The nsw labor ads were essentially to say debnam would remove state protections from howards laws, of course there's no need for such protections if the labor government is in federal power.
The rhetoric sounds ok and what I sort of expected, but before I say anything about them I'd like to look over their exact proposal, not just the speech he gave on it. I also don't understand the insistence on ripping up AWA's... perhaps they mean collective agreements? If not it's probably merely because reversing their opinion now would upset many workers who have come to see AWA's as the devil.
You have a problem with a policy that tries to satisfy everyone?frog12986 said:
Wholsale statements such as 'it won't be good for business' are not usefull.frog12986 said:
I do. I think the need to strive for a balance between different groups can often leave us with situations that are undesirable for either party and leave both parties worse off than they would have been if one conceeded more ground. I think this would be especially true of economic decisions.
Are you talking in terms of political pramatism (ie a party's interests in getting elected) or are you talking about the welfare of the people when you refer to 'undesirable' situations?Not-That-Bright said:
Balance is a good thing, however, it seems that everytime a politician/political party attempts to implement changes that are both far reaching and medium to long term, they are 'spooked' into altering those changes in preference of politically expedient policy.wheredanton said:
It's a good start, but I don't think it's just about that. Whenever an employee gets fired these days there is usually a desire by them to claim unfair dismissal, dealing with such claims is basically just very hard for small business to do on top of all their other obligations.
By a party I meant a group of people, not a political party. My claim is that compromise can probably lead to results which are worse for both parties than the implimentation of either of their policies in entirity would have.
Not-That-Bright said:
"A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied, and I think that's what we have here."Not-That-Bright said:
and that makes a difference to the weight of his opinion, doesn't it? I would have thought that such a fan of the free market, frog, would certainly not advocate the intervention of government (or otherwise) in helping those who are unprosperous/unprofitable along.banco55 said:
It depends on the situation. WorkChoices is very good for business but horrific and immoral for workers.frog12986 said:
Regarding industrial relations its very important to have a balanced policy. The interests for the economy (GDP, unemployment) and equity both need to be considered. Rudd's decision to keep Labor's policy on AWAs shows that the ALP is fully committed to collective bargaining and in a way appeasing the union movement. Other than that it seems preddy decent and balanced. WorkChoices on the other hand provides insufficient protection for employees and gives enormous power to employers.frog12986 said:
So your saying that when people have no job security they are going to work harder? Workers will have the constant fear of being fired and there is a much larger chance of getting injured at work. Workers also need job security because its very hard for unskilled workers to find a new job. Experienced accountants and doctors in the blue ribbon Liberal seats are almost guaranteed employment because they have skills that are in high demand.frog12986 said:
In some cases that might be true, unfortunately if we cost everyone out of being a small business we'll be left with a situation where only the crooks survive.
That type of situation is true of economies that face extensive labour surpluses and high levels of unemployment. In Australia, currently and into the future, we are facing a difficult situation whereby we are approaching full employment across all sectors of the economy, and an increasing difficulty for business to find quality employees. If we were in China or even Germany's position we could not of course adopt such a policy, however, the dynamics of our economy are different and subsequently so are our approaches.ZabZu said: