• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

your rights at work

Can we get back to the important stuff like triple backflip with a twist 'im going to win the election' Rudd? After all the fuss about Howard changing a part of Workchoices, now dudd's backflipping on another part of his IR policy, and blaming the stuff ups on the fact they couldn't consult their usual go to guy.

Then why release the policy??
 
You could ask Kevin Rudd why the chicken crossed the road. He tell you he support the chicken community, is in favour of funding public roads, but no actual information :\

I think Johny's do the right thing by adjusting his policy based on public reaction - that is not backflipping - that is democracy in practice you freaking communists.
 
Yes! Excellent! Heaps of people have employment with no benefits that they should be entitled to, at a payrate that, if they complain about, will get them fired.
Beautiful move!
 
Nup! ;)

MoeBro said:
Yes! Excellent! Heaps of people have employment with no benefits that they should be entitled to, at a payrate that, if they complain about, will get them fired.
Beautiful move!
Click to expand...

Assuming you're right, would you prefer much higher unemployment levels? Lots more people without a job whatsoever? Is that a better scenario?
 
this is taken from an email i received from the ACTU your rights at work campaign team. so far i have not seen or read anything that makes me doubt this info.

Sprung! The Budget proves John Howard's 'fairness test' is a sham

Dear XXXXXX,

Sometimes you have to wonder if John Howard thinks Australians are too
stupid to see the writing on the wall.

Last week the Howard Government announced a new so-called 'Fairness Test.'
This was done with much fanfare: a big splash in the papers, millions of
dollars of taxpayers' money spent on a massive newspaper ad spend.

The Test supposedly ensured that people would be "compensated" for the loss
of penalty rates, annual leave loading, and other conditions. But in the
fine print is the fact that you may not get fair compensation for losing
all your entitlements if your employer says it can't afford it, or where
the offer of a job is deemed sufficient compensation, or where you are
provided with something you don't need, like pizza after a shift.

The whole idea was deeply flawed, and of course when conditions are gone
they're gone forever - you can read a factsheet here.
www.rightsatwork.com.au/campaigns/rottentothecore

Of course, we all saw straight through it. And now further evidence has
emerged that everything John Howard said about his so-called 'Fairness
Test' was a sham.

According to Mr Howard, every single AWA individual contract will have to
be scrutinized to make sure it is "fair," and people are compensated for
every condition stripped away. With a thousand AWAs being forced on
working Australians every day, this is a massive job.

In Tuesday's Budget, however, the Department of Employment and Workplace
Relations only received an additional 15 staff. Worse, the area under which
the Office of Employment Advocate operates will actually be reduced by 57
people.

The OEA is only allocated an additional $2.6 million. This is just a 7 per
cent increase, less than half that of the previous year (17 per cent).

So the so-called "fairness test" is a sham... and it is clear from the
Budget itself that there will not be enough resources for AWAs to be
checked against the so-called fairness test anyway! This is election year
trickery on a massive scale.
(end quote)

:as for the unemployment level. remember we are in a resources boom at the moment that probably has something to do with it.

some questions i would like answered. how are the unemployment figures worked out? is this based solely on number of people on the dole? & if so how have howard's welfare to work changes affected this?
 
Last edited:
Bent Mk2 said:
Nup! ;)



Assuming you're right, would you prefer much higher unemployment levels? Lots more people without a job whatsoever? Is that a better scenario?
Click to expand...


So this decreased unemployment rate is due solely to the IR reforms? The only reason? Are you fucking stupid? Progress passes everywhere, the unemployment rates would likely have dropped everywhere regardless of who was in power. Perhaps not to the same extent, but a drop regardless.

without bothering to look into anything, re: examples, Spotlight.

nuff said.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, yeah...but can you answer the question? Which is worse? Vastly higher unemployment, or some elusive group of hard done, employed people?

this is taken from an email i received from the ACTU your rights at work campaign team. so far i have not seen or read anything that makes me doubt this info.
Click to expand...

You mean other than the fact that its from the ACTU? Even I take Howard's personal propaganda with a grain of salt!
 
Sure, I'll answer. I want a few pieces of information first though - unemployment % before the IR laws, and unemployment % now.
Then I'll gladly answer :)
 
Seasonally adjusted the figure in March 2006 was 5.0% - April 2007 was 4.4% (the lowest unemployment rate in 32 years).

And FYI in March 2005 it was 5.1%, and in March 2004 it was 5.6%.
 
To answer your original question, I'd prefer the higher unemployment levels (but you already knew I'd say that).
They were on their way down anyway - widespread discontent amongst the working class due to poorer conditions (whether they see them or not) seems like a hefty price to pay for accelerating unemployment rise by a few 10ths of a percent.

The second question I'm not qualified to answer. We'll find out in a few years time, I would guess.
 
Bent Mk2 said:
Seasonally adjusted the figure in March 2006 was 5.0% - April 2007 was 4.4% (the lowest unemployment rate in 32 years).

And FYI in March 2005 it was 5.1%, and in March 2004 it was 5.6%.
Click to expand...

Australia is not remotely in full employment. The Reserve notes that the unemployment rate is at or around a 30-year low, at 4.6 per cent. But that is only one bit of information about the labour market, and not the most useful bit.

Look again at the figures I began with. Just over 10 per cent of job growth over the past three years came from reducing unemployment. Almost 90 per cent came from migrants, school leavers, and others defined as not in the labour force. And the same will be true in the next three years.

The unemployment rate does not tell us whether or not resources are fully employed. To do that, we need a better measure, so I have invented one: the full-time equivalent (FTE) employment rate.

The concept is not new. In the public service, schools and hospitals, governments already measure employment by converting the number of part-time jobs into full-time equivalent jobs (e.g. two part-timers each working 19 hours a week equals one full-time equivalent worker). It is time the Bureau of Statistics did the same for the whole workforce.

You'd need a computer to process its detailed data on how many hours part-timers work. But roughly speaking, part-timers average 19 hours of work a week, so two part-time jobs roughly equals one full-time equivalent. Using that rule of thumb, I calculate that in 2006, among people aged 15 to 64, the FTE employment rate averaged 62 per cent — that is, add together the full-time and part-time jobs, and there was enough work to provide full-time employment for 62 per cent of people of normal working age.

At first sight, the Reserve is right. That's the highest employment rate ever in the 30 years since the bureau began monthly employment surveys, topping the 61.6 per cent in 1989-90. But it's certainly not full employment.

It's nowhere near the employment rates in Scandinavia or Switzerland, which are close to 70 per cent, and well below New Zealand (63.8 per cent). We have a long way to go yet.

But wait, there's more. Among females, the FTE employment rate has surged from 38.6 per cent in 1978-79 to 50.8 per cent in 2006. It has fallen among teenage girls, who are now studying, has stayed flat among 35 to 44-year-olds, who now have small children, but has risen sharply among 25 to 34 year-olds and all age groups over 45.

And if employers could shed their bias against hiring older workers, the rise so far would be just the tip of the iceberg: far more women over 45 could be working in future.

But for men, it's quite the reverse. Employment rates are way lower than in the past.

In 1978-79, men aged 15 to 64 had an FTE employment rate of 80.2 per cent. But two recessions shattered that, and even in 10 years of the Howard Government, male employment has rebounded only marginally, to be 73.2 per cent in 2006.
Click to expand...
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...1174761374971.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
 
Bent Mk2 said:
You mean other than the fact that its from the ACTU? Even I take Howard's personal propaganda with a grain of salt!
Click to expand...

i seldom doubt much of what the ACTU or AMWU Vehicle Division (my union) tells me, but i am aware that in any debate both sides are trying to win public opinion. also most of the info that comes to me through these organizations is not reported in the main stream media. i find this most alarming as i believe that news media has a duty to tell us (the australian public) both sides of story.
 
Last edited:
Chronik Fatigue said:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...1174761374971.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Click to expand...

You might want to point out you're quoting an opinion piece rather than straight facts ;)

The other point is that he's comparing Australian employment rates with overseas rates...that's all well and good, but it kinda ignores the fact that Australian rates are at an 32 year low...I'm sure many another country have better figures, but we're no discussing the effect of Howard's IR laws on those countries now are we?

find this most alarming as i believe that news media has a duty to tell us (the australian public) both sides of story.
Click to expand...

Even if one of those sides is completely made up union propaganda? Remember those first ads for example? Remember how it turned out none of the people supposedly fired as a result of the new IR laws were actually fired as a result of the laws?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top