Can the government deal with 10 days of union protests? 

THERE could be 10 days of “massive rallies” by workers across Australia, but a single tweet highlights why the Coalition may struggle to deal with it.   

news.com.au April 6, 2018

While the PM is away, the government will face rallies from union groups.Source:AAP

THE biggest industrial relations showdowns in just over a decade is looming and there is confusion over who will be the minister in charge of the issue.

Unions plan 10 days of “massive rallies” and street protests in what could become the biggest industrial relations confrontation since the Work Choices brawl in 2007.   

Using the slogan “Hit the streets to change the rules”, the ACTU has scheduled demonstrations in 19 cities and regional centres starting April 17 — coinciding with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s 10 days in Europe.

Employer groups want to pre-empt the street marches with a strengthened defence of existing industrial relations laws next week.

But they want to know which government minister will be backing them as the showdown will highlight confusion over who has authority within the Government on industrial relations.

Australian Conservative and former Liberal senator Cory Bernardi did his own highlighting in a tweet Thursday night: “Watching John Howard on #ABC730 talk about IR made me think this is the only coalition Govt I can remember where IR isn’t a cabinet portfolio.”

Michaelia Cash had that role in cabinet but after a recent reshuffle is now Minister for Jobs and Innovation.

Craig Laundy is Workplace Minister but isn’t in cabinet.

The peak union body wants to use street protests to ram home it’s claim that changes to workplace laws have disadvantaged ordinary employees and added to the financial stress on families.



“Wherever I go in Australia I hear the same story — people are ready for change and willing to take action to make it happen,” ACTU secretary Sally McManus said in an email appeal for support.

“And nothing demonstrates the need for change like massive rallies around the country. When people are prepared to stand up and take action, we can change the rules.”   

Employer groups will argue the opposite, saying unions and workers have been the beneficiaries.

They will point to changes which restricted business transfers and the introduction of vulnerable worker protections which increased the obligations of employers and the penalties they face for breaches.

Yeah and most got more safe working environments and a decent wage out of it.

Spot

lee wrote on Apr 6^th, 2018 at 1:02pm:


They want to 'Change The Rules'.

"Australian Unions are campaigning to change the rules so that working people have more secure jobs and better pay.

"Right now, big business has too much power. A third of them aren’t paying any tax.

"And, too many big businesses are in a race to the bottom on wages and job security.

"As a result, 40% of Australians are in insecure work and wages have flat-lined.

"We need a wage rise and secure work.

"We need to change the rules to give all working people the basic rights they need to improve their living standards."

lee wrote on Apr 6^th, 2018 at 2:01pm:


So that the rules consider workers.

Are you not in favour of that?

Are you happy with the amount of casualised work in this country?

Are you happy with the massively increasing company profits and CEO bonuses, while workers' wages are flat-lining?

Are you happy with a third of all big business not paying any tax?

lee wrote on Apr 6^th, 2018 at 2:17pm:


They want to change the rules so that they consider workers.

"So that the rules consider workers."

Don't you think that's a good idea?

lee wrote on Apr 6^th, 2018 at 2:23pm:


"Australian Unions are campaigning to change the rules so that working people have more secure jobs and better pay."

Don't you think that's a good idea?

Yes, or no?

How is it that unions can agree with massive low skilled immigration and then whinge about low wages and lack of job permanency?

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 6^th, 2018 at 2:28pm:



I take it that's a "no".