Nebuchanezzar
Banned
stfu 09
No it's not.jb_nc said:No, it's balancing the relationship.
Greats argument there, Hans.alexdore993 said:No it's not.
lol. Well to be quite frank, I can't argue for or against on my own. The reason I believe that these new IR laws will unbalance the relationship between employer and employee, giving increased power to unions is because Gillard is an ex-union lawyer and many MPs used to run unions.Trefoil said:Greats argument there, Hans.
That would be alexdores.ASNSWR127 said:ah reds under the bed!!
which little scared scrotum came up with this thread?? you are so weak...
Well many Coalition MPs used to work for law firms that would often represent managers of large corporations in legal disputes, so who can you trust?alexdore993 said:The reason I believe that these new IR laws will unbalance the relationship between employer and employee, giving increased power to unions is because Gillard is an ex-union lawyer and many MPs used to run unions.
Neither. I trust the relatively independent lawyers. Not so many vested interests as political parties.spiny norman said:Well many Coalition MPs used to work for law firms that would often represent managers of large corporations in legal disputes, so who can you trust?
lol.alexdore993 said:Neither. I trust the relatively independent lawyers. Not so many vested interests as political parties.
badquinton304 said:It did not benefit employees in any way the liberal party may have sold it the way using the name Work "Choices", enterprise bargaining is the most balanced method of workplace negotiations as it allows equal representation at the bargaining table, the employer and the union.
You are not intelligent. Every time I dominate you with my superior logic and reasoning you come back with a silly statement, or you show you inability to comprehend my sophisticated articulation of argument by stating that I should reword everything in basic english.
You also believe about 50 000 other crazy things so your opinion is worth as much as a hole in the head.alexdore993 said:No it's not.
Says the believer in a 9-11 conspiracy? Don't make me laugh.jb_nc said:You also believe about 50 000 other crazy things so your opinion is worth as much as a hole in the head.
lol you're a fucking idiotalexdore993 said:Says the believer in a 9-11 conspiracy? Don't make me laugh/
ANIt would also, probably be apt to remind you, that this isn't just my opinion. It is also the opinion of an independent group of lawyers (i.e. not in any party) who read over and interpreted the IR laws.
Oh hi there Mr. Spack, who spacked over a spacky spack with the King of the Spacks, Mr Alexdore993.jb_nc said:Erhm, it would be also, probably be apt, hrm, to remind you, that henceforth--*strokes neckbeard*--that this isn't just my opinion. It is also, heh, you may have read the article?? No, I didn't think so you uneducated swine-- the group of an independent lawyers who form part of Freehills (maybe you have heard of them, lol, probably not, they do all my work for me, heh) which don't have any, heh, vested interests whatsoever. Let me just reiterate what independent means for you stupid cunts who think "poors" or "faggots" should have "rights"; they are NOT in any political party. And they READ, yeah, that's right, some non-poors can read and INTERPRETED -- yeah, in the only way possible -- the IR laws.
*wildly smirks while hitting the post button*
![]()
*faggots*
Wow. I think that you should try using sentences. Also, I am verbose in nature, but your writing is so convolulted it's near impossible to understand.jb_nc said:Erhm, it would be also, probably be apt, hrm, to remind you, that henceforth--*strokes neckbeard*--that this isn't just my opinion. It is also, heh, you may have read the article?? No, I didn't think so you uneducated swine-- the group of an independent lawyers who form part of Freehills (maybe you have heard of them, lol, probably not, they do all my work for me, heh) which don't have any, heh, vested interests whatsoever. Let me just reiterate what independent means for you stupid cunts who think "poors" or "faggots" should have "rights"; they are NOT in any political party. And they READ, yeah, that's right, some non-poors can read and INTERPRETED -- yeah, in the only way possible -- the IR laws.
*wildly smirks while hitting the post button*
![]()
*faggots*
Hey faggot, you spelt "convoluted" and "ramifications" wrong you dumb cunt.alexdore993 said:Wow. I think that you should try using sentences. Also, I am verbose in nature, but your writing is so convulted it's near impossible to understand.
One law firm, to make a DECISION, to decide them all relating to all the laws in the land.Erm... and yeah they did read and interpret the IR laws. If you weren't aware, the laws are open to interpretation and it becomes difficult for those amongst us, who aren't lawyers, to accurately gauge the legal ramnifications of a document, when we don't study law.
YEAHSo why don't you just go to another thread - perhaps one on a 9-11 conspiracy - after all, you seem to have quite a strong opinion on that.
who cares, it was a fucking fail thread anywayJohn Oliver said:When did this thread become slashdot?