Macquarie Network ::: 2GB | 2CH | LIVENEWS | STREET CORNER | RUGBYLEAGUELIVE | WHAT CAREER | AMAZING AUSTRALIANS :::
Saturday, 10 January 2009

Time to sweep away Work Choices: Gillard

23/11/2008 8:46:00 PM.  | AAP
Unions have attacked Labor's proposed new industrial relations regime on the eve of the introduction of a bill designed to see the last vestiges of Work Choices swept away.

Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard will introduce Labor's long-awaited industrial relations bill on Tuesday after months of consultation and drafting.

"We promised to sweep Work Choices away, and we will," Ms Gillard said on Sunday.

"It's a short 48 hours away."

The fair work bill sets out the industrial system which will replace Work Choices from the start of 2010 with new national employment standards, unfair dismissal laws, good faith bargaining rules and an emphasis on collective bargaining.

It will also establish Fair Work Australia as the new industrial tribunal to replace the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

The system will see the end of bodies created by the Howard government under Work Choices such as the Workplace Authority, the Workplace Ombudsman and the Fair Pay Commission.

But Labor is facing renewed pressure from unions, which have criticised aspects of the government's industrial relations policy.

Unions argue the building sector watchdog - the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) - has too much power and should be abolished immediately.

The ACTU on Sunday launched a television advertising campaign criticising the government for failing to move quickly enough on the ABCC.

The ads, which will air for three weeks, feature former federal court judge Rod Madgwick condemning the proposed laws as unfair.

"Unfortunately, not all Australian workers are equal before the law. Construction workers are subject to industrial laws such as we've never before seen in this country," Justice Madgwick says in the ad.

"They can be fined up to $22,000 for stopping work and jailed for up to six months for refusing to answer questions about a workplace meeting".

The government is refusing to budge, saying the ABCC will remain in place until 2010.

"We said in our policy document Forward with Fairness that we would have a measured process for change, that we would abolish the ABCC on the 31st of January, 2010," Ms Gillard said.

"It (will be) replaced by a new inspectorate in our new industrial umpire, Fair Work Australia."

The government has already conceded some ground to unions on the new industrial relations laws.

Under the new laws, unions will have greater access to arbitration where disputes are intractable or where economic and other damage is evident.

The government has also bowed to employer pressure, particularly from those in the mining industry, to allow Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) to continue provided both parties agree.

The AWAs will be subject to the 10 national employment standards that will come into force in 2010.

The fair work bill is also expected to reveal the final details of the good faith bargaining rules and winding back of restrictions on unfair dismissal protection.

Ms Gillard said it was hoped the bill would pass through the lower house in the next fortnight, after which it would inevitably be referred to a Senate committee.

"We will be asking the Senate to deal with that expeditiously and to deal with the legislation in February next year," she said.

Ms Gillard will face off against Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull in parliament on Monday with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd not due back in the country until Tuesday.

Mr Rudd has been attending an APEC - Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation - meeting in Peru.

COMMENTS

Sunday, 23 November 2008

Question time will be interesting...Regime they call it!! Yep that's it! Turnbull will have a lot to work with on this one...Gillard will be hard-pressed to provide anything credible with her cat-bum mouth!

Posted by: What the .... ,, ,

 

Sunday, 23 November 2008

Another howard law gone just like him.

Posted by: g maybury, sydney

 

Sunday, 23 November 2008

"We promised to sweep Work Choices away, but we're still looking for the broom!" Gillard is a verbose joke.

Posted by: Geoff Bolton, Lane Cove

 

Sunday, 23 November 2008

There was nothing wrong with work choices in the first place. Only people that w did not vote for , namely unions were frightened of them because they diminished their power. Sudenly workers were allowed to think for them self. You will regret the day you got rid of them.

Posted by: Poison Pen, Sydney

Sunday, 23 November 2008

Poison Pen,, yep Work Choices was great. It finally got rid of Howard and the Liberals, with Howard losing his own seat. Some of the smarter Liberals (a favourite oxymoron - yes I know Poison Pen, you will just have to look it up) have even stated it is gone for good, but with them one must remem\ber to never ever say never ever.

Posted by: Mick S, Central Coast

Sunday, 23 November 2008

wot about the fact that redundancies could be capped at 26 weeks regardless of service... some workers could think for themselves that they were about to lose entitlements built up thru 20-30 years of service without a damn thing they could do about it (regardless of what they or their workmates THOUGHT).... die WC die

Posted by: happy unionist, dapto

Sunday, 23 November 2008

Micks, please don't forget the effect of electoral re-distribution in Bennelong. Add to that the electorates desire to have a TV star rather than a person of substance to represent them. How come Mike Bailey the wetherman didn't get a seat? And di you know Cate Blanchett would be standing for Labor in 2010, along with Geoffrey Rush, Kylie Minogue, Jason Donovan and Kyle Sandilands! You get the politicians you deserve.

Posted by: Geoff Bolton, Lane Cove

Monday, 24 November 2008

regret the day where i could earn $10 an hour? ok guvnor

Posted by: fred whithead, melb

 

Sunday, 23 November 2008

There was nothing wrong with Work Choices... Now we have to deal with unemployment...unemployment is far worse... something this generation will have to get used too.

Posted by: d s, Sydney

 

Sunday, 23 November 2008

What i find very strange is that before the elections there were workers all over Australian complaining that work choices had ruined their life, once the elections were over i have not heard a word from anyone and yet work choices is still being used - when is Australia going to wake up to this big con from Labor and the Unions!!

Posted by: Tony M, Bangor

 

Sunday, 23 November 2008

Good on you Gillard-Labor will be sweeping away hundreds of thousands of jobs because of your desperate desire to please your Union masters. There are only about two and a half billion people in China and India that are waiting with open arms for the jobs that are going to become too costly for business to offer to Australians. The US car industry is on the verge of collapse because of high wages and inflexible Labor conditions. We have not learned a thing from their bitter experience.

Posted by: Desmond Harris, Beacon Hill

 

Sunday, 23 November 2008

Whats the difference whatever industrial law is in- when you have useless pathetic unions who have sold the workers out , it does'nt make any difference. The ACTU should get rid of these scumbags who rort the union movement, although they appear to be in the same basket.We need a competition to be able to name the most good for nothing union in Australia.

Posted by: Alex Uren, Luddenham

Sunday, 23 November 2008

I just watched US workers in Georgia asking GM to move there, they don't have compulsory union dues. Unions are killing the car industry in the USA because of compulsory union dues in the states they are in, they will kill us again to if they get their way. This gen doesn't know what high unemployment is like, when Gillard bows to the union demands , they will. WC bought unemployment to a 30+ yr low, watch it reach double digits when Labor reinstates compulsory unionism and their old unfair dismisal laws. Closed shops, no union ticket no job. Good luck for your unemployed future people. Business will lay off thousands before this is passed, you can kiss you jobs bye bye, they will be shipped offshore.

Posted by: susan lawe, wherever

Tuesday, 25 November 2008

Susan, the Unions in the USA, where the AUTO manu. are, have ruined the Industry with demands that were seen as good for the worker. Thing is, it comes at a HUGE cost to the companies. The Health packages alone were enough to push the Auto sector to the brink, without the help of the W.F.C.. There are Billions of $'s tied up in it. Perhaps AFTER the crash, theIndustry may restructure this kind of thing and only run with cas. labour, so as to avoid the union demands.

Posted by: Nick Again, Maryborough

 

Sunday, 23 November 2008

if we put everyone on $200 a week we could have full employment. would anyone like to volunteer? unemployment is built into capitalism. there has never been full employment. high unemployment actually favours the employer. gives them more power workers demand less when theres job insecurity.you cannot bargain from a position of weakness. workers need solidarity to have that power or be highly skilled and in demand. workchoice was foolish and is where it belongs

Posted by: david green, wiley pk

 

Sunday, 23 November 2008

Take a look at the picture, then reflect on those from the left that choose to use this forum to put down Julie Bishop based on looks rather than substance? I reckon that Gillard and Bishop are fairly well balanced?? Maybe Gillard in front by a (huge) nose!

Posted by: Geoff Bolton, Lane Cove

 

Sunday, 23 November 2008

des, the us car industry is run with similar ir laws to the ones we are throwing out. would you expect australian workers to accept the same wages as the chinese and indians to remain competitive? australian workers cannot compete with cheap overseas labour . and they never can.higher unemployment actually leads to lower wages as people demand less when theres job insecurity. the present financial meltdown is costing jobs, not greedy workers.

Posted by: david green, wiley pk

 

Monday, 24 November 2008

many people in this forum who praise the ir laws have possibly never worked under them. never been victims of them. i have worked in non union places and you are exploited in every conceivable way. many employers are ruthless and greedy and need to be controlled. the workers need protection, this can only be done by having solidarity. the ir laws were devisive and were only useful to highly skilled workers who were in demand and could bargain from a position of power

Posted by: david green, wiley pk

 

Monday, 24 November 2008

poison pen, awas were brought in purely to keep the unions out of the workplace. they are undemocratic and have absolutely nothing to do with the economy. there is no evidence that they increase productivity or make for a better deal for workers. productivity was higher under keating without awas.

Posted by: trevor crook, wiley pk

 

Monday, 24 November 2008

des, the us car industry is on the verge of collapse because of the gfc and globalization. workers on the lower scale of the car industry, namely the ones living in the south [and women ] get $3.25 per hour. doesnt sound like high wages to me. the highest paid skilled workers get $26 per hour. again, hardly extortion. also the companies use cheap labour offshore to increase profit. a labour market no western country can compete with.

Posted by: trevor crook, wiley pk

 

Monday, 24 November 2008

I start a business and take financial risk work hard make good and earn lots of money, you call me a fat cat greedy bastard. I employ you for your skill ,pay you wages that are fair or you would not work for me. When you good you ask fo more and I give you more. If you are crap I sack you. Fair? If I am crap, I go broke and there is nothing left for me in bank. No redunducy. Just pain. Yeh but you want 100 years reduncy. Work choice gave good workers opportunity. Otherwise work for award wage.

Posted by: Poison Pen, Sydney

 

Monday, 24 November 2008

susan, if ,as many say that unions only represent a small percentage of the population and are largely irrelevant how can they weild enough power to bring the auto industry to its knees? how does not paying union fees or paying union fees have any effect on a multi billion dollar industry? american labour cannot compete with overseas slave labour. that plus executive greed and mismanagement are the problem.workchoices was brought in to undermine the unions. it has no benefit economically at all

Posted by: david green, wiley pk

Monday, 24 November 2008

Green, unions represent less than 18% of the private workforce (and falling). That's the fact.

Posted by: Geoff Bolton, Lane Cove

Monday, 24 November 2008

And members of unions are usually better paid then their counterparts that are not members Bolty! That's a fact too. It may just be that scrapping WC helps a hell of lot more people than you suggest!

Posted by: Traci Fawcett, Melbourne

Monday, 24 November 2008

David, check out your US car workers wages, Toyota line assembler $47 hr GM same job $87 hr. Check out how Romneys father turned the big 3 around in the US last time the unions almost bought them to their knees. You cannot compete with oversea's slave labor in the market if your overheads are crippling you either. You obviously don't remember high unemployment when the unions were in control of the work place. Make unionism compulsory again, and you will.

Posted by: susan lawe, wherever

Monday, 24 November 2008

We also have Award wages and conditions laws, and yes, there are some unscrupulous employers, thats what the Award wages and conditions is about. If an employer does not pay you the award or supply you with decent working conditions according to law, you report them. Please tell me what a Union will do for you , I have been in them, for may years, they did nothing for me, except way back when they represented the worker, not the Labor party, they were intrumental in getting equal pay for women. Union reps will line their pockets now, not yours. If a business is going broke from continued wage demands, wouldnt it be wiser to work to keep that business afloat...Unions don't do that, they have been the cause of many small business's going broke in the past. We have laws to protect us from unscrupulous employers.

Posted by: susan lawe, wherever

Monday, 24 November 2008

Workchoices removed even more award conditions than their first round of IR, hence people got very worried and the Libs had to change their draconian legislation! But the rest of what you prattled on about there LazySusan is just made up rubbish! I have been in a small business were the unions worked with management to keep the company afloat and the jobs of the workers like me - and I wasn't even a member! Lazy poppycock from you there dear :-)

Posted by: Traci Fawcett, Melbourne

Monday, 24 November 2008

Ohhhhh so your a parasite then Traci, you talk Union but dont pay your dues lol. I note you worked in the small business, didn't set it up and try to make a living for youself out of it though. As for removed wards, that was a Union scare advert...no penalty rates were removed, and most employers negotiated contracts with above award wages...for GOOD workers...in fact unemployment was so low, employers had to negiotiate good wages and conditions, or their good staff left for better contracts.

Posted by: susan lawe, wherever

Monday, 24 November 2008

Dumb lazy generalisations by someone of her own admission can’t be bothered to work! Perhaps it’s time you “retired” your workplace rants!

Posted by: Traci Fawcett, Melbourne

Monday, 24 November 2008

Fawcett, where is the source of your "fact"? Further, is it better to be highly paid and unemployed or reasonably paid and have a job?

Posted by: Geoff Bolton, Lane Cove

Monday, 24 November 2008

From the prior posts you have made concerning your activites during the sexual revolution, and the content of your posts today, you remind me of a line from that seminal Aussie pub rock song 'Khe San', Susan. see if you can guess which one.

Posted by: darren carrow, brisbane

Monday, 24 November 2008

"Better to be highly paid and unemployed"? I am not sure you can do both their Bolty - I don't think they pay that well on the dole ;-)

Posted by: Traci Fawcett, Melbourne

Monday, 24 November 2008

mate, if i wasnt working i'd do better than hang around this site allday! what a numbnut!

Posted by: david ferrer, sydney

Monday, 24 November 2008

That's right Fawcett, at last I think you've got it! Push up wages unreasonably and you lose jobs. You are not as silly as you try to convince everyone you are. There is a market level for wages, so if they get pushed unreasonably high (eg the waterfornt), then those industries go out of business (eventually). Well done. We'll tackle something a bit more complex tomorrow.

Posted by: Geoff Bolton, Lane Cove

 

Monday, 24 November 2008

poison pen