John Howards Ir Package - Work Choice (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jkie
- Start date
tomcats 72
Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 93
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2005
There is only one problem with trying to research the proposed reforms, I keep viewing a different story about it. It's so confusing. Does anyone know for sure what the reforms may include?
= Jennifer =
Active Member
note that it is still a bill in parliament and these changes are STILL PROPOSED
if you want information i would use the government website
https://www.workchoices.gov.au/
this is better than the ACTU website as it actually sets out everything u need to know
if you want information i would use the government website
https://www.workchoices.gov.au/
this is better than the ACTU website as it actually sets out everything u need to know
= Jennifer =
Active Member
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Hahahhahahahahahahha
Yes. Yes. Yes.
= Jennifer =
Active Member
lol i meant more accurate (i know still biased but hey)Not-That-Bright said:
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
No I agree, it is more accurate.
erawamai
Retired. Gone fishing.
Really? I thought the government ads are just as misleading as the ACTU adds simply for what they do not say.Not-That-Bright said:
For example saying 'You cannot be sacked for refusing to negotiate an AWA' is true. But it doesn't stop your employer from sacking you for a whole host of other reasons. Unfair dismissal laws are going to be watered down (I assume) so you may have less recourse to those. If you a member of a company of less than 100 then you have no (or less) recourse to unfair dismissal laws.
If you are moving to a new job you can be sacked for refusing to negotiate an AWA.
There is evidence to suggest that these reforms will lead to less unemployment. A more productive economy etc. Broadbased collective bargaining for people WHO DO have skills to bargain with is not good for the economy. For those who have nothing to bargain with collectivism is the only way those people can sustain livable wages. The extent to wich these 'livable wages' deter employment is debatable.
Last edited:
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Is it less than 100? My parents had me under the belief it was far less than that because they have under 100 and they were not affected.
I think it's something more like 25.
jkie said:
I dont know y ppl r so lazy on this site, its not like u wanted their opinion. If they dont want to answer then dont type anything!
Anyway The new Ir proposals are effective in the way, some workers are able to recieve a better deal then what award system offers. those who can bargain a good Agreement will be better off, and also it is aimed at allowing employer-employment agreement which is more personalised.
However, the fact is this is going back to "laizee faire" approach, where employer held more control in the bargaining power, and employees who are vunerable and cannot negotiate very well will suffer and may signed a contract which does not benefit them.
So basically in essence While it benefits some parts of society, the injustice it leaves workers with over rides the benefitial factors, as Awa should not be compulsory but instead be only a choice.
MeehShanku
MeehShankU
Isnt the new IR prosposal exactly the same as the one that Leading Edge has written for students???
= Jennifer =
Active Member
I would be careful with anything published before the workchoices were released because the proposals over the last couple of months has changed as much as a yo yo going up and downMeehShanku said: