BF2S Forums Movements I heartily dislike

Pubic wrote:

Disagreed tbh...well kinda...

Anarchists can DIAF, unions are cool; they stop workers without expensive lawyers from being completely shat on, extreme environmentalists can DIAF but greenpeace???  Whats your beef with them?

Vub wrote:

I agree with you that nowadays, these movements have lost their direction and initial purpose, and have become an all-powerful body of people who wish to make everyone else conform to their ideas. The trade unions movement in Australia has become more and more just a hinderance. They complain about the government's new IR laws and demand impractical wage rises for their members. There's even a theory in economics of the wage-price spiral headed mostly by trade unions demanding wage rises in industries unable to give it. Trade unions seem to think that any employer is an evil capitalist intent on claiming every dollar they can get their hands on, but they forget that employers are merely people who require assistance in running a business, and the success of the business will inherently benefit everyone.

The term environmentalist has been largely smeared by people who outrageously demand changes and halts to certain actions which sustain them. Many environmentalists (not all mind you) are hypocrites performing stupid things such as trying to verse off a large metal ship with their dinghy. Haven't you wondered about the hypocricy when these organisations ask for money to assist in their cause, only to find them handing out heaps of flyers about how we should protect trees? I mean we could've not cut down those trees, or contributed at extra few tons of CO2 into the atmosphere by not paying attention to you. Of course, some environmental organisations are doing a great job, and having these people in politics is a better way of achieving change, but then there are also those money hungry organisations which make you cringe.

Last edited by Spark (2007-05-20 01:59:56)

Bubbalo wrote:

Spark wrote:

Unions - Well, this may have more to do with the new IR laws in Australia, but I have a very deep disdain for unions now. They whine, they bitch, they moan unless everything is 110% in their favour. They are utterly tunnel-visioned and will not open up to the slightest counterargument (AFAICT). They blast their opponents for using the politics of fear, but the politics of fear is their one and only weapon. Note: this isn't talking about ALL unions. I mostly mean big union spokespeople - the ACTU in paticular (for Australians)

If you honestly think that then you have no clue about the situation of the people they represent.  Up until very recently there was very little that could be done about unfair dismissal.  Finally it's been fixed, and John Howard's ruining.  Further, he's attempting to destroy unions, and unions are the only thing which give workers any power whatsoever over their employers.  Fact is, they've never gotten anything close to 50% in their favour, so to argue that they require everything 110% in their favour is ridiculous (the exception to this is the relationship between unions and the NSW government, but that's more an issue with the government than the union).

Bubbalo wrote:

As someone who has done work experience at the TWU, I can assure you that they do real work.  In some areas the new IR laws may have made improvements, but that doesn't change the fact that overall they have made employees vulnerable, and the government could have just as easily made laws which targetted the necessary areas.  The Australian economy is stronger than ever because we're modernising and that's what happens when countries modernise.  Meanwhile, removing unfair dismissal laws isn't just bad for those fired.  As an example, truck drivers who drive responsibly with regards to speed limits and fatigue are more likely to be fired, and will find it harder to fight back.  Further, wages will go down in areas where it isn't needed to stimulate growth.  The economic changes Howard has made have stimulated growth at the expense of equality.  That is to say Australia has more money, but more of it is in the hands of the rich few.

Last edited by Flecco (2007-05-20 06:09:43)

Shem wrote:

Agreed tbh.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-20 16:41:42)

Flecco wrote:

To use my father's example, as he's quit many jobs over issues with his boss being a "wanker". If your boss dismisses you unfairly they are both a moron and a dipshit... Who wants to work under a person who is both unintelligent and has a crappy personality?

1 WorkChoices changes

• the formation of a single national industrial system to replace the separate state and federal systems for constitutional corporations;
• the establishment of a body to be known as the Australian Fair Pay Commission to replace National Wage Cases at the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC);
• the streamlining of Certified Agreement and Australian Workplace Agreement making, including increasing the maximum agreement life from three years to five years;
• a reduction in allowable award matters;
• the creation of legislation for five minimum workplace conditions;
• the exemption of companies with fewer than 101 employees from unfair dismissal laws;
• the exemption of all companies from unfair dismissal laws where a dismissal is for a bona fide operational reason;
• increased restrictions on allowable industrial action;
• mandating secret ballots for industrial action;
• discouraging pattern bargaining and industry-wide industrial action.

---

Significant changes

5.1 Changing dismissal protection laws for some employees

Employees of businesses employing up to 100 staff no longer come under the protection of unfair dismissal laws, introduced by the Labor Government of Paul Keating in 1993. Unfair dismissal protection had existed before this either in Awards themselves or through state industrial relation commissions. Employees of larger businesses are not protected if they are dismissed for 'bona fide operational' reasons.


5.2 Forcing all constitutional corporations into the Federal system

All constitutional corporations (ie. trading, financial, and foreign corporations) are forced into the new WorkChoices system, which the Howard Government argued was valid under the Constitution of Australia. The Howard Government relied on the corporations power of Section 51(xx) as the entire basis of its new laws. This has replaced the previous system which used this power and the labour power of Section 51(xxxv) which provides that Commonwealth may make laws with respect to "conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State"

At the commencement of the WorkChoices reforms every state and territory of Australia had a Labor leader in government. Each state lodged a challenge to the Constitutional validity of the WorkChoices laws before the High Court of Australia. Various union groups also lodged their own challenge in the High Court. The High Court heard arguments between 4 May 2006 and 11 May 2006. On 14 November 2006 the High Court, by a 5 to 2 majority, rejected the challenge, upholding the Government's use of the corporations power as a constitutionally valid basis for the WorkChoices reforms.

While one of the purposes of these changes is to provide a single national industrial relations system, in practice, each of the States' systems (bar that of Victoria) remains in force and continues to apply to employers that are not incorporated and trading, financial or foreign organisations. Victoria voluntarily referred its powers over industrial relations to the Commonwealth in 1996. Employers that can remain in the State systems (bar in Victoria) include sole traders, partnerships, incorporated associations which are not 'trading corporations' and state government bodies. Areas of contention include local government and incorporated associations that undertake some trading activities.


5.3 Removing the "No Disadvantage Test" for agreements

Prior to the WorkChoices amendments coming into force, Certified Agreements; which are referred to as Collective Agreements in the amended Workplace Relations Act (CAs) and Individual Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) had to pass a No Disadvantage Test. This test compared a proposed agreement to an underpinning and relevant award that had or should have covered employees up until the proposal for an agreement. The No Disadvantage Test weighed the benefits of the award against the proposed agreement to ensure that, overall, employees were no worse off.

The amended Workplace Relations Act 1996 requires that employers provide employees with five minimum entitlements, which cover maximum ordinary working hours, annual leave, parental leave, personal/carer's leave and minimum pay scales. These five minimum entitlements are referred to as the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard. However, the Standard will not have any bearing on agreements that were certified prior to the commencement of WorkChoices. Notional Agreements Preserving State Awards (NAPSAs) will be subject to a 'more generous test'. If their conditions are more generous than what is provided for under the Standard, those conditions will continue to apply.

Those who supported the scrapping of the no disadvantage test say that it was too complex and argue its removal will create more opportunities for unemployed people to be offered a job. The example of "Billy" was used in material supporting the Government's position.

Unions and other groups that remain opposed to WorkChoices say that Billy is a perfect example of why the new laws are unfair and will lead to bosses exploiting their workers.[10]


5.4 Streamlined process for agreement certification

Previously, certified agreements, which are collective agreements about employment entitlements and obligations, made by an employer directly with employees or with unions, had to be lodged and certified in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC).

The new legislated changes have transferred responsibility for overseeing the agreement certification process to the Office of the Employment Advocate, which has had some of its other powers of investigation transferred to the Office of Workplace Services. Now instead of appearing before a Commissioner at the AIRC, parties to a collective agreement are only required to lodge the agreement with the Office of the Employment Advocate.

This new process has been criticised by those opposed to WorkChoices as they believe that it will give unions less opportunity to scrutinise and intervene where they believe an agreement has been unfairly drafted. However the government has stated in response that the intention of this part of the Act was to improve the turn-around time for agreement certification. In addition the newly amended Act does provide for substantial penalties upon employers, employees and unions where a collective agreement does not comply with the new regulations or includes prohibited content.

Last edited by Marinejuana (2007-05-21 05:14:15)