HE boasted of signing up top sporting stars to the ranks of the Australian Workers Union.

Except there’s a problem with union chief turned Labor leader Bill Shorten’s bragging — it never actually happened.

As AWU national secretary, Mr Shorten claims to have pioneered the strategy of signing up celebrity athletes.

But that has come under scrutiny in the Royal Commission into Trade Unions, which last week found those athletes — including top netballer Liz Ellis and later Melbourne Cup winning jockey Michelle Payne — were never actually proper members. In 2005, Mr Shorten spruiked the arrangements in a press ­release titled: “Australia’s top netball stars have joined the AWU in a new alliance to improve the incomes and health and safety conditions of netball players.”

Mr Shorten said: “The AWU’s experience in representing other elite sportspeople such as horseracing jockeys will help us to better represent the interests of some of the most talented women in Australian sport.

“We look forward to working with the new leadership of Netball Australia to make it a better sport for fans and players.”

By 2011, four years after Mr Shorten left the union, the AWU’s membership lists during this time included various high-profile jockeys, ­including Peter Mertens, Greg Childs, Steven King, Kerrin McEvoy and Payne.

But according to the royal commission the athletes themselves were never members, with their industry organisations simply making ex-gratia payments to the AWU.

“Were the netballers ever members of the AWU? Clearly they were not. No membership applications were completed and the required membership contributions were not made,’’ the final report states.

According to the AWU’s John-Paul Blandthorn, the arrangement was negotiated by athletes on behalf of the Australian Netball Players Association and the royal commission found that it was never reduced to writing.

“What, if anything, did the ­arrangement require of the AWU? This is quite unclear,’’ the commission report states.

“John-Paul Blandthorn said that his understanding was that the netballers who became members of the ANPA did not fill out any membership application forms to become members of the AWU. Cesar Melhem did not ­recall whether any such forms were provided. The commission has sought production of AWU membership application forms in respect of ANPA members listed on the invoices. No membership forms were produced.’’

In June, Mr Blandthorn gave evidence to the royal commission that linked Mr Shorten to the “ex gratia” payments to the AWU.

“I want to put this to you: in or about 2008, Mr O’Keeffe (of the Victorian Jockeys Association) had a conversation with you whereby he said, ‘Look, you really need to be compensated in some way for all the work that you have been doing and has been done by your predecessor, Mr Shorten, for the Jockeys Association’.

“You then said, ‘Look, I won’t accept any money for doing what I do, but you could make a payment to the AWU in return for the services that I provide,’ or words to that effect. Would you agree that that conversation took place or could have taken place?”

Blandthorn: “Yes. Yes.”

The government has described the arrangement as a “dubious deal’’ which enabled the AWU to add the names of netballers and jockeys to its membership list.

Mr Shorten’s spokesman pointed out that a number of leading jockey associations had praised the Labor leader’s contribution to improving conditions.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/royal-commission-into-trade-unions-bill-shortens-australian-workers-union-sporting-scandal/story-fni0cx12-1227695523837

Wow, this really was 60m$ well spent wasn't it. Don't you get embarrassed AP?

macman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:19am:

Wow, this really was 60m$ well spent wasn't it. Don't you get embarrassed AP?

oh I see you didnt see where over 70 recommendations for CHANGE were put forward.....and more than 20 people to be investigated...for all sort of corruption...

and yes I agree to have to spend all that money... that should be spent on  better things.. is a disgrace..

for the UNIONS>...why dont they keep their own paddock clean....?????????????????? >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Mr Shorten’s spokesman pointed out that a number of leading jockey associations had praised the Labor leader’s contribution to improving conditions.


I wonder what he did.. ;D ;D ;D


and as they were never signed up.

that means he did it for nothing...


doesnt sound very BILL like does it?..

macman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:19am:

Wow, this really was 60m$ well spent wasn't it. Don't you get embarrassed AP?

No, not in the least. But you clearly are.

cods wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:38am:

Mr Shorten’s spokesman pointed out that a number of leading jockey associations had praised the Labor leader’s contribution to improving conditions. I wonder what he did.. ;D ;D ;D and as they were never signed up. that means he did it for nothing... doesnt sound very BILL like does it?..

Signing up people to be members of the AWU without their knowledge or permission sounds a lot like fraud to me.

Looks not much more than they had done all the background work and then not followed through to get all the memberships in place properly.


Quote:

Mr Shorten’s spokesman pointed out that a number of leading jockey associations had praised the Labor leader’s contribution to improving conditions.

Improving conditions would indicate that the union was doing work for members in this industry.


Quote:

their industry organisations simply making ex-gratia payments to the AWU.

So employee membership payments were being made by the organisation.

Pretty ugly and certainly a poor process but the reality is that the union was being payed membership dues and they were also doing work representing members. Had anything gone wrong these people would have been supported by their union.

A lot needs to be fixed with this sort of lazy process but I see nothing that looks corrupt in it.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:40am:

cods wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 7:38am: Mr Shorten’s spokesman pointed out that a number of leading jockey associations had praised the Labor leader’s contribution to improving conditions. I wonder what he did.. ;D ;D ;D and as they were never signed up. that means he did it for nothing... doesnt sound very BILL like does it?.. Signing up people to be members of the AWU without their knowledge or permission sounds a lot like fraud to me.

The association gave a list of names and the money to pay for their membership. Not a process that should be allowed but they were effectively being covered by the union.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:40am:

cods wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 7:38am: Mr Shorten’s spokesman pointed out that a number of leading jockey associations had praised the Labor leader’s contribution to improving conditions. I wonder what he did.. ;D ;D ;D and as they were never signed up. that means he did it for nothing... doesnt sound very BILL like does it?.. Signing up people to be members of the AWU without their knowledge or permission sounds a lot like fraud to me.

no membership forms were produced to the royal.....

so that never happened........all B.S. words are cheap when you dont have to back them up..

Dnarever wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:51am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 7:40am: cods wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 7:38am: Mr Shorten’s spokesman pointed out that a number of leading jockey associations had praised the Labor leader’s contribution to improving conditions. I wonder what he did.. ;D ;D ;D and as they were never signed up. that means he did it for nothing... doesnt sound very BILL like does it?.. Signing up people to be members of the AWU without their knowledge or permission sounds a lot like fraud to me. The association gave a list of names and the money to pay for their membership. Not a process that should be allowed but they were effectively being covered by the union.

That's fraud. Those people had no knowledge of this and did not give permission for their name to be added to the list of members. Very simple stuff.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 8:08am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 7:51am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 7:40am: cods wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 7:38am: Mr Shorten’s spokesman pointed out that a number of leading jockey associations had praised the Labor leader’s contribution to improving conditions. I wonder what he did.. ;D ;D ;D and as they were never signed up. that means he did it for nothing... doesnt sound very BILL like does it?.. Signing up people to be members of the AWU without their knowledge or permission sounds a lot like fraud to me. The association gave a list of names and the money to pay for their membership. Not a process that should be allowed but they were effectively being covered by the union. That's fraud. Those people had no knowledge of this and did not give permission for their name to be added to the list of members. Very simple stuff.

I agree it isn't the right think to do but I would think it unusual to consider being given industry improvements and services for free as being fraud.

Fraud normally works the other way, you normally expect to be disadvantaged when the victim of fraud.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 8:27am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 8:08am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 7:51am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 7:40am: cods wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 7:38am: Mr Shorten’s spokesman pointed out that a number of leading jockey associations had praised the Labor leader’s contribution to improving conditions. I wonder what he did.. ;D ;D ;D and as they were never signed up. that means he did it for nothing... doesnt sound very BILL like does it?.. Signing up people to be members of the AWU without their knowledge or permission sounds a lot like fraud to me. The association gave a list of names and the money to pay for their membership. Not a process that should be allowed but they were effectively being covered by the union. That's fraud. Those people had no knowledge of this and did not give permission for their name to be added to the list of members. Very simple stuff. I agree it isn't the right think to do but I would think it unusual to consider being given industry improvements and services for free as being fraud. Fraud normally works the other way, you normally expect to be disadvantaged when the victim of fraud.

Doesn't matter if it's for a good cause or not. I doubt very much the AWU did anything in return. It was simply about boosting their membership numbers. It didn't hurt the AWU that they also got some money out of it too. It's a win-win for the AWU while the sportsmen and women get used as pawns. Shortarse and his union thugs had/have no right to sign up individuals as members of their union without their knowledge or permission.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 8:36am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 8:27am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 8:08am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 7:51am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 7:40am: cods wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 7:38am: Mr Shorten’s spokesman pointed out that a number of leading jockey associations had praised the Labor leader’s contribution to improving conditions. I wonder what he did.. ;D ;D ;D and as they were never signed up. that means he did it for nothing... doesnt sound very BILL like does it?.. Signing up people to be members of the AWU without their knowledge or permission sounds a lot like fraud to me. The association gave a list of names and the money to pay for their membership. Not a process that should be allowed but they were effectively being covered by the union. That's fraud. Those people had no knowledge of this and did not give permission for their name to be added to the list of members. Very simple stuff. I agree it isn't the right think to do but I would think it unusual to consider being given industry improvements and services for free as being fraud. Fraud normally works the other way, you normally expect to be disadvantaged when the victim of fraud. Doesn't matter if it's for a good cause or not. I doubt very much the AWU did anything in return. It was simply about boosting their membership numbers. It didn't hurt the AWU that they also got some money out of it too. It's a win-win for the AWU while the sportsmen and women get used as pawns. Shortarse and his union thugs had/have no right to sign up individuals as members of their union without their knowledge or permission.

I doubt very much the AWU did anything in return.



Quote:

Mr Shorten’s spokesman pointed out that a number of leading jockey associations had praised the Labor leader’s contribution to improving conditions.

Seems you are wrong again ?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 8:45am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 8:36am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 8:27am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 8:08am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 7:51am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 7:40am: cods wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 7:38am: Mr Shorten’s spokesman pointed out that a number of leading jockey associations had praised the Labor leader’s contribution to improving conditions. I wonder what he did.. ;D ;D ;D and as they were never signed up. that means he did it for nothing... doesnt sound very BILL like does it?.. Signing up people to be members of the AWU without their knowledge or permission sounds a lot like fraud to me. The association gave a list of names and the money to pay for their membership. Not a process that should be allowed but they were effectively being covered by the union. That's fraud. Those people had no knowledge of this and did not give permission for their name to be added to the list of members. Very simple stuff. I agree it isn't the right think to do but I would think it unusual to consider being given industry improvements and services for free as being fraud. Fraud normally works the other way, you normally expect to be disadvantaged when the victim of fraud. Doesn't matter if it's for a good cause or not. I doubt very much the AWU did anything in return. It was simply about boosting their membership numbers. It didn't hurt the AWU that they also got some money out of it too. It's a win-win for the AWU while the sportsmen and women get used as pawns. Shortarse and his union thugs had/have no right to sign up individuals as members of their union without their knowledge or permission. I doubt very much the AWU did anything in return. Quote: Mr Shorten’s spokesman pointed out that a number of leading jockey associations had praised the Labor leader’s contribution to improving conditions. Seems you are wrong again ?

No one can say what the AWU did to improve conditions. The truth is the AWU did nothing.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 8:58am:

No one can say what the AWU did to improve conditions. The truth is the AWU did nothing

and since you admit you have no friggen idea, you can't say they did nothing  :D :D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 8:58am:

No one can say what the AWU did to improve conditions. The truth is the AWU did nothing.

Quote:

Top female athletes take case to union: Reporter: Heather Ewart KERRY O'BRIEN: The economic gulf between men's and women's sport in Australia has been the source of simmering resentment for some time, amongst the women at least. Now, in an effort to improve the lot of players at all levels, the company's top netballers have turned to the Australian Workers Union for help. It's a high profile coup for the union at a time when the movement as a whole struggling to maintain membership and it's a mark of determination by the elite players in Australia's highest participation sport. The union sees more opportunities in other sports and that's made administrators nervous. Heather Hewitt reports "In her 100th test match, Liz Ellis". LINDSAY CANE (CHIEF EXECUTIVE, NETBALL AUSTRALIA): We're talking about the best athletes in the world in this sport. We're talking about women who are equally committed, as equally talented in their own field as any professional male athlete. BILL SHORTEN (AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION): These women train for nine, 10 months of the year. They put in, on average, 25 to 30 hours on top of holding down full-time study or another job. HEATHER HEWITT: When Australia's netball team thrashed England last Friday night, team captain, Liz Ellis, made history as she starred in her 100th test. But history of another kind is also at play here. The elite players of the National Netball League have just taken the unprecedented step of joining the Australian Workers Union in search of better pay and conditions. Do you feel as though you're trail blazers here? LIZ ELLIS: No, I just feel as if we're netballers who wanna to contribute to our sport and we wanna see, you know, do our best to make the sport better for mainly the generations to come. AMANDA BURTON (RETIRED MELBOURNE NETBALLER): I think we're the test case. Other sports can go like, look at women's cricket and softball and all these other like Olympic sports that can really generate and go places. So, look, I'm happy to be part of netball and the test case in this scenario. HEATHER HEWITT: This is one test case that could have long-term consequences, not just for Australian Netball but for other women's sports and their administrations are on edge awaiting the next move. Men's sports too are taking more than a passing interest. RON BARASSI (FORMER AFL COACH): Are they gonna to go out of a job for the day, or go on strike? I don't know. BILL SHORTEN: When you look at it, the level of commitment that elite Australian women athletes put in, I think they need collective bargaining; they need union representation; they need player associations. http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1313768.htm

Quote:

http://workplaceinfo.com.au/industrial-relations/industrial-action/news/netball-strike-close-to-resolution#.VohdVsvUhEY A strike by Australia's national netball team remains unresolved despite next month's looming test series against New Zealand, but the parties seem confident of reaching an agreement. The national squad's five-day training camp last week was cancelled because of the strike over player payments. Netball Australia management had talks with the Australian Netball Players' Association (Anpa) on Sunday night. 'Netball Australia remains hopeful that agreement can be reached with Anpa to ensure that the selection camp later this month and the tour to New Zealand in October goes ahead as planned,' the national body said in a statement. Progress Bill Shorten, Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union, who is assisting Anpa in its negotiations, said he was hopeful the contract dispute would be resolved soon. 'Progress was made [at the Sunday talks] and we are awaiting a proposition from them,' he said. 'I am confident to the extent there is a solution available, with goodwill from everyone.' The Australian representatives are paid far less than their Silver Ferns rivals and are understood to have asked for a 100% pay increase, plus $A200 ($NZ237) a day when they are in training camps.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 8:58am:

The truth is the AWU did nothing.

Once again AP you were wrong, they did do something ?

I'm sure this is a stupid question, but how could the AWU represent all of these sport stars if not one of them were members?

the good ole boys wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:25am:

I'm sure this is a stupid question, but how could the AWU represent all of these sport stars if not one of them were members?

Shorten is a love rat

So he's hoping to get laid

Shorten's women need to be rich or have rich parents. At any rate, I thought a union member had to apply and pay dues.

the good ole boys wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:25am:

I'm sure this is a stupid question, but how could the AWU represent all of these sport stars if not one of them were members?

All workers benefit from the good work done by unions.

For example, when a new Agreement is negotiated in a workplace, by a union, all workers at that particular site (*EDIT: are entitled to) receive the pay increases and conditions contained in that document - not just the union members.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:34am:

For example, when a new Agreement is negotiated in a workplace, by a union, all workers at that particular site receive the pay increases and conditions contained in that document - not just the union members.

Including Spotless Cleaners?

But Shorten claimed he signed them up as members. Not just ex-gratia payments from the sports bodies, which confer no benefit.

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:57am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 11:34am: For example, when a new Agreement is negotiated in a workplace, by a union, all workers at that particular site (*EDIT: are entitled to) receive the pay increases and conditions contained in that document - not just the union members. Including Spotless Cleaners?

Yes.

All workplaces.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:01pm:

lee wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 11:57am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 11:34am: For example, when a new Agreement is negotiated in a workplace, by a union, all workers at that particular site (*EDIT: are entitled to) receive the pay increases and conditions contained in that document - not just the union members. Including Spotless Cleaners? Yes. All workplaces.

Wrong. They actually had their pay and conditions slashed thanks to Shortarse.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:03pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 12:01pm: lee wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 11:57am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 11:34am: For example, when a new Agreement is negotiated in a workplace, by a union, all workers at that particular site (*EDIT: are entitled to) receive the pay increases and conditions contained in that document - not just the union members. Including Spotless Cleaners? Yes. All workplaces. Wrong. They actually had their pay and conditions slashed thanks to Shortarse.

No, I am 100% correct.  Try to focus.

If a union-negotiated Agreement is in place at a particular worksite, all employees are covered by that document - not just the paid up union members.

Try to concentrate on reading what I'm actually saying, rather than what you "think" I'm saying.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:06pm:

If a union-negotiated Agreement is in place at a particular worksite, all employees are covered by that document - not just the paid up union members

Not so - Only those employees of the type listed in the document. EG Metalworkers would not be covered by a Cleaners agreement. Cleaners would not be covered by Riggers agreement.

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 12:06pm: If a union-negotiated Agreement is in place at a particular worksite, all employees are covered by that document - not just the paid up union members Not so - Only those employees of the type listed in the document. EG Metalworkers would not be covered by a Cleaners agreement. Cleaners would not be covered by Riggers agreement.

Yes, that's correct (and exactly what I meant).

My point is, those listed are covered by the EA whether they are members of a union or not.

One does not have to be a union member in order to be covered by a union-negotiated Agreement.

The unions do the hard work for all workers who will eventually be covered by the Agreements they negotiate.

Not all members, but all workers.

Similarly, it's not just union members who get paid annual leave, paid sick leave, and penalty rates even though those conditions were won by unions.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:06pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 12:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 12:01pm: lee wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 11:57am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 11:34am: For example, when a new Agreement is negotiated in a workplace, by a union, all workers at that particular site (*EDIT: are entitled to) receive the pay increases and conditions contained in that document - not just the union members. Including Spotless Cleaners? Yes. All workplaces. Wrong. They actually had their pay and conditions slashed thanks to Shortarse. No, I am 100% correct.  Try to focus. If a union-negotiated Agreement is in place at a particular worksite, all employees are covered by that document - not just the paid up union members. Try to concentrate on reading what I'm actually saying, rather than what you "think" I'm saying.

Wrong again...

"The Australian can also reveal that the reduction of employee conditions under a 1998 enterprise agreement signed by Mr Shorten’s AWU Victoria and Cleanevent cost 5000-odd workers as much as $400 million, substantially more than previously thought... Analysis based on wages bills conducted by The Australian, with the aid of industry experts, shows that taking into account the differences to the EBA introduced in 1998 workers were collectively about $420m worse off than they would have been had leave loadings not been removed from the EBA." - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/cleanevent-staff-lost-400m-under-deal-by-bill-shortens-awu/news-story/62300ed88eeb832e95689e9413ea90b6

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:35pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 12:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 12:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 12:01pm: lee wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 11:57am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 11:34am: For example, when a new Agreement is negotiated in a workplace, by a union, all workers at that particular site (*EDIT: are entitled to) receive the pay increases and conditions contained in that document - not just the union members. Including Spotless Cleaners? Yes. All workplaces. Wrong. They actually had their pay and conditions slashed thanks to Shortarse. No, I am 100% correct.  Try to focus. If a union-negotiated Agreement is in place at a particular worksite, all employees are covered by that document - not just the paid up union members. Try to concentrate on reading what I'm actually saying, rather than what you "think" I'm saying. Wrong again... "The Australian can also reveal that the reduction of employee conditions under a 1998 enterprise agreement signed by Mr Shorten’s AWU Victoria and Cleanevent cost 5000-odd workers as much as $400 million, substantially more than previously thought... Analysis based on wages bills conducted by The Australian, with the aid of industry experts, shows that taking into account the differences to the EBA introduced in 1998 workers were collectively about $420m worse off than they would have been had leave loadings not been removed from the EBA." - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/cleanevent-staff-lost-400m-under-deal-by-bill-shortens-awu/news-story/62300ed88eeb832e95689e9413ea90b6

I am 100% correct.

If a union-negotiated Agreement is in place at a particular worksite, all employees listed in the document are entitled to the pay rises and conditions that have been negotiated - not just the paid up union members.

You are off on some tangent subject.

Try to focus.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:36pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 12:35pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 12:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 12:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 12:01pm: lee wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 11:57am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 11:34am: For example, when a new Agreement is negotiated in a workplace, by a union, all workers at that particular site (*EDIT: are entitled to) receive the pay increases and conditions contained in that document - not just the union members. Including Spotless Cleaners? Yes. All workplaces. Wrong. They actually had their pay and conditions slashed thanks to Shortarse. No, I am 100% correct.  Try to focus. If a union-negotiated Agreement is in place at a particular worksite, all employees are covered by that document - not just the paid up union members. Try to concentrate on reading what I'm actually saying, rather than what you "think" I'm saying. Wrong again... "The Australian can also reveal that the reduction of employee conditions under a 1998 enterprise agreement signed by Mr Shorten’s AWU Victoria and Cleanevent cost 5000-odd workers as much as $400 million, substantially more than previously thought... Analysis based on wages bills conducted by The Australian, with the aid of industry experts, shows that taking into account the differences to the EBA introduced in 1998 workers were collectively about $420m worse off than they would have been had leave loadings not been removed from the EBA." - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/cleanevent-staff-lost-400m-under-deal-by-bill-shortens-awu/news-story/62300ed88eeb832e95689e9413ea90b6 I am 100% correct. If a union-negotiated Agreement is in place at a particular worksite, all employees listed in the document are entitled to the pay rises and conditions that have been negotiated - not just the paid up union members. You are off on some tangent subject. Try to focus.

You're saying those workers were better off after Shorten became involved when the TRUTH is they were considerably worse off just so he could boost his political clout within the ALP.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:39pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 12:36pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 12:35pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 12:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 12:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 12:01pm: lee wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 11:57am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 11:34am: For example, when a new Agreement is negotiated in a workplace, by a union, all workers at that particular site (*EDIT: are entitled to) receive the pay increases and conditions contained in that document - not just the union members. Including Spotless Cleaners? Yes. All workplaces. Wrong. They actually had their pay and conditions slashed thanks to Shortarse. No, I am 100% correct.  Try to focus. If a union-negotiated Agreement is in place at a particular worksite, all employees are covered by that document - not just the paid up union members. Try to concentrate on reading what I'm actually saying, rather than what you "think" I'm saying. Wrong again... "The Australian can also reveal that the reduction of employee conditions under a 1998 enterprise agreement signed by Mr Shorten’s AWU Victoria and Cleanevent cost 5000-odd workers as much as $400 million, substantially more than previously thought... Analysis based on wages bills conducted by The Australian, with the aid of industry experts, shows that taking into account the differences to the EBA introduced in 1998 workers were collectively about $420m worse off than they would have been had leave loadings not been removed from the EBA." - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/cleanevent-staff-lost-400m-under-deal-by-bill-shortens-awu/news-story/62300ed88eeb832e95689e9413ea90b6 I am 100% correct. If a union-negotiated Agreement is in place at a particular worksite, all employees listed in the document are entitled to the pay rises and conditions that have been negotiated - not just the paid up union members. You are off on some tangent subject. Try to focus. You're saying those workers were better off after Shorten became involved .

I never said any such thing.

Please try to focus.

I said:

"If a union-negotiated Agreement is in place at a particular worksite, all employees listed in the document are entitled to the pay rises and conditions that have been negotiated - not just the paid up union members."

I'm not talking about Shorten.