Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 17
th, 2012 at 2:23pm:
Doctor Jolly wrote on May 17
th, 2012 at 2:17pm:
None of the liberals or those funding the liberals (BHP,etc) have actually said what they want changed ?
Be specific, or are they scared to mention work-choices ?
Workchoices had so much mud slung at it by the Unions in a deliberate smear campaign (read To the Bitter End) and it worked.
The actual concept of Workchoices is a good one.
To remove the third party influence, get Australians working to a more modern set of rules and regulations - give employers flexibility to respond to changed global market conditions etc.
I have worked my whole life on individual contracts with billion dollar multi-nationals.
Workchoices was about moving away from the rigid, stuck in the past 1970s style agreements and onto a more modern set of employment agreements as the norm.
It was a good thing.
But the Unions saw it as a threat to their power and chucked the kitchen sink at besmirching its name,
This is pure employer speak. I heard so much of it in NZ during the dark days of the Employment Contracts Act.
"Flexibility" means no overtime rates. no weekend penal payments, lower wages and lesser working conditions. It means the right to fire without reason and no right of appeal.
"Rigidity" means having legally enforceable collective employment contracts instead of vaguely worded individidual documents which have little legal force.
"Third party influence" of course means trade unions.
Organisations formed by working people to represent them and argue their case are NOT third parties. They are as much a part of the workplace as any employer.
Andrei is welcome to labour relations US style. Fortunately Australians and New Zealanders knew better and forced the dumping of both Work Choices and the ECA.
But now the Key government in NZ is trying again. So will Abbott if the Liberals gain power.