Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Malfoy Workchoices was bad because it was anti-federalist and wasn't really constitutionally valid, but I do like the idea of a system whereby you can negotiate whatever you want with an employer. If it's mutually beneficial, why not? Especially since I'd be happy to work flexible hours (I'd love to work evenings instead of during the day), which is one thing that I could use to my advantage in an individual system.
I don't like collective bargaining - how is a union to know what I want to do? A lot of the things enshrined in this kind of bargain are things I wouldn't care to keep. For example, what use do I have for maternity leave when I'm not actually intending on having children? I'd rather bargain that away for something else.
The very name of this bill smacks of ridiculous notions of social justice, to be honest, and I think this is a backwards step for industrial relations. I also sincerely hope the unions don't gain any more influence - but of course that's very likely to happen, so industrial relations is going to be even more of a mess.
If we could have a system that abided by the Constitution and principles of federalism while allowing for individual negotiation, contracts and flexibility in all facets it would be wonderful. I'm just unsure as to how that would be implemented given the massive anti-Workchoices scare campaign means any changes to industrial relations legislation are going to get beaten down regardless of merit for the next decade or so... |
This is NOT about workchoices, it's about AWA, that was introduced back in 1996 to help the country's work force, to reverse something that was in place to improve this country's working force is like taking a step back to the Keating years (which I hope would come true) Even low income people was better off under Howard than Keating or even Rudd.