Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Discrate
The IR laws were good to a few people,like the mining industry but to the minority it was bad. Are you telling me that firing a woker and then offering there job back with lower pay is good? Are you telling me taking away a workers holidays ect and making them work longer for less pay is good?

---

Refer to B), read the "fairness test" in the legislation - that is impossible.


-------

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCo...s1996Vol1_WD02.pdf

Subdivision C—The fairness test

346M When does an agreement pass the fairness test?

(1) A workplace agreement passes the fairness test if:

a) in the case of an AWA—the Workplace Authority Director is
satisfied that the AWA provides fair compensation to the
employee whose employment is subject to the AWA in lieu
of the exclusion or modification of protected award
conditions that apply to the employee; or

b) in the case of a collective agreement—the Workplace
Authority Director is satisfied that, on balance, the collective
agreement provides fair compensation, in its overall effect on
the employees whose employment is subject to the collective
agreement, in lieu of the exclusion or modification of
protected award conditions that apply to some or all of those
employees.

(2) In considering whether a workplace agreement provides fair
compensation to an employee, or in its overall effect on employees,
the Workplace Authority Director must first have regard to:

a) the monetary and non-monetary compensation that the
employee or employees will receive under the workplace
agreement, in lieu of the protected award conditions thatapply to the employee or employees under a reference award
in relation to the employee or employees; and

b) the work obligations of the employee or employees under the workplace agreement.


...

Essentially, you can only lose entitlements and conditions if you are fairly compensated for the loss of those conditions - e.g. losing sick days for a small increase in pay.

The fairness test was not part of the original legislation that was enforced.  It only came around because the election was closing in and Howards polls were looking terrible.  Therefore the fairness test counts for nothing when you are doing pro and cons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by markee
The fairness test was not part of the original legislation that was enforced.  It only came around because the election was closing in and Howards polls were looking terrible.  Therefore the fairness test counts for nothing when you are doing pro and cons.

---

The fairness test came in a year after the original legislation passed to prevent the minority of employers abusing their employees under the new legislation.

I can see no logical reason why it shouldn't be included when doing pros and cons as it IS the current legislation provided by the Howard government - to exclude changes is like the competition of Msgplus! saying.. no we are not going to compare our version to the bug fixed version of Msgplus - we are going to compare it to the original version which has bugs...

With such big reforms theres bound to be problems found and i think its a positive thing that the Howard government saw these problems and attempted to fix them with the fairness test - which i think he did. So yes, the fairness test is part of the law and if you blindly want to "forget" it exists by all means be deluded .

quote:

---

Originally posted by markee
The fairness test was not part of the original legislation that was enforced.  It only came around because the election was closing in and Howards polls were looking terrible.  Therefore the fairness test counts for nothing when you are doing pro and cons.

---

so, rudd basicly copied all of howards policies during the election, so under that same logic we shouldnt count 99% of the rudd labor goverments policy?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chestah
With such big reforms theres bound to be problems found and i think its a positive thing that the Howard government saw these problems and attempted to fix them with the fairness test

---

It should have been there from the beginning.  The whole reason for awards in the beginning were that they would provide security for low paid workers who do not have bargaining power as individuals, because they are replaceable.  These people always require some protection from exploitation and if the Howard government couldnt see that from the beginning then how many other economic policies did they really get wrong

I think liberal should have won but howard lose his seat.
I h8ed that old bald doushe

quote:

---

Originally posted by xen0h
I think liberal should have won but howard lose his seat.
I h8ed that old bald doushe

---

Beats Costello

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volv

quote:

---

Originally posted by xen0h
I think liberal should have won but howard lose his seat.
I h8ed that old bald doushe

---

Beats Costello

---

Is that really much of an achievement?

quote:

---

Originally posted by markee

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volv

quote:

---

Originally posted by xen0h
I think liberal should have won but howard lose his seat.
I h8ed that old bald doushe

---

Beats Costello

---

Is that really much of an achievement?

---

That's my point, what use is Liberal winning yet Howard losing his seat (as hoped by xen0h) if we're stuck with Costello as PM instead?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volv
Beats Costello

---

Costello is a legend! The only bad thing if Costello did become our PM would be that potentially Australia's greatest treasurer.. wouldn't be a treasurer.. he'd be our PM - although i think he'd also be a good PM.