This week’s major activity for Admiral Nelson and the media – documenting how many standards Rudd has had public servants breach (assuming the Iguanagate saga goes away at some point).
Posts Tagged ‘industrial relations’
John Howard helps to deliver a campaign message for Labor:
“If we win on Saturday then the reforms that we have brought about will never be reversed by a future federal Labor government,” he said.
“They will become part of the furniture. They will become so embedded in our business and workplace culture that no future Labor government would be able to reverse them.”
Who ever said he was a lying bastard? It turns out he’s just a bastard.
“I accept that certain protections, in inverted commas, are not what they were,” he says in the video, broadcast on ABC TV.
“I accept that has largely gone. I accept that.
“I accept that the industrial relations commission doesn’t have the same power to reach into the nook and cranny of every business that it used to have.”
His message to the unfairly sacked workers of Australia? Deal with it:
Mr Abbott also told the function that for a sacked worker, finding a new job was better than using unfair dismissal laws to reverse the decision.
“That is the best protection. Not going off to some judge or industrial commission that might order your employer who you don’t like, and he doesn’t like you, and to keep you in an unhappy partnership forever.”
Great advice, Tony. Unless, of course, having been unfairly sacked from a job reduces your chances of finding employment elsewhere – there might be some issues if a prospective new employer wants a reference from your last boss. Plus, there’s the basic principle of people wanting to clear their own record and establish that they were right. Frankly, if I was unfairly sacked I would probably want to fight it and win back the right to my job – at which point, I would probably quit to avoid that “unhappy partnership”.
By the way, Tony, do your opinions that it is best to break off an unhappy partnership apply to marriage as well?
UPDATE: Gandhi has been tracking the saga today, as Abbott appeared on morning TV endorsing his comments, then condemned the video as a “cut-and-paste job”, and then finally released a transcript that supposedly clears things up.
Around half of the AWAs that have been lodged since the introduction of the fairness test fail to meet its requirements.
Of course, Joe Hockey can keep telling us that this is a sign that the system is working – unfair AWAs are being picked up and rectified. He might even manage to keep a straight face while doing it. But these findings highlight that a lot of employers either (i) don’t understand the requirements or (ii) are trying to circumvent them to the detriment of their employees’ working conditions. And it means that a lot of effort is being wasted in negotiating and evaluating AWAs. This is neither a fair nor efficient system, and it is one that needs to be dismantled.
Of course, Team Howard may have managed to seal its own fate by bringing economic management and industrial relations issues front and centre in the past week. If the final fortnight of the election campaign revives the WorkChoices debate and these are the kind of statistics that are coming out, I can’t see the electorate returning to Honest John. Add to these WorkChoices findings and the interest rate rise the latest warnings about businesses being placed in jeopardy by the current economic conditions, and it is difficult to see how Howard and co. will be able to convince the public at large that they have things under control.
The IR czars are holding their National Press Club debate today – 12:30pm EDST on ABC (no indication in my TV guide of Nine/worm coverage). I’ll be in a cave, during that time, so I’ll have to catch up on it later.
The federal Department of Employment and Workplace Relations today faces the prospect of being fined by a court for breaching federal industrial law.
Justice Catherine Branson found the department issued prohibited advice leading to Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) members being refused leave on the day of an anti-WorkChoices Rally.
She was critical of public sector managers who were obliged to be impartial.
CPSU secretary Stephen Jones hopes to see the Workplace Relations Department penalised.
“When the employer is the Government and the very agency which is responsible for upholding and managing the Workplace Relations Act that is doubly inappropriate,” he said.
Bloody activist judges, imposing the requirements of the law on Joe Hockey’s department.
UPDATE: It’s a $30,000 fine for the Government, to be paid to the CPSU.
Apparently, 70% of the people who wrote the New South Wales HSC exam questions are former union officials:
Stan Rikhter, of South Sydney High School, said he was surprised to find himself writing about his views on the campaign against unions as part of the Industrial Technology exam.
He said the question, which asked students about “the impact of government legislation on employees”, was neutral, but hard to answer “because we are still kids”.
The federal Minister for Education, Julie Bishop, said it was “another example of Labor and the unions making clumsy attempts at indoctrinating students with left-wing ideologies”.
“It is absolutely inappropriate for a teacher to use the HSC to push personal political agendas,” she said. “Students face enough pressure with these important end-of-school examinations without having to deal with blatant political bias.”
The question in yesterday’s HSC exam asked students to:
Discuss, using examples, the impact of government legislation on employees.
A quick read of the HSC Industrial Technology syllabus [476kB PDF] shows that, in their industry study component, “students learn about” (p. 18):
Environmental and sociological factors
• government legislation
• Environmental Impact Studies (EIS)
• industrial relations
• entry-level training requirements
• retraining and multiskilling
• roles of industry personnel
Occupational health and safety
• government legislation
and, among other things, learn to (p. 18 again):
• discuss and justify the ramifications of
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
and sustainable development when
studying the overall industry
• identify government legislation and
policies that ensure the rights and
protection for employees
• discuss the importance of OH&S
factors in a successful business
• identify significant government
legislation and industry requirements
that ensure a safe working environment
Other components of the syllabus include coverage of local government codes and regulations.
So, apart from the trade unions and industrial relations, students could write about environmental protection laws, training and licensing requirements, EEO, OH&S, and council by-laws. And, even if they had chose industrial law, the question itself is value neutral (e.g., one could argue that WorkChoices gives employees greater freedom to negotiate personally tailored conditions).
Anyone would think Julie Bishop and Team Howard are sensitive to potential criticism of WorkChoices.
ELSEWHERE: Ken Lovell has the prescription for Julie: “go sit in a dark room for six weeks like a good team member and let the team leader talk about tax.”