julia Gillard is just as responsible for all of that mess. Or do people legitimitely think that they did a good job? The amount of waste in the Government programs is truly eye watering, and as an engineer who is quite accustomed to implementing big spending programs I can honestly say that it is absolutely inexcusable. If I did my job as badly as Swan and co then I would have been on the streets a long time ago.
And for the record Engineers don’t have Unions and most of my colleagues work as contractors employed without any employment benefits other than our hourly rate. Every day I compete with cheaper engineers in low cost engineering centres overseas and yet somehow this same competition is unfair in blue collar jobs? What a joke, employers legitimitely value good workers and will pay a premium for them, if you can’t look your boss in the eye and proudly ask for more pay then the reason is simple: you don’t deserve it, if you think running a company is easy then go out and start your own, if both those options are unpalatable then too bad so sad welcome to the real world. On that basis alone I was quite happy with Workchoices.
@Leone,
I think I have to agree with you. The Libs appear to believe they have already lost this electoin and are just going through the motions. Leaving aside the issue of treating the electorate with contempt, their backbenchers must be absolutely furious - if the party actually cared about trying to preserve their seats they would replace their leader with someone at least marginally electable - they would probably still lose, but they’d end up hanging on to a few more seats. I guess the trouble is that none of the credible alternatives would probably now agree to take on the job, only to face an immediate electoral loss.
However, in the spirit of trying to preserve some semblance of their having a backbone, I have a couple of suggested policy slogans for the Libs:
“Tony Abbott: Read my lips - No New Policies!”
“Tony Abbot: Because asking for forgiveness is easier than asking for a mandate”
Spoken like a true engineer Jeremy. Australia cannot get enough engineers therefore we pay a premium for those we have and encourgae as many to come here from overseas that we can.
Here’s an exercise in realism for you. Instead of working in a job where your skills are in short supply work in a job where the employer can get another person to fill your job any time they choose. Then try looking your boss in the eye and proudly asking for more money. As an aside, if you’re in a job like that the chances are you’re not a middle aged, tertiary educated white man.
As for your bleating about poor old contractors ‘lack of employment benefits’, that would be because their not ‘employed’ hence the nomenclature ‘contractors’. It’s a choice you can make. If you were decent, empathetic and rationale you’d agree this choice is simply not available to many people.
And for the record engineers do have unions. APESMA ALAEA, CEPU, CPSU CFMEU and the AWU all represent engineers.
It continues to beggar belief that ‘educated people’ get some of these basic realities so wrong. Then again isn’t Steve Fielding an engineer?
I should also note that although I too have been critical of Tony in many ways credit should be given where it is due, he did after all claim the scalp of Australia’s most popular PM ever! And in his first term no less!
The Coalition were in much worse shape under Turnbull than they were under Abbott that is for sure, the Coalition’s massive turnaround in the past 6 months or so is almost entirely due to Abbott.
To attack Abbott for not having any policies is ridiculous too, many commentators prior to the calling of the election campaign were saying that Abbott was virtually governing from opposition! The me-tooism from Labor two campaigns in a row is pretty lame, although I admit it has been successful.
Thanks SBH, I was half way through a reply same thread…your reference to Fielding suggests Jeremy and he could be blood brothers, or is that bible brothers?
@Jeremy,
When your friends suggested your “handle”, did it occur to you that they might be being sacrastic?
Jeremy the Realist is the WorkChoices Zombie! Must…eat…workers…Cruuush them…..
SBH, I worked my butt off at school and uni to get my qualifications knowing full well that in a globalised world I would need to maintain a technical advantage over my competitors to maintain a decent standard of living. I was not privy to any secret information I just opened my eyes and accepted the reality of the world we live in. People in Australia who think we can continue to maintain our standard of living indefinitely are kidding themselves. If you drop out of school in yr 10 and go work at Maccas then you deserve all of the perils of that decision and you will not get an ounce of my sympathy from me. Likewise if you decide to work in hospitality and then complain about the working hours then the same applies, hospitality has always entailed such work standards, if you don’t like it then stay at school and get a better job with better conditions.
Asia is booming right now because their populace has accepted this hard fact. Asian students are among the hardest working in the world because they know the only alternative is a life of poverty. They deserve success and they will certainly get it. Australians desperately need to wake up to this and accept that every time a Union makes a wage claim they risk sending that service overseas, as it stands manufacturing in this country is on borrowed time.
Comparisons with those engineering bodies is pathetically shallow, they don’t represent me personally in my pay claims at all. As it stands only ~35% of the engineering design hours on any project are done in Australia, the rest is in Chile, China, India etc and this percentage will shrink even more over time this is the reality of my profession and accept it, the difference is I intend to work hard to fight it through ability, not by holding my employer hostage.
And for the record I am not white which is why I extract so much entertainment from all you bleeding hearts acting out of collective misplaced white guilt.
like I said jezza
“If you were decent, empathetic and rationale you’d agree this choice is simply not available to many people.”
QED
So Jeremy, everyone must have your wonderful intelligence and ability to go through school, Uni and get a degree otherwise they are rubbish and should expect second best in life. Where do you get your so superior attitude. If you are half as clever as you make out , you would know and understand, there will always be a percentage of kids who do not possess the ability to be accountants, lawyers doctors or high and mighty engineers. How do you think those work places you stare down at from your high and mighty throne would get their staff if it were not for the kids who do not, for whatever reason , get passed year 10 0r 11 or 12. Words fail me to imagine you had the cheek to write such rubbish. Your type make me puke.
Incidently you brought up the colour angle, who gives a stuff what colour you are. Take a hike.
Ok this has to be my last post as I have to get back to work (competing with more efficient competitors in China after all!).
SBH don’t you think I want the same goals as everyone else on this forum? The difference is I know that there is no point fighting the reality of the situation we are faced with, empathy is misplaced if it ends up creating a supposedly ‘fairer’ system that in the long term ends up hurting more than it helps. Like I said before the rise of Asia will inevitably destroy industries here in Australia (it already is) unless we can counter it through innovation. We need to accept this as soon as possible and that can only be done through a flexible labour market. There is currently not enough ‘pain’ out there to encourage people to become more productive, its all about the carrot and the stick.
David I’ve worked on the mines with supervisors and tradies that I have ENORMOUS respect for, some of the best people I worked with had a limited education so I know that education and ‘intelligence’ alone is no barrier to success. I always said to my fellow graduates that it was unlikely any of us would ever earn the ‘big’ bucks because there was no incentive for any of us to take risk when we can comfortably earn respectable salaries working for others. You’ll find many small business people and entrepreneurs actually floundered in their education but succeeded because they had a willingness to work hard and take risks. We need to encourage this behaviour instead of luring them into a false sense of security which is exactly what rigid labour laws do. When I was on the mines I was earning similar money to tradies who had dropped out in yr 10, what incentive is there to encourage people to study hard when there is no financial incentive to do so? I know of one engineer in particular who dropped out of uni to take up a trade for that reason alone!
I am not advocating a completely free Labor market but I do think we need to take more steps towards de-regulation. Measures like the minimum wage and the no-disadvantage test are measures I whole heartedly support.
Cheers for the discussion.
@Jeremy,
Please feel free to drop in and say ‘hi’ next time you’re visiting reality.
Yes Jeremy, I see your point. What we need in the employment relationship is more pain for the employees. Oddly, when it comes to executive salaries, the talk is all carrot. It seems that we need to pay fortunes, the like of which would embarrass Creoses, to get the right people. People like Sol Tujillo. Funny how in a highly regulated, highly productive economy like South Korea they pay their executives significantly less.
By the way, do you have any credible academic support for the contention that a more de-regulated labour market increases productivity? The bulk of evidence doesn’t support that view but then we have famous examples of engineers ignoring the bulk of scientific opinion when they comment on matters outside their field(ing).
But I don’t want to end in rancour so here’s a deal. I won’t tell you how to build a bridge (or comment on any other engineering discipline) because it’s not something I know anything about. In return you don’t comment on social justice or labour markets.
SBH I’m enjoying this so much that I will indeed make one more post after which I’ll allow you the last word.
I should note that I am indeed qualified to make a comment in the areas I have been as I also have a commerce degree, I won’t comment on social justice because it has nothing to do with the economic realities that I am talking about and which you seem to be missing. The point I’m making relates to the reality of the globalised world we live in. You sound like you know what you’re talking about so let me put it like this, capital will always flow to areas of highest comparative advantage where it can attract the highest marginal rate of return assuming there are no market impediments to its flow. There is nothing controversial about this theory at all.
If you want evidence of this in action look at our floundering domestic car industry which needs to be protected by tariffs and propped up by subsidies. Look at how Pacific Brands closed some of its domestic manufacturing plants lately and moved them overseas. Look at how the British shipbuilding industry collapsed spectacularly last century after being the pride of Britain for centuries before it, I could go on and on but you get the point. The speed of this is only going to accellerate and people will indeed suffer eventually, you can’t fight the inevitable but you can prepare for it. Who is going to pay an Australian welder $20 an hour when they can pay an Indian $1 an hour? Do you really need a degree to figure that one out? Its common sense really.
Regarding CEO pay well yes it is indeed crazy money but in the end as a shareholder I just want the best return from my investment. CEO’s are there to maximise shareholder value, any other priority is secondary. In doing so they maximise the productivity of scarce resources ensuring there is more pie for everyone (even though they get a big slice of it). If I have to pay a CEO $21m p/a and they make the company a profit of $200m p/a then thats money well spent in my opinion. If the job is indeed so good and so easy then why don’t you do it? Good leaders are rare commodities and their pay with reflect that (maybe thats why our politicians are so inadequate?).
You can curse me and my ilk if you wish, I didn’t make the rules I merely observe them but mark my words there is no escaping the inevitable you can have pain now or more pain later, its your choice? Twenty years from now the prosperity of the west will be nothing but a memory as it gets swallowed up by Asia, you can’t compete with people who are willing to work harder for less money (ceteris paribus), I am not aware of any academic evidence to the contrary, maybe you can provide some?
@ David Hand
I admit to being partisan but suggest I’m neither vapid nor shallow. Labour market flexibility is one thing, but when it is used to cut away worker’s entitlements; as it was under work choices; you have to ask yourself whether the purpose of the legislation was to make businesses more productive and thus able to generate more jobs as claimed at the time, or simply to undermine the capacity of unions to defend the working conditions of their members. Howard’s history as a union basher going back 30 years leaves me to suggest the latter. The fact that Abbott supports such a flawed policy shows he is as ignorant regarding IR as he is about economics.
@ Liz45
I’d be surprised to find Turnbull adopting any position in regard to climate change which differred markedly from his previously stated thoughts. Incidently I am not endorsing Turnbull in any way, I’m merely suggesting he is the Libs only chance in the near future ie post election.
SBH, Workchoices included some provisions which were unconscionable. such as the ability to ban workers from going on strike.
It included some other provisions which were necessary in a free country, such as taking away a union’s ability to forcibly prevent workers from coming to work by threat of violence.
And although it went too far in some ways, there was a coincident drop in unemployment, and an increase in real wealth both for low income people and the workforce in general, as the Howard reforms developed and bore fruit.
To isolate one cause from another is of course far more complex and we could both drench the thread with thousands of academic papers to support our respective cases.
Would you agree instead that unions have a vital role to play in bringing workplace safety and other working conditions up to civilized standards, that every worker must have a right to join a union, and that no single body - either a corporation or a union - should ever receive legislative support to close down an entire business or an entire industry unilaterally? If such a body can achieve that degree of power by fair means, then good luck to it, but not with the coercive power of the federal government backing it up with state firepower - either a corporation or a union.
The war for workplace safety and basic rights has mostly been won in Australia, but is still to be fought elsewhere in the world. I believe the unions of the future in this country will come to resemble professional associations - with their own training institutions, skills qualifications, standards of professionalism and enforcement of those standards (eg by expulsion or stripping of accreditation), along with healthcare and other benefits. Then union members will be truly valuable to employers, and it will be possible to convince employers to pay a premium for union-accredited workers. Then awards will not need to be legislated; unions will be like the old Stonemasons Guild which could say, “These are our rates, pay up or deal with the riff-raff out there, and don’t come crying to us when your buildings fall down.”
@ Jeremy You can’t have it both ways. One minute you condemn Labor for ousting Rudd and the next praise Abbott for achieving same.
Iaccept the need for productivity increases to maintain and grow our economy. The fact is the greatest increase in productivity came with the wage accord under Hawk and Keating. It fell under Howard. As for paying an Indian welder less than an Ozzy, that’s what awards are for, tough I know that wasn’t your ppoint.
Michael James is spot about Brandis’s rude behaviour during debate, he called John Howard a “lying rodent” not merely a “rodent” but the ultimate disgraceful behaviour was his physical assault of Kerry Nettle in the House of Representatives when she was reaching toward George W Bush to hand him a petition in attempt to prevent the criminal invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately Kerry Nettle behaved in a much more polite manner than the occasion warranted and withdrew quietly. Her action was obviously peaceful in intent, unlike that of George Brandis - his intention was to control her by causing her pain. She should have brought an assault charge against Brandis.
I have noticed the born to rule attitude of most Liberal politicians - they appear to think that only their voice should be heard. Julie Bishop is a particularly persistent interrupter, not even the MC can get a word in when she wants the floor - which is all the time.
@GRATTON WILSON at 5:27 pm
Whew, thanks. After re-reading Crikey’s use of my comment in the DM comments section today, I thought perhaps I had gone a bit far. Brandis is one of those politicians who is sometimes borderline. It is obvious he is not stupid, nor uninformed but he seems so dogmatic and rude too much of the time. And beyond borderline with wilful distortion of the facts to suit his argument — a clever sophist perhaps except that it doesn’t strike me as especially clever or honourable. I inwardly groan anytime he comes on the air/tv. So I am glad you concur. I did not remember the incident during George Bush’s visit, which overall was a bit of a disgrace.
Bernard - on the off chance that Tony Abbott and his motley crew should win the election, I don’t think you need to worry about Workchoices, or any other version of this draconian legislation.
There is the small matter of the Senate, which will play a rather large part in any “alteration” to IR law. Can anyone see the Greens allowing Abbott to do anything which would re-introduce a new version of Workchoices? I don’t think so! Therefore, all the angst being expressed here, is largely a waste of time.
That bloke on here who claims to be a realist - the one with all the degrees - should perhaps learn a little about politics. Just for starters it is said to be “the art of the possible” in a democratic society!
CML, Bernard Keane knows that. He just wants Labor to win, and he knows joining a chorus that howls “Workchoices” every chance it gets is simply the easiest way to make that happen. Who cares about professionalism when it’s that easy?
So Jeremy the Realist, having a Commerce Degree rules out the need for a social conscience. And globalisation is th greatest step forward for mankind since the development of capitalism. And social inequity is the natural order of things. You my friend were born in the wrong century. The eighteenth or nineteenth century may have been more your time.
PINS I seem to have been moderated. short verson is yes I’d agree with most of that.
I’ll leave others to weigh up Jeremy’s ‘arguments’
Jenny Haines, that’s a very long bow you draw, philosophically. As a very close analogy, it may take a certain hardness for parents to insist that their grown-up children stand on their own two feet and learn from their own mistakes - but still offer protection and support when it’s needed. That’s not the same as not caring. Some parents want to mollycoddle their kids all their lives, and some kids come to expect it. That’s not the same as conscience.
powerisnotstrength says.. Bernard wants Labor to win, others say he sides with the right wing media mafia in Bolt, Akerman and co, others say he doesnt know what he is talking about, still others insist BK is anti Gillard, anti Abbott, anti Green and there is another school of thought insisting he is still in the Rudd camp….do you really exist Bernard? or are there many versions of you all taking turns to write the columns. Talk about the 3 faces of Eve.
You people don’t understand do you? WORK-CHOICES IS DEAD. Understand it and accept it. The Liberal Party is not stupid. They won’t bring back a policy that got them chucked out of Government. All of the Communists on this page, you have to wait for the Proletariate so bugger off and cry to your cut-throat unions.
yeah, dead just like this exchange
Press release, 2 May 1995
Journalist: So you’ve left the door open for a GST now, haven’t you?
Howard: No, there’s no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy.
Journalist: Never ever?
Howard: Never ever. It’s dead. It was killed by the voters at the last election.
Journalist: Were you misquoted in today’s Australian newspaper, then?
Howard: Well, any suggestion that I left the door open is absolute nonsense. I didn’t. I never will. The last election killed the
GST. It’s not part of our policy and it won’t be part of our policy at any time in the future.
Doorstop interview, 2 May 1995
Howard: Can I look you straight in the eye and say this, that if I state before an election that we’re not going to do something and
say it in concrete terms, I mean it. One of the worst things about politics in Australia at the moment is that the public doesn’t
believe what its political leaders say. Now I’m telling you…
Presenter: But you had the wrong bloke flogging it before. I mean, John Hewson wasn’t good at selling it but GST, I mean…
Howard: Mickey, it’s not on the agenda, full stop.
Presenter: Would you like it to be?
Howard: No, it’s not on the agenda, full stop. Just not there. Vamoose. Kaput.
Presenter: Well it would be political suicide, unfortunately. This is a little touchy. God, I wish I’d been the man to flog that…
Howard: I’m just telling you what is on the agenda, and what’s not, and that’s not. I say to the people of Australia, there will be
no GST, that it is not on our agenda and I mean it. It’s not, you know tiny…
Presenter: Cross your heart, type stuff?
Howard: Look, it’s absolute (inaudible) and you know, you could bring me back here after the election when we’ve won and you can ask
me again, you can ask me again in two years’ time and you will find that I’ve kept my word on that.
Radio interview, Radio 2NC Newcastle, 11 December 1995
Yeah I believe the libs that something as close to their flint hearts as getting rid of unions is now dead.
@ politics101,,,wow another one has escaped, settle down fellah the guys in white coats with the straight jacket wont be long.
OK, SBH, fair enough. So dead things sometimes rise again. But not everything that walks is the risen dead. And not every amendment to the vast body of IR law is the dreaded Workchoices, no matter how much the scaremongers may want it to be.
For goodness’ sake, the proposal in question is for the taxpayer no longer to subsidize the costs of running ballots in an organisation at a cost of $25.4 million. The same as the taxpayer does not subsidize the costs of shareholder ballots in corporations.
What has that got to do with imprisonment of strikers and unfair dismissal?
I tend to agree PINS, I’d be a lot happier with my country if the things we were talking about were policies on how the country should be run rather than the semantic rubish and ‘gotcha’ journalism we have now.
@SBH - On the Press Release - indeed! Howard could lie his head off - he learnt how to from Abbott! One thing about Abbott being a catholic - he can confess to his mate Pell, and then of he can go again! Simple!
@POWERISNOTSTRENGTH - What has that got to do with imprisonment of strikers and unfair dismissal? Part of the mind set, that’s what! Nick Minchin apologised to the HR Nichols Institute, that the Howard govt didn’t go FURTHER with WorstChoices? Do you really expect us to believe that if elected this time, next time or ??? they’ll leave IR Laws as is? I may not know all there is to know about life, but the Libs and workers? Know all I need to know about that!
Oops! I meant “off” he can go again!
@JEREMY THE REALIST - “Likewise if you decide to work in hospitality and then complain about the working hours then the same applies, hospitality has always entailed such work standards, if you don’t like it then stay at school and get a better job with better conditions.”
And you don’t ever go out for dinner? Lunch? Who do you think waits on you and supplies your food? Grommit! Auto-motes? What a pretentious snob? Those people are among the hardest workers, have the some of the worse conditions, and have to put up with all sorts of people, including ones like you! I can only imagine how you treat these people, who you obviously think are the dregs of humanity!
Stayed in any good hotels? Same story! Snob!
Workers in this country have contributed millions of unpaid hours, worth approximately $7o odd billion to their bosses, who haven’t had to add to the employment of about 1 1/2 million people! Workers here are among the hardest in the world! I think it just might be a good idea if you just checked some facts before shooting your mouth off!
There are teenage kids who have to leave school for a variety of reasons - there are teenage kids looking after a parent with a phsyical and/or mental illness or disability. There are teenage kids who ‘fall through the cracks’ because successive governments(particularly almost 12 years of Howard) favoured private schools to the detriment of state schools! There are lots of legitimate reasons why young people are working at Maccas and/or leave school early. Actually, in NSW the age has been raised to 17 in recent times! Some families can’t afford TAFE fees let alone Uni fees. If we still had tax paid education, instead of education for the rich or those who can afford it, your criticisms may have more basis in fact!
@LIZ45…you got it right Liz…do it and lose it, thats the way it goes, do the sin then lose the sin, simple 3 our fathers and couple hail marys and the slate is wiped clean to have another go. round and round round and round…..hence Abbott has no problem with his if its written down its not a lie, if he shoots from the lip liar liar souls on fire
SBH’s retelling of Howard’s 1995 “never ever” interview is a poignant backdrop for what’s going on here. You have a media person nailing a politician to the wall, getting a quote so memorable we are still talking about it 15 years later. Compare that with Tony’s tortured attempts not to do the same thing. Few in this string see any integrity in that, Bernard Keane most of all.
All this fuss is about the Coalition’s plan to cut wasteful government spending. The plan includes one small item to excuse the taxpayer from the $25.4 cost of internal union voting. That’s it, that’s all it took for Bernard Keane to scream “Work Choices” and kick off this emotive discussion. A taxpayer cost-cutting plan.
$25.4 million, that should be.
@DAVID - Indeed! I know a bit about the catholic church as you probably know. Pell may have to be a bit more inventive when it comes to the punishment for continuing to demonise human beings(asylum seekers) and from a country that enjoys a great standard of living for most (except the homeless, unemployed, those who are mentally ill and aboriginal people?)Abbott would engage in the ‘un-christian act/s’ of turning the boats around and ensuring, that already traumatised people would probably become ill with serious mental illnesses. Perhaps to salve his conscience, or part of his ‘punishment’ Pell might insist that an Abbott Govt(god forbid) would give more money to STARTTS (Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors - state and federally funded? there’s one in NSW and other states too?)
Doesn’t ‘the good book’ have much to say about taking care of our fellow human beings, PARTICULARLY those who are persecuted? And isn’t there also some sound lessons about ‘ripping people off’ and being ‘thieves’? Didn’t someone throw these sort of people out of the Temple for asking? too much re selling clothes? I’d say they must’ve operated along the lines of Howard/Andrews etc WorstChoices? Ripping workers off! Overworked and paid peanuts is stealing in my view! No doubt JEREMY THE REALIST believes in this sort of ‘christianity’?
JEREMY might also read some facts about the death and injury rate of young people in the workforce - 16-25 yr olds. Some of the multinational food chains have terrible work practices, and young people are union members in secret. If they’re injured via a severe burn etc they’re sacked? How’s that for a decent and uplifting attitude to the young. I believe, that if we want to influence young people in a positive way, the worst example is to lie, cheat and deprive them of decent and safe working conditions. I’ve heard of some pretty awful stories! I think govts should be tougher on them, not allow them to cause more hardship, injury and injustices! Under WorstChoices, it was open season on the young! Appalling!
PINS - Don’t you think that older people have a moral responsiblity to teach by example - not the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ philosophy that is in evidence too often? Before Howard and Costello left parlt, they changed the super scheme so that they’d get $2 million extra between them - perhaps Abbott should rewind that little beauty from the budget expenses! What will Abbott do about pensions? Rewind them too! For the economical good of the country no doubt!