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

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

your rights at work

It absolutely fits here!!!!

I'm sure it was an honest mistake, but when any other company, anywhere has made an 'honest mistake' in the past Labor and the Union have jumped all over it, called them all sorts of things, blamed Howard and generally been hysterical pricks over it, even if it turns out it had nothing to do with the new laws.

Yet when one of their own makes a 'honest mistake' the its okay?

Sure.8)
 
I heard that the real story about rudds wife was she bought the business as is and then found out the mistake which occured when she didnt own the business??
 
this is what i heard
Oirgally posted by the sydney morning herald
The common law agreements offered to YES employees when WorkDirections acquired the business 10 months ago, were for employment on no less favourable terms than they were previously on,'' the statement read.

"The arrangement offered to transferring employees involved the payment of an aggregated wage rate with an above award component calculated to fairly compensate employees for their full award entitlements.

"Such an arrangement is not uncommon in private sector employment and certainly not unlawful."

The statement said the company also took steps to comply with a pay increase in line with the award in 2006, and that it was during this process that it was discovered that some staff had been underpaid because "their duties had not previously been classified correctly in accordance with the award".

The statement said WorkDirections Australia immediately ordered an external independent review to determine which staff members had been affected.

"All those employees still working for the company were recompensed in full for under-payments by 20 April 2007," the statement read.

"The company had already taken steps to locate those who had left the company's employ and will recompense them in full shortly."
Click to expand...
 
just saw channel on ten news. ms rein is selling the australian arm of her company to avoid conflict of interest should her husband, kevin rudd win government in the next election.
 
you're just here to take the piss. aren't you?
 
Last edited:
No. Rudd and his wife have made MILLIONS under Howard's current laws. Indeed some economists are even suggesting that the real reason she is selling now is the fact that they know the business will be worth a lot less under Rudd's rule as it won't be able to operate with the same freedoms that it currently does.

They as a family have been more than happy to use the current laws to maximum effect to make millions of dollars whilst at the same time jumping up and down saying how unfair they are.

When its finally revealed they pretend its okay, and just a mistake...but when anyone else has done it they're not afforded the same chance to explain it as 'an honest mistake'.
 
i have no doubt that the Rudd's, like many others have made a lot of money under Howard's laws. this does not change the fact that the laws are unfair & need to change.

Bent Mk2: where do you get your info from?
 
So, because "many others" have done it, it's OK for the Rudd's to do it ?
 
I think you will find that the realistic motive behind the sale is that Therese Rein's company, Ingeus, has very strong representation in that sector of the industry that handles government contracts to place the long-term unemployed in jobs. If Rudd is PM then obviously there would be a conflict of interest, unless Ingeus discontinues it operations in that area, but given how important those contracts are to Ingeus' cash flow, I doubt they would.

Whilst I see some validity in the arguement that some business speculators believe the business would be worse off under the planned Rudd government changes, the fact still remains that these changes are still nothing but a concept and there is equal chance that the ALPs policy may be little more than a mild tweaking of the current govts policy
 
of corse it's ok for businesses to make money. that's what they are there to do. i do not condone the use of common law contracts or AWAs that take away the rights of workers. i will say it again. Howard's laws are unfair & need to be changed.

i have always considered that the fight against the work choices laws would be a battle in two parts. part one is to get Howard & his ilk out of power. part two is to make shaw that the labour party then does the right thing. right now i'm still working on part one, part two comes later.
 
The ALP wins the next election there is no doubt that we will have a situation where the new government will take a very long time to address the IR laws. When there is a logical movement on the issue it will be an endless parade of empty rhetoric and a lot of back pedaling from Labour. Finally the end result will be a few mild twists on what we currently have.

Business, both big business (domestic and foriegn) and the SME sector, drives governments. At the moment they are experiencing IR laws they had always dreamed about. The ALP has the same fundamental drivers as the Coalition Government, just go and have a look at the correlation among each parties financial backers - oops! i meant to say business donations!
 
420star said:
of corse it's ok for businesses to make money. that's what they are there to do.
Click to expand...

Rudd and his wife have received public money from federal policies which his party has opposed on ethical grounds (ie its an ethical breach). His family have exploited other's misfortunes for commercial gain - exactly what he's apparently against, but its okay because that's what businesses do?

Its also worth noting that Rein's company first started to land Queensland government contracts when Rudd was Chief of Staff for the Queensland Premier's office. Conflict of interest wasn't a problem then, why is it now?

And where's Gillard and Combet in all this? Surely they should be up in arms that staff have been expected to for at least 1/2 hour of unpaid overtime every day? That her staff were worse off than had they been under the award?

And another point, why is she selling up if it was all an accidental mistake? No one, anywhere in Parliament had suggested or demanded she do it, quite the opposite indeed. So why after 18 years of hard work would she so easily hand it in? Before the weekend Rudd and his wife had said they'd sort out any conflict of interest at the time he was elected with Peter Shergold, the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Come a few days later and there's a sudden backflip. Wonder if there's a few more 'innocent mistakes' hiding somewhere?

What's almost as sad is that now MPs like Garrett and Premier Beattie are hailing her as a role model! How is rolling over for your husband's possible career a good thing? Why can't women stand independent of their husbands? Can't we TRUST them to do the right thing? IMHO a female role model would stand up and say they've spend 18 years building an internationally successful business, and if the time comes they would take the proper legal advice and action to ensure there would be no conflict, but at the end of the day its her business and her business only.
 
Last edited:
Bent Mk2 said:
Its also worth noting that Rein's company first started to land Queensland government contracts when Rudd was Chief of Staff for the Queensland Premier's office. Conflict of interest wasn't a problem then, why is it now?
Click to expand...

^ Because now the dirty laundry is on display and that damn pesky public will start demanding answers. ;)
 
Bent Mk2 said:
Its also worth noting that Rein's company first started to land Queensland government contracts when Rudd was Chief of Staff for the Queensland Premier's office. Conflict of interest wasn't a problem then, why is it now?

And where's Gillard and Combet in all this? Surely they should be up in arms that staff have been expected to for at least 1/2 hour of unpaid overtime every day? That her staff were worse off than had they been under the award?
Click to expand...

point taken. where are you getting this info?
as for Gillard & Combet. i would hope that they are up in arms about this. behind the party room door. do you honestly expect the labour party to air their dirty laundry in public in an election year? that sort of public disunity costs elections.
 
from todays Age
ACTU president Sharan Burrow said the ACTU believed common law contracts were a "second-rate employment arrangement for workers". "Enterprise bargaining arrangements are always a better choice" she said.
Click to expand...

the full article
 
420star said:
point taken. where are you getting this info?
as for Gillard & Combet. i would hope that they are up in arms about this. behind the party room door. do you honestly expect the labour party to air their dirty laundry in public in an election year? that sort of public disunity costs elections.
Click to expand...

Research after a close friend who owns a recruitment company filled me in on how much they're all hoping Dudd doesn't get in. We were chatting about it over the weekend and he mentioned Rein's company and how it started in Queensland.
 
420star said:
from todays Age
ACTU president Sharan Burrow said the ACTU believed common law contracts were a "second-rate employment arrangement for workers". "Enterprise bargaining arrangements are always a better choice" she said.
Click to expand...

wow! the ACTU reeeally said that??? 8o
 
^yes they did. it may surprise some of you to know that although the ACTU & the labour often work together they are quite separate bodies. the labour party & the union movement don't always see eye to eye.
just because i'm a union member that doesn't automatically make me a labour party man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top