Labor’s IR scare campaign: can the souffle rise twice?

Jack G says:

08:45am | 24/02/10

someone should give Jamie Briggs a few short jabs

H of SA says:

10:27am | 24/02/10

A good suggestion formersnag, I too think EBA’s was the right balance

Jack Thomas says:

06:54pm | 24/02/10

Abbott has not released a proposal for new IR laws.

Labor and the Unions, and their mates in the media, are talking as if he has.

Where is the proposal?

There isn’t one.

Those are the facts.

The rest is just a scare campaign that you have bought into, like a sucker.

George says:

08:55am | 24/02/10

@Have read the law, we now know that KRudd at the insistence of the Unions successfully demonised and made the Workchoices extremely toxic in the eyes of average ‘Aussie Joe and Jane’ ( with apologies to the ethnic communities) after all Mr Howard only had himself to blame for taking the IR reforms too far out in 2007.

But has the ALP really interred ‘Workchoices ‘as they claim they have? In my opinion KRudd and Gillard have only succeeded in exorcising the brand and nothing else.  Now with the blessing of the unions they are waving the Workchoices corpse at everyone if only to remind people of the horror that it was. It reeks of party line politics and Sharran Burrows and Greg Combet are complicit.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Burrows is parachuted into a safe Labor seat in time for the next Federal election. 

A sell out if you ask me, and people wonder why the union rank and file are up in arms, union members should probably consider buying lipstick and putting it on, surely they would want to look pretty whilst they are getting f%^*@$d by KRudd and Co.

Jen from Nana Glen says:

01:26pm | 24/02/10

As an employer I am very reluctant to employ anyone, even part-time due to new so-called Fair Work Australia.  Wages costs have sky rocketed along with the general cost of living.

However pressure from increasing wage rises will mean fewer jobs, exluding those that will go overseas due to ambit wage and allowance claims aka recent WA resources fiasco.  Unionists benefit while employees lose jobs.

Would love to grow my business but if my partner & I can’t do it, we won’t be employing anyone else based on cost benefit analysis - super and Workers Comp in our business the two biggest killers.  Now when unions start telling me how to run my business it is obvious they have no idea of costs.

H of SA says:

04:29pm | 24/02/10

Eye 4 an eye…..I smell an urban myth, like those stories of criminals suing their victims which turned out to be an outraging piece of fiction

My say says:

09:02pm | 24/02/10

Prior to the Hawke Goverment workers were able to go to arbitration and nut-it-out.  Bod Hawke got the Industrial relation process much to politically.  Workers were able to legally fight for their rights more easily   before the Hawke Government.  In the Hawke government the whole thing become to top heavy.  The Hawke deal was done and that was that for the Australian Worker.  Union membership also decline and they too have become much to much top heavy.

T.Chong says:

09:00am | 24/02/10

Simple acker, every one deserves protection from unfair dismissals, whether they work for Woolies or a drycleaners.
I mean , wasnt it outrageous the way that Patricks simply retrenched all those ex military people that they conned into strike breaking during Reith And Howards first attack against wage earners during the waterfront dispute?
I recall one of the scabs actually lamenting how unfair Patricks treated them, and he would have been better off in a union !
We cant let that happen again, can we?

acker says:

10:11am | 24/02/10

@T.Chong ..it is not that simple…. I suggest payroll tax gets abolished for companies that employ less than 15 people but compulsory unfair dismissal idemnity insurance gets taken out by the small business. Then the insurance provider will be the entity disputing the unfair dismissal case should it go to court. Premiums would reflect that costing and most likely a $10,000 - $20,000 excess will deter the small business taking out the insurance from wanting to have a case being presented againt them.

Large companies have a lot more resources at their disposal to deal with the unfair dismissal issue than small companies.

George says:

01:56pm | 24/02/10

@ T.Chong, the reality of it is that it is expensive for cash strapped small to medium sized businesses (struggling to stay above water) to deal with unfair dismissals which often enough are frivolous and vexatious.

For small to medium sized businesses dealing with unfair dismissals especially if it reaches litigation point represents lost revenue.  Last I looked small to medium sized business operators there not compensated for these kinds of incidences.  Did any of your union mates or their bosses think of the business operator in these situations?  Seems to me you and your union mates want to run small to medium sized business operators out of ‘town’.

Labor = No Small Business says:

02:53pm | 24/02/10

Exactly George.  When I have an employee who is not doing his job - slacking off and has cost my company money, I can’t just sack him.  I have to give him 3 seperate written and verbal warnings and even then the unions want to come in and tell me how I should be running my business when all I want is an employee who will get the job done.  And, when that same employee eventually realises that he’s going to be out of a job then he goes and trashes my expensive equipment!.  If I was allowed to sack the employee when I wanted to I would have had a new working employee (who wanted to work) and also wouldn’t have had to fork out a fortune to get my equipment back up and running.

Labor = No Small Business

acker says:

03:17pm | 24/02/10

@George unfortunately it is too often small business that unfairly dismisses people

eye4aneye says:

03:51pm | 24/02/10

I liked the story recently where the guy got his job back despite being legitimatly sacked for OH & S issues because it would be to hard for him to find another job…...what the?

Jack Thomas says:

06:42pm | 24/02/10

Sorry TC but you have bought into the big lie about the MUA dispute.

This has been spun and perpetuated by nutters from the Socialist Left, ALP and even the ABC non-fiction drama “Bastard Boys” (did you even notice the good guys were the Unions, romantic types with families, etc. and the bad guys were Patricks who were all nasty cold men in suits with no families - comical if not such a clear political directive).

Just like the myth of Paul Keating’s economic prowess perpetuated by himself and Labor Luvvies, the romantic myth surrounding the MUA has no connection to reality.

Fact is the wharves were a complete rort, run by unions with criminal elements extorting the shipping companies and doing whatever they liked. In addition, the MUA ripped off every one of us because they added millions of dollars in costs to all shipping, from gas and oil to everyday products.

The MUA effectively taxed us all, while being paid enormous wages for it. Just on their relative skill level, an MUA forklift driver was paid $130,000 per year in 2005, compared to equivalent role $45,000 off the Port.

The MUA ran a closed shop, and used such extreme tactics of intimidation as you would find in jail. Workers were ruled by their Union bosses through fear and violence, there was nothing Patricks could do to match that. Safety was not an issue, workers were more at risk from workplace “accidents” caused by their failure to pay union dues or dispute anything in MUA meetings. Don’t even think you could work there and choose not to be part of the MUA, your life would be at risk.

MUA members were directly involved in drug smuggling and theft on the wharves. Still to this day they are, for example in 2009 MUA assistant Queensland branch secretary, Dave Perry, was arrested for his involvement with a crime syndicate and two drug smuggling attempts in 2006. Tip of the iceberg stuff that.

The MUA fought hard to keep their rorts, drugs, and commercial extortion because they would not be able to operate that way, or make that kind of money anywhere else. There is a reason why the Wharfies (MUA members) once were stronger and more dangerous than any crime gang in Australia.

Extreme methods were required to deal with the MUA, because of the extreme violence the MUA threatened and perpetuated.

The MUA made our docks the most inefficient place in Victoria, sending millions of dollars in Gross State Product and State revenue (taxpayer funds) to places like Queensland and Botany.

Under the MUA prior to the strike, they were clearing 560,000 TEU’s (containers) a year.

Patricks still operate the Port, the MUA has been defeated and the Port of Melbourne now clears over 2.2 million.

In May last year, the MUA opposed further expansion and development, lobbying the State Government to deny a 3rd Stevdore (operator).

Check the facts rather than believing the lies and spin.

Have a look at our docks now, they are a safe and effiicent place. The result was worth the strikebreakers, guards and dogs.

Old Clive says:

09:42am | 24/02/10

Just who are the sheep in this country, the Australian Lying Party was formed by people who looked after sheep, oops by people who robbed sheep of their protective coats, and things have not changed as far as that party is concerned,  the ALP is a conglomeration of lawyers and others hell bent on controlling people for their own benefit and the benefit of theit loyal sheep.

H of SA says:

10:09am | 24/02/10

Ah Clive, go son! Keep insulting those who disagree with you, it’ll sure encourage them to come over to your side!

T.Chong says:

10:56am | 24/02/10

Old Clive , are you seriosly having a go at shearers for shearing ? what is the alternative?
BTW you are aware that Little Johnnie , Phil Ruddock ,  Joe Hockey, and many other Coalition people are also lawyers?

k says:

12:03pm | 24/02/10

actually, you will probably find that most of the ALP are not lawyers, may have studied law eventually, but the LNP etc pride themselves on being lawyers…

Old Clive says:

01:57pm | 24/02/10

Yes you are right of course, so what is the difference in the political parties,  according to the blurps they both tell lies when it suits them, They always give themselves pay rises. The only difference is this, one lot can govern without running the country into toomuch debt while the other party just does’t know how to do anything or should that be anythnk.

eye4aneye says:

02:00pm | 24/02/10

He won’t bring it back because it proved unpopular - he may personally love workchoices (I don’t know) but he won’t try and reintroduce it even under another name because the minute he did the Labor party researches would unearth it and cry shenanigans.

At the end of the day he’ll do what gets him votes - they all do.

I’ll probably vote liberal though If i can’t have a government that run the country like a country I’ll take the government that will run it like a business (Liberal) over the one that run it like a charity (Labor) and I’ll take a lobotomised monkey party over the ones that would run it as an environmental science project (greens)

Nigel says:

09:03am | 24/02/10

It’s worth reading your comments - not for the inciteful logic, after all there’s none of that but for the hilarious way you cleverly construct words like connedserfatives. With your rapier wit you should be on stage ... perhaps as a janitor.

T.Chong says:

10:49am | 24/02/10

Yes Nige, the inspiration is from some Right punchers who use deliteful terms like Leftards. UnAustralian is another favorite to describe any contrary POV.
I have noticed though that since Palin objected ( quite rightly too, though not about Rush Limbaugh, funnily enough,) to the use of retard as an insult , the term isnt used quite as frequently here.  Shes influentual with Righters, world wide, isnt she? 
See ya at the final curtain call.  ; )

Scot says:

12:34pm | 24/02/10

Nigel, T Chong s a mule for the Labor party in Sussex street or more Burrows in Melbourne. He has been also on the other Punch columns as well. He comes over like a Labor Work Choices unionist that has been hard done by in a previous life. He may be one of Gillards stooges as well. The work force have had a enough of Unions and their days are numbered. SME’s are better employees than he gives them credit for. I would not have Chong in my company.

Lucas says:

12:02pm | 24/02/10

Sounds a lot like bigboomer from above.  Do the ALP provide copy-paste notes to their uni members these days?

Dingo says:

03:58pm | 24/02/10

Botfly, the only truth in what you posted is the possibility of a change to unfair dismissal laws that would define a small business as one that has 20 employees instead of the current 15 (including part-time workers).  The rest is ALP/union propaganda. The coalition has not yet released its IR policy.

Under the current laws bought in by the Rudd Govt, some of those part-time workers no longer have a job because they can’t meet the unions demands for minimum hours per shift, even though that is what both the employer and employee want.

You’re right, the ALP and unions sure have you conned.

T.Chong says:

09:21am | 24/02/10

Morning FB, . Hope alls well.  Now down to task. Are you and fellow Right Punchers ready to admit yur totally wrong, ? (but I respect yur right to be). Think hard before answering, because yous cant live in denial all the time.
Have a drink of Redbull, and xtra strong coffeee, and I’ll sip my chardonnay / bong water shandie, keyboards at the ready.
(remember the first name caller of a fellow blogger, left or right looses. We all take poshots at article authors , but everyone knows thats part of the game.)

Fog Badger says:

10:50am | 24/02/10

T.Chong @0921am.

Totally wrong about what,T.Chong?

Kim says:

03:19pm | 24/02/10

Most people I spoke to said:  “It’s time to give someone else a go - Libs have been in too long.”  When I told them “If it’s not broke - don’t f*ck with it.” I was told “I like KRudd - he’s even good looking, much better than looking at Howard.”  The only thing they knew about Workchoices was what the labor party spokesman had sprouted on tv.

This is the way of the Australian voter, peoples.  You might say that they have a brain, but most of them have no concept of politics and don’t really want to know.  All they really know if the spin adds that are on tv.  The only time that lying is allowed in advertising is when politics is involved.  All the Australian public want is to have a “safe” job and be able to go about their lives. 

I’m not saying this is everyone mind, but is probably the view of the majority of the australian population.

Adam Diver says:

10:09am | 24/02/10

Spot on John. I think debt controls people lives and decisions more than anything else. Its a lot hareder to take risk if you still have to pay a mortgage.

Old Clive says:

10:05am | 24/02/10

Work choices was about removing power from the unions and that is a big no no in the halls of the Ausralian Lying Party which receives it’s income from thay source.  Any person that has held any managerial position invovling workers covered by unions , knows how corrupt these unions are, maratime unions are the worst on the scale{ look at last weeks results} $1500 for 20 hours work, work out your figures , 2 weeks on 2 weeks off 6 weeks leave a year for shift work.  Work choices was about what the name says, sure there were some unsrupulus employers but they are chicken feed compared to the unions and the lawyers in the ALP.

Robert King says:

11:58am | 24/02/10

@ asproella;
Don’t look now, but I think there’s someone hiding under your bed… No. I don’t think it’s just a pile of books… you’ve clearly never read one, lunatic.

Kim says:

03:29pm | 24/02/10

Ah asproella, all children already have a psn (personal student number) but this is unique to each school.

All year 11 and 12 students have both a PSN and a LUI (Learner Unique Identifier) this is so that when a student moves schools, the state government can ensure that their learning account is kept up to date so that when the Senior Certificates are printed they have all the students learning on it and not just half of it.

I really don’t get your point.

aporoella says:

01:58pm | 24/02/10

Asproella @ Robrert King,I READ A LOT OF BOOKS and can tell when a labor party stooge trys to stifle FREE SPEECH by calling people lunatic’s and watch out for red’s under your bed because you are cluless to them right under your nose…dopey..You don’t have an opnion, you are just a follower,monkey follow’s monkey ..

Evan Findlay says:

05:54pm | 24/02/10

Aporoella, “monkey follow monkey” Are you sure you read those books? Also the word “tries” ends in “ies”, not “ys” and opinion is spelt with two “I"s.The word socialists is spelt also with two “I"s. The word “worry” ends with a “y”, not “ie”.  Just thought I would let you know. And if you want your argument to be taken seriously drop the capitols and try not to revert to personal attacks unless you can articulate them. And just on a point of interest, where you educated during the years of the Howard government? Your spelling, grammar and sentence structure is appalling. Maybe tracking children during their formative years might just help them to communicate with a lot more clarity than we have witnessed here today.

Scoota says:

01:01pm | 24/02/10

I know of quite a few people on disability pensions who are more than able to work. Alot of them have no intention of returning to work, and think they’ve made it once they’ve been granted the disability pension. It’s common knowledge around places like the pub, the pokie rooms and the TAB.

Fog Badger says:

04:21pm | 24/02/10

exzilerate @ 1210 pm

You should direct your anger at the small minority of malingerers who upset the cart for all the dinkum claims.

And on the issue of trust, none should trust Kevin Rudd.

Shane From Melbourne says:

06:43pm | 24/02/10

Not a big fan of Abbott, but annual medicals on disability pensions is a very good idea. After all if they aren’t rorting the system then they have nothing to worry about, do they?

H of SA says:

01:36pm | 24/02/10

Spot on Randal, I reckon the Liberals could do worse than employ you as an adviser. The sooner they heed your advice the better for Australia, as a strong opposition 1) makes a better government and 2) offers the voters a choice.

I hope that Workchoices really is dead. However I’m cynical because Abetz has been appointed coalition IR spokesperson - which is pretty much a coded way of telling the base that the ideology hasn’t changed.

At the same time that this message secures the base, it also denies the party any hope of getting the voters the coalition needs back.

I don’t think the Liberal party truly understands how great a loss it suffered - and I’m not talking about an election loss, thats an occupational hazard for a political party.

The loss I refer to is the loss of trust with the electorate. Workchoices didn’t just hurt the Liberal party, it hurt all of us. There is now a rift between the Liberal party and the voters. It was a deal breaker and there are scars.

This needs to be healed and the Liberals taking your advice would be   a good beginning

Old Clive says:

06:31pm | 24/02/10

If we would have had a strong opposition when lying Johnny was at the helm we might have a better country now. The then opposotoion had no policies then and they have stuffed up the ones they thought they had now and now Tough Tony has them dead sh+t scared and they are running for cover, trying to find some more actors to act as workers.

Fog Badger says:

04:25pm | 24/02/10

I saw him first, Scotty!

And T.Chong, Michael Moore is becoming a pox on society.

Kim says:

04:21pm | 24/02/10

hehehehe - brothers from another mother.

Fog Badger says:

04:27pm | 24/02/10

Of course there is no difference.

But at least the coalition don’t pretend to be the workers’ party.

John A Neve says:

05:29pm | 24/02/10

Fog Badger,
Shame on you. Firstly in this day and age, how do you define a “worker”?
When in the last twenty years has the Labor party ever supported the worker? They have in fact moved further and further to the right, tell us Fog Badger, what is the real difference between Labor and Liberal?

Does Liberal still support small business?

Politics today is a game played by the top end of town, what real power do politicians have?

If they don’t toe the line, there out.

Evan Findlay says:

05:57pm | 24/02/10

Well Fox Badger that’s about the only thing you have managed to get right all day.

Fog Badger says:

09:38pm | 24/02/10

John A Neve 0529pm,

I agree there is no difference, but the ALP likes to consider itself the “workers’ ” party (what ever that means). Surely you wouldn’t suggest that isn’t true?

Evan 0557pm,

Thanks. Just in case that comment was taken the wrong way, I didn’t say that the coalition is not the “workers’ ” party. Whatever that means.

Again, I agree that the main political parties in Oz are the same beast. I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks the whole left vs. right thing is outdated; but it appears to be the preferred politcal currency at present (and its in the trolls’ bool of tricks, apparently). I frequently hear the line “the job of the opposition is to oppose”, which is nothing but disingenous.

I consider myself to be a liberal democrat and it grates to hear the left and right thing. I’m not pro-dismissal or a capitalist pig who abuses his staff.

I voted for the Democrats until the polarising Natasha S-D landed with her Doc Martin kick boots and the party imploded having lost its way.

Evan Findlay says:

09:13pm | 24/02/10

Well Razor if an employer knocks your rate of pay down, cancels your penalty rates and entitlements because you are an easy target, lets say because at your age you are uneducated and cannot spell “workshop” then a precedent is set whereby the rest of the workforce is valued at your level. We then have to prove our value above yours. Maybe the employer doesn’t mind uneducated simpletons in his workforce, after all they are less likely to stand up for themselves and if they do he can tell them to go and get nicked. Individual rights should be respected but in respect to those that are uneducated and lack the confidence to negotiate then a union is their best friend.

My question to you Razor is are you prepared to give up penalty rates and entitlements so that your employer can line his pockets? Are you prepared to slash your budget in order to cover your mortgage, credit card and your children’s school fees? Are you prepared to assume a lower quality of lifestyle, less purchasing power and lower standard of living? And can you explain to me how if you were to lose $300 a week in penalty rates how will you be helping the economy? $300 less in your pocket means $300 less in the economy. You struggle, the economy struggles but your boss is doing alright!
Wake up you simpleton, Workchoices is designed to enhance the employers lifestyle not the employees. It’s designed to enhance his wealth at the expense of yours.