your rights at work

[420star]

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?

i'm not shaw which ads you are refiring to. however i am aware of some allegations that were aired about the unions lying. however i don't recall any proof of these allegations ever being produced. if you would be able to provide me with some it would be most welcome.

seeing some union propaganda in the paper would be a nice change to just reading the governments. i was at the MCG I also watched & read the media reports. the reports were biased the photos were taken to point out the bits of the ground we didn't manage to fill. just because something appears in the main stream media doesn't mean it's not someone's propaganda. remember children overboard.

 

[Bent Mk2]

Here's the only link I could did up, I had a couple more but the pages have been pulled.

The independent Office of Workplace Services (OWS) found that claims made by five of eight sacked workers who appear in ACTU television commercials attacking the laws do not add up.

The OWS report also found the ads had depicted the sacking of workers in circumstances that would have been legal under the old workplace laws, despite ACTU suggestions to the contrary.

Now of course Combet denied the whole thing, but in the next round of ads they changed to actors...

the ACTU had returned to using actors in their latest round of TV commercials because the so-called real cases didn't stack up.

The ACTU spent $20 million on that one campaign alone. That's a hell of a lot of union fees being used for political advertising rather than for its members.

One last point, if the unions are so against sackings and unfair dismissals, and sacking without notice or reason...how come Combet got Kelly Hoare sacked so he could run for pre-selection in a Labor stronghold?

 

[Chronik Fatigue]

The ACTU spent $20 million on that one campaign alone. That's a hell of a lot of union fees being used for political advertising rather than for its members.

a. It is being spent for the members, that's what voluntary union funds are for, fighting campaigns such as this.

b. It's a hell of a lot less than the $55 million of involuntary taxpayer funding spent thus far by the government to promote their IR regime. You can expect to see that figure balloon over the next few months.

One last point, if the unions are so against sackings and unfair dismissals, and sacking without notice or reason...how come Combet got Kelly Hoare sacked so he could run for pre-selection in a Labor stronghold?

a. She was a poor performer anyway

b. Politics has never been recognised as a normal occupation, there is no job security, that is why we pay politicians exorbitant superannuation schemes and government benefits for life after leaving parliament.

 

[Bent Mk2]

She was a poor performer anyway

You mean bosses should be able to sack poor performers? Like the new laws allow them finally to do?

As for $20 million vs. $55 million. Only 1 in 5 employed people are union members (as of August 2006, think its dropped even more since then). Seems a hell of a lot of money to spend on only 20% of the working population. Certainly far more than informational advertising money the government is spending to sell (and explain) the new laws.

 

[Chronik Fatigue]

You mean bosses should be able to sack poor performers? Like the new laws allow them finally to do?

Yes, as long as they do so in a fair manner, or if they want to pay out their employees in as lucrative fashion as we pay out our politicians. You are simply ignoring my second point that politics has always been recognised as being unique to other workplaces.

I think small business does need some protection from the kind of frivolous unfair dismissal claims that were occurring before the laws were amended in (I think, off the top of my head) 1997, since then the laws have worked pretty well.

But here's the thing, Howard took IR to the election on the premise that the dismissal laws would be applied to businesses of less than twenty employees, after seizing control of the senate that was quickly revised to businesses employing less than 100 employees, then brought in a whole bunch of other laws that he had no electoral mandate to introduce. Voting Australians were duped on this point.

Unfair dismissal is only a small part of what these laws represent, its the loss of rights and entitlements that is so worrying.

As for $20 million vs. $55 million. Only 1 in 5 employed people are union members (as of August 2006, think its dropped even more since then). Seems a hell of a lot of money to spend on only 20% of the working population. Certainly far more than informational advertising money the government is spending to sell (and explain) the new laws.

If the government wants to sell its IR laws to an electorate during an election year that should be funded the way political advertising is supposed to funded, out of the Liberal Party coffers. That's what the ACTU is doing, they aren't misappropriating public funds, they can spend their money anyway they please. If members don't like it they can revoke their membership and stop paying dues. I can't not pay my taxes though. Do you see the difference now?

 

[Bent Mk2]

Members are revoking their membership. In a time of absolute crisis when unions members are supposed to unite for the cause they're canceling their memberships in droves. IMHO that speaks volumes.

As for government spending on advertising, when other major laws are introduced to you object to that advertising?

Did you object when Federal Labour spend $14 million on just one ad (the Bill Hunter Working nation ad that ran 6 months before the election?) Do you object to the Victorian Labor government spending money on anti-IR law advertising (only $55,000 admittedly, but that was only for one ad too). Do you mind that the Victorian state Labor Government spent $121.8 million in 2005 alone on advertising? To put that in perspective, the Federal Government in the same period spent $138 million. Not much more to advertise to the entire nation.

 

[Chronik Fatigue]

Yes, absolutely, it's a disgrace. The ALP started the trend, but Howard has taken it to new levels, $1 billion spent since 1996 [1]. The Victorain governments spending is equally disgraceful, however the advertisement you refer to was not an anti-work choices, rather it was to advertise the new office of workplace advocacy. That falls under legitimate government advertising, they weren't spruiking a policy, they were letting the public know that there was a new service to help them navigate through the new workplace laws (something the federal government never provided). A service I found most helpful when I was summarily dismissed for volunteering to be a union rep with the CPSU, I would never have known it existed if it weren't for the ad they ran.

 

[Bent Mk2]

however the advertisement you refer to was not an anti-work choices

Actually the one I'm referring to was anti-work choices, Rob Hulls even confirmed it

Mr Hulls confirmed Victoria had funded one advertisement, at a cost of $55,000, attacking the reforms.

Senator Troeth said that was $55,000 of Victorian taxpayers' money.

"Given that, as I understand it, that particular advertisement, if not others, explicitly attacks another government, how can you justify taxpayers money on that subject?," she asked.

 

[Chronik Fatigue]

So, what, that justifies the federal governments misuse of political advertising? I think spending should be more heavily regulated for both state and federal governments. But still, $55,000 really is little more than a drop in the bucket...

 

[Bent Mk2]

True, and I'm not really that concerned that Bracks is blowing $55k on that ad, he's farking up a hell of a lot more than that! .

Anyhow lets get back to arguing about these horrid laws.

 

[wazza]

With all the things said in here, if you take them to heart, you have 2 options.

Leave the country or commit suicide

 

[Bent Mk2]

Under these harsh new laws, who can afford to take a holiday and leave the country? And no doubt evil employers would take the family for lost production if you choose suicide.

 

[ValeTudo]

She was a poor performer anyway

Politicians should have the power to sack dickheads but not us regular employers?

Yeah .. champion of the working man arent you

 

[Bent Mk2]

What he meant to say was she wasn't union so they don't care what happens to her. Kinda like when union members go onto non union sites and threaten to effectively shut down the site unless the non union guys get fired.

 

[420star]

The ACTU spent $20 million on that one campaign alone. That's a hell of a lot of union fees being used for political advertising rather than for its members.

yes this is a huge amount of money8) my union fees went up a woping 10c a week to cover it. an increase i'm more than willing to pay. i don't know about other unions but i was asked to vote on wether to accept this charge. all unions in the country are paying $5 per member per year to fund this campaign.

 

[420star]

i think non union people should be grateful for a few things the union movement has given you, like the weekend. here are some more

 

[Chronik Fatigue]

^^ Zing! Don't forget the other things like the 8 hour day, the right for women to vote and the secret ballot!

As for advertising, Howard spent $55 million on Work Choices advertising before it had even been introduced to parliament,let alone actually passed. If that isn't political then what is?

Politicians should have the power to sack dickheads but not us regular employers?

Yeah .. champion of the working man arent you

Nice to see you just completely ignored my second (and much more pertinent point) that politics has never been considered a normal workplace, that's why we taxpayers give them a golden handshake after just 3-5 years in the house of reps and senate respectively. There has never been job security in politics. Like I said, if you want to pay your employees out the way we pay politicians then I have no problem with you sacking people for whatever reason you please.

 

[Bent Mk2]

There has never been job security in politics.

Actually there generally is...if you're good you'll get voted in, if you're not you'll get voted out.

You sure as hell don't expect to get screwed over by your own party and fired to put in a unionist (and I'm sure the allegations are bullshit too, passed around to discredit her.

i think non union people should be grateful for a few things the union movement has given you, like the weekend.

I've never once not wholeheartedly agreed that unions have done wonders. In the past. But the union movement of the days of old is vastly different to today's stereotypical union, struggling for survival and relevance.

 

[420star]

But the union movement of the days of old is vastly different to today's stereotypical union, struggling for survival and relevance.

have you ever had anything to do with the modern union movement or are you just relying on a stereotype to form your opinion?

in my experience the modern union movement provides a range of services including but not limited to.
*financial advice on retirement, investment & superannuation
*cheap home, car & personal loans
*legal advice on workers' compensation, wills & dismissals
*discount packages for home computers & mobile phones
*cheap holiday units
*as well as all the traditional services
i think these things are quite relevant to the modern worker.

my experience: i am a shop steward of the AMWU Vehicle division. (yep one of those rusted-on, crusty old unionists we've all heard so much about.)

 

[sydkiwi]

Oh My God. Its happened, the sky has fallen in. The horrid effects of Howard's Workchoices have began. Unemployment is at a 30 year low. How will we cope?

Just a question. What constitutes you being counted as being employed? For instance these employment figures are they counting everyone who works a job for more than one hour a week?