Rudd released IR Policy (1 Viewer)

[jimmayyy]

"A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied, and I think that's what we have here."

wats that from? movie? tv show?

 

[iamsickofyear12]

This whole issue is starting to annoy me. As I see it we don't have a decent choice here. Either way someone is getting screwed.

Liberal has taken too many rights away from employees but Labor (as always) wants to give them too many.

Employees should have a set of minimum standards (wages, overtime, etc) while they are working somewhere but there should be no unfair dismissal. If an employee wants to fire someone that is their right.

 

[Sparcod]

Let's not forget, that the reforms of this government have provided more people with the best form of welfare that any government has provided in the past 32 years; employment. The ALP and unions paint a picture of a crumbling economy in the face of draconian reforms, however despite the electorates belief of this picture, reality is a very different story and it seems the only way that this will be recognised is when it disappears.

I didn't know that the Liberals have been in power for the past 32 years. That's so painfully long.

I believe that the great shape that the economy is in at the moment was achieved using the old system with old workplace laws, significantly influenced by unions, that protected the poorest and most vulnerable workers.

You should take a look at this too. It's quite old by the way.
Mining boom 'not behind' low unemployment
....according to Joe Hockey himself.

I disagree with Joe Hockey.

 

[Sparcod]

lol, fail

Yes. It was too obvious that I was being sarcastic.

 

[volition]

ALP pledges more time off to care for infants - http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudd-kisses-mum-before-the-baby/2007/04/28/1177460038292.html

Hmm, looks like I've discovered why Rudd said he wasn't going to take no lip from the unions. Cos he's already gone beyond their wildest dreams!

"PARENTS would have the legal right to demand flexible working hours in the first five years of their children's lives in a radical work policy unveiled by federal Labor yesterday." - This is quite possibly one of the stupidest IR plans I've ever heard. Sure, it might be well meaning, but it has no grounding in practicality. Such a policy encourages discrimination against parents/people of childbearing age being employed in the first place, not to mention dropping the hammer on businesses (particularly small business).

"The policy, unashamedly pitched at the Coalition's voter heartland of working families, would also give working parents the right to up to 24 months of unpaid parental leave." - You mean someone can go away for 2 whole years and you can't fill their position with permanent staff?

"A working week for full-time employees of 38 hours. Workers could not be required to work `unreasonable additional hours'.'" - stuffs up any office that seasonally needs to pay workers overtime for a few weeks of the year, rather than hiring new staff that it doesn't need for other parts of the year. It also stuffs up offices where there is an unexpected(whether temporary or not) increase in work.

"Reinstatement of all public holidays, such as Christmas and Boxing Days." - Don't we already have these?

I'd like to see what "reasonable business grounds" means. Probably more red tape that will detract from our economic growth, as businesses have to spend money complying with it, rather than spending on things that actually help society.

 

[Rafy]

A bizarre blast from the past

LABOR leader Kevin Rudd has seized a bizarre fate -- a resurrection of trade union power, collective bargaining rights and a far stronger industrial umpire as the keys to The Lodge.
Rudd's new industrial policy is a giant step into the past. Indeed, so sweeping is Labor's embrace of the principles of collective power and re-regulation that it must be wondered whether Rudd fully comprehends what he has done.
It is the most intriguing question from the ALP national conference.

Neither Rudd's spin as the leader of the future nor his selling of the policy as a homily to family values can disguise its reality - this is a radical re-casting against individual discretion, employers and small business in favour of collective power, trade unions and third-party enforcement.

With this policy, Rudd forfeits any chance of being a serious rival to John Howard on economic policy. He looks a conventional leader using spin to pose as a modernist.

The mechanics of the decision are telling. The policy is a collaboration between two of Labor's best brains, ACTU chief Greg Combet and deputy leader Julia Gillard. It has not been approved by the Opposition front bench. It has not been vetted by Labor's business guru, Rod Eddington. It was not debated at national conference because it mirrors a Labor-ACTU consensus. Key sections were kept from business before the announcement.

It draws a line in the sand. It defines Rudd's election strategy as a joint and massive assault by Labor and the trade unions against Work Choices.

At this point Labor loses the goodwill of big business, the hope of winning small business and the dream that it stands for entrepreneurship. [...]

http://www.skynews.com.au/story.asp?id=166780
The West Australian premier has broken ranks, by criticising Labor's industrial relations policy. Alan Carpenter has told the West Australian newspaper, that Kevin Rudd's plan to rip up Australian Workplace Agreements could harm his state's resource sector, and the nation's economy.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

A

"PARENTS would have the legal right to demand flexible working hours in the first five years of their children's lives in a radical work policy unveiled by federal Labor yesterday." - This is quite possibly one of the stupidest IR plans I've ever heard. Sure, it might be well meaning, but it has no grounding in practicality. Such a policy encourages discrimination against parents/people of childbearing age being employed in the first place, not to mention dropping the hammer on businesses (particularly small business).

"The policy, unashamedly pitched at the Coalition's voter heartland of working families, would also give working parents the right to up to 24 months of unpaid parental leave." - You mean someone can go away for 2 whole years and you can't fill their position with permanent staff?

I'd like to see what "reasonable business grounds" means. Probably more red tape that will detract from our economic growth, as businesses have to spend money complying with it, rather than spending on things that actually help society.

We are looking at these new Labor IR policies in the wrong way. We can't look at them in terms of how good the policy is or the benefit to the economy because that is not their goal.

We should be judging them in terms of vote getting ability because that is their sole purpose. Some of these policies are beyond ridiculous and it is obvious to me that they are only there to get votes.

 

[Sparcod]

"Reinstatement of all public holidays, such as Christmas and Boxing Days." - Don't we already have these?

LOL. It must've been the work experience kid who did this. What Rudd was trying to imply was that those working on public holidays should been paid extra or receive holiday pay.

"The policy, unashamedly pitched at the Coalition's voter heartland of working families, would also give working parents the right to up to 24 months of unpaid parental leave." - You mean someone can go away for 2 whole years and you can't fill their position with permanent staff?

I think he means that the worker can be guaranteed a place when they're back. I don't know about this one. In my opinion 24 months is a bit too long. Maybe 12 months will do.

The IR debate is pretty big. You can either harm businesses or harm the workers.

 

[banco55]

Apart from anything it can hardly be good for business and the economy to have constantly changing labour laws. At this rate a small business would have to have employment lawyers on retainer to figure out what the hell is going on if Labour come to power.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Then again, it can't be good for the citizens of a country to have to endure Howard's work"choices" legislation for much longer. Suppose we can just blame the coalition for starting this foofaraw in the first place.

 

[Sparcod]

Then again, it can't be good for the citizens of a country to have to endure Howard's work"choices" legislation for much longer. Suppose we can just blame the coalition for starting this foofaraw in the first place.

I do believe that workers should have just a little bit more rights at work especially the lowest paid workers and other workers who'll suffer a lot from AWAs. I think that's what Rudd is planning to do.

I'm mostly undecided if I had to choose right now between the two parties. I like the fact that AWAs make businesses and the economy grow and hence creates jobs and increases tax revenues and so on but then again, workers lose rights, have family problems and for some, wages go down and so on.

I remember posting something up before in another thread about 2 labour economists who argue that more workers' rights and higher minimum wages would lower unemployment through the creation of jobs and hence lead to a higher economic growth rate. When I first saw the title of the article, I found it really absurd because like most people, I believe that higher min. wages would increase inflation and unemployment. Their points seem really valid here.


On another note....
Politics of fear damaging traditional values: Fraser

Malcolm Fraser, himself
"The politics of these issues was exploited by the Government and has bitten deeply into the Australian psyche.

Even Malcolm Fraser dislikes what John Howard is doing. (not concerning workplace laws here)

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I like the fact that AWAs make businesses and the economy grow and hence creates jobs and increases tax revenues and so on but then again, workers lose rights, have family problems and for some, wages go down and so on.

I would love to see some rock hard evidence that suggests that this legislation has had a beneficial impact on the economy. Thus far, I've seen empty reasoning from frog12896 and that's about it. Howard and Costello continually sing its praises, and yet we see no official figures. The closest we get is a low unemployment rate. That's all well and good, but at what price? Sure more people are employed, but they're treated as not much more than simply pawns, available to hire when nessecary and without basic, fundamental rights. It's lunacy, and unproven lunacy.

 

[banco55]

I would love to see some rock hard evidence that suggests that this legislation has had a beneficial impact on the economy. Thus far, I've seen empty reasoning from frog12896 and that's about it. Howard and Costello continually sing its praises, and yet we see no official figures. The closest we get is a low unemployment rate. That's all well and good, but at what price? Sure more people are employed, but they're treated as not much more than simply pawns, available to hire when nessecary and without basic, fundamental rights. It's lunacy, and unproven lunacy.

I think it's too early for the effect of this legislation to show up much in economic figures. Although I think there's substansial evidence that a deregulated labour market helps keep unemployment low. Why is the US's unemployment level consistently below the Western European countries unemployment rate? Frankly I think if you have to choose between a low unemployment rate and people at the bottom having less conditions/lower wages and higher unemployment and putting people on the dole the former is much more desirable.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Even Malcolm Fraser dislikes what John Howard is doing. (not concerning workplace laws here)

That's really no surprise if you know Malcolm Fraser.

 

[frog12986]

I've seen empty reasoning from frog12896 and that's about it. Howard and Costello continually sing its praises, and yet we see no official figures. The closest we get is a low unemployment rate. That's all well and good, but at what price?

If the economy suddenly took a turn for the worst, unemployment rose, real wages decreased, mass sackings occurred, casualisation increased etc, then the ALP would be all over it attributing it to the 'draconian' workplace reforms. Inadvertently, any positive or beneficial data will be utilised by the government to emhpasise the 'favourable' outcomes that have occurred 'due' to the reforms.

Aside from the reforms to the unfair dismissal laws, the remainder of workchoices, as a structual reform, is intended to provide medium to long term benefits, and address medium to long to issues; namely, the huge labour shortage that is only set to get worse into the future. Labor painted a picture before the laws were passed through parliament that there would be numerous negative short term ramifications that would occur and in doing so, allowed the government to rightfully take credit for any positive data.

 

[volition]

I would love to see some rock hard evidence that suggests that this legislation has had a beneficial impact on the economy. Thus far, I've seen empty reasoning from frog12896 and that's about it. Howard and Costello continually sing its praises, and yet we see no official figures. The closest we get is a low unemployment rate. That's all well and good, but at what price? Sure more people are employed, but they're treated as not much more than simply pawns, available to hire when nessecary and without basic, fundamental rights. It's lunacy, and unproven lunacy.

Well here's an article about how BHP Billiton aren't happy with Labor's proposed system, for its lack of flexibility:http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1910689.htm

I'm curious to see what basic fundamental rights these are that you refer to.

 

[frog12986]

eliminating minimum wages reduces unemployment..

Who is eliminating the minimum wage?

 

[CSI: CRIMES ™]

You're obviously not an economics student.

:rofl: pwned