Australian Politics Forum - RC: Shorten’s AWU sporting scandal

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › Federal Politics › RC: Shorten’s AWU sporting scandal

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2 3

RC: Shorten’s AWU sporting scandal (Read 1537 times)

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 150625
Gender: male

Re: RC: Shorten’s AWU sporting scandal
Reply #30 - Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:41pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 (*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...

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.

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page