Rudd takes axe to Work Choices (1 Viewer)

[chicky_pie]

FEDERAL Cabinet has taken the first steps towards removing the Howard Government's Work Choices laws.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said his senior ministers had agreed today to three key measures which he said would protect working families.

Labor will introduce the first round of its workplace legislation when Parliament resumes in February.

"Today Cabinet formally approved a range of specific measures which will ... prevent the creation of new AWAs once these laws are passed," Mr Rudd said after Cabinet ministers met in Canberra.

"Secondly, it abolishes the previous government's so-called fairness test, and that will of course become applicable as soon as the legislation is through the Parliament.

"Thirdly, we'll be introducing a genuine no-disadvantage test and again, that will become applicable once the laws are through the Parliament."

Mr Rudd said the former Government's industrial relations laws had been the most extreme in Australia's history.

"Today in Cabinet we've taken our first step towards the removal of those laws," he said.

"Cabinet today has agreed on key amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and we will introduce these amendments as soon as Parliament returns.

"We believe that this is an important step forward because so many working families have been adversely affected by the existing range of laws."

Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard said Labor's transition Bill would ban any new AWAs.
"That will be fairer to Australian families," she said.

"But the transition Bill will also kick off a new era of industrial relations with a streamlined and modern awards system."

The transition Bill will charge the Australian Industrial Relations Commission with modernising Australia's awards over a period, ending on December 21, 2009.

"This is not only better for employees who rely on the safety net, it is better for employers who want to have a simple modern safety net, something that they can check easily and know what their obligations are," Ms Gillard said.

Ms Gillard said a more substantive Bill would be introduced into Parliament next year after a consultative period with industrial relations stakeholders and a business advisory group.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22936772-2,00.html

 

[jb_nc]

Wasn't workchoices a complete flop anyway? The 'fairness test' made it impossible to use AWAs for what they were designed to do (cut labour costs).

Still waiting for the new ABS data, though.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

The workchoices laws were Extreme. The Labor party said so, and I believe them.

 

[jb_nc]

In a wholly deregulated labour market there would be no barrier to employees joining unions and striking.

John Howard hates deregulated labour markets.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

john howard exploited the white worriers' nationalistic fantasy about living in a world with no unions!

EDIT:

FEDERAL Cabinet has taken the first steps towards re

...cession

 

[volition]

jb nc, you're right unions are allowed to exist in deregulated labour markets, except that it is fair enough to argue that unions should not have any influence in governance. Now before the lefties jump at me, it is also fair enough to argue that business councils/employer unions/businesses should not have any influence in governance too.

 

[ZabZu]

If workers want union representation, they should get it. If they don't, they should not get it.

I agree. Hopefully now that'll be the reality. Prior to 1996 there were closed shop arrangements whereby all employees had to become union members. When Howard came to power he brought in AWAs which took away the right to bargain collectively.

Also, its interesting that Rudd hasnt said anything about changing the unfair dismissal laws.

Even if AWAs are scrapped there will still be workers losing their penalty rates and overtime pay. Some union collective agreements remove them for exchange for a higher base wage. An example is the retail industry where workers are represented by the SDA (Shop, distributive and allied employees association). It is the largest union in Australia and some workers who have their conditions determined by the SDA do not get penatly rates on Saturday.

 

[banco55]

It won't make much difference to the economy as a whole until the US slows down and/or the mining boom cools.

 

[jimmayyy]

will there be some sort of similar but different form of individual contract instead of AWA's?

if not, kevin rudd can expect me to assassinate him soon

 

[volition]

If workers want union representation, they should get it. If they don't, they should not get it.

On the other side of the coin though, would you guys support employers who "don't want workers who are part of a union"? Would you also support this choice?

 

[Enteebee]

I think workers should be represented by the government, have the role of the 'unions' played by the government and government regulation of business practices (where needed). In one sense it could be viewed that I am supportive of more power for unions as I move them into governmental control, however what bothers me about unions isn't that they fight to give workers better rights, it's that more 'powerful' unions will reap greater benefits than less powerful ones with no thought as to what is overall best for the citizenry of Australia.

 

[ZabZu]

will there be some sort of similar but different form of individual contract instead of AWA's?

if not, kevin rudd can expect me to assassinate him soon

There will be interim transitional employment agreements (ITEAs). They are essentially the same as AWAs except they have to meet Labor's new no-disadvantage test. ITEAs will be introduced after Labor's legislation gets passed in parliament.

There are also common law individual contracts.

On the other side of the coin though, would you guys support employers who "don't want workers who are part of a union"? Would you also support this choice?

No. I think workers shouldnt be discriminated according to union membership. Im not 100% sure about employment law regarding hiring workers but it is unlawful to dismiss a worker because he/she is a union member.

 

[volition]

Employers have the right to discriminate against potential workers as long as they follow Anti-Discrimination legislation.

Exphate, I'm not talking about what the law is now, I'm talking about what the law 'should' be if that clarifies it for you. Do you think such anti-discrimination laws should exist, and why? Why is it that you support the right of the worker to choose, but not the right of the employer to choose?

But that said, if you are ignoring people due to their union representation you have cut out a number of workers who could potentially be more qualified than your final employee.

Don't you think this is a decision to be made by each individual person, rather than a decision made by the majority and enforced on all?

No. I think workers shouldnt be discriminated according to union membership. Im not 100% sure about employment law regarding hiring workers but it is unlawful to dismiss a worker because he/she is a union member.

Yeah I think it is illegal to dismiss a worker because of their union membership status, although this is stupid. They do this under the pretense of 'protecting freedom of association', without understanding what it really means. Freedom of association means just that, it does not mean "Employees get to associate with whoever they want, and still work for x employer".

They've got it completely backwards, both people should have the right to choose for themselves, regardless of what associations the other person has. This is the only logical outcome given that all people have the right of self-ownership.

 

[jb_nc]

i personally despise unions and believe them to create an anti-competitive, socialist, and monopolistic environment.
its disgusting

Why do you hate the free association of people?

Are you a fascist?

 

[Tyuiop]

There's nothing more scary than the unions. They'll stuff our economy, simple as that.
I dont know how i sleep at night.

 

[chicky_pie]

Strikes could disrupt Aussie holidays

INDUSTRIAL action planned by about 1700 Qantas engineers could throw new year holiday plans into disarray for thousands of travellers.

The strike, which could be the biggest disruption to air travel in Australia since a 1989 pilots' strike, follows a breakdown in enterprise bargaining agreements.

"We most certainly will be taking action from January 9," Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association federal secretary Steve Purvinas told Fairfax newspapers.

Some 87 per cent of members voted for the industrial action which is likely to take the form of four-hour stoppages, making it impossible for Qantas to check its 213 aircraft without causing delays.

A Qantas spokesman admitted the action could seriously affect its operations, but said the airline was open to "finding a solution".

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22963190-1702,00.html

god don't you just LOVE Labor.

 

[chicky_pie]

i personally despise unions and believe them to create an anti-competitive, socialist, and monopolistic environment.
its disgusting

LIBERALS ALL THE WAY

ps krudd/gillard are taking away fee paying places at uni in order 2
prevent the rich from rising" or wateva bs they believe in

r they stupid? theres a loan program created by the government which allow for uni fees to be paid once the student is stable within their desired career ie after uni. even poor ppl use this option

i salute you x 100.

 

[Silver Persian]

god don't you just LOVE Labor.

How does Labor have anything to do with the decision of a particular union to strike??

 

[jb_nc]

are you a communist?

No, but I do support the free association of people and the freedom to choose whether to be apart of a trade union or not.

 

[chicky_pie]

How does Labor have anything to do with the decision of a particular union to strike??

If Johnny was still in power, it wouldn't happen :angry: