The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

Barnaby backs IR laws

The Federal Government is set to carry out its major workplace reforms after winning the critical backing of Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce.

Senator Joyce said Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews had agreed to amend the Work Choices legislation to meet his concerns about public holidays, unfair dismissal laws and regular pay periods for workers.

The Government also has agreed to make seven changes to the legislation as suggested by the Senate committee which held an inquiry earlier this month into its workplace reforms.

Asked if he would now back the legislation in the Senate, Senator Joyce said he would as long as the final document properly reflected what he negotiated with Mr Andrews.

 

[Generator]

Joyce to support workplace laws

MARK COLVIN: The Federal Government's new workplace laws are now almost a certainty after the Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce said he could now see his way clear to voting for them.

The Coalition party room is expected to approve the changes tonight.

Senator Joyce says he's happy with the Government's response to his demands on IR.

That paves the way for the legislation to pass the Senate in this fortnight's sitting of Parliament.

 

[Generator]

Hmmm... The Government controlled Senate has just guillotined the debate. Only two more sitting days of debate to come (edit: including today).

Edit: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1520680.htm

 

[erawamai]

Alot of the people who are well-off today are those who took out a trade and put in alot of hard yards, buying up some investment property, maybe starting their own business...
These people are not really what you would call a 'professional class', at least not in Australia.

I tend to agree. If anything there was need for reform for small businesses.

 

[Generator]

I wouldn't call stripping however many million people of their unfar dismissal rights for the simple fact that are employed within a small business an act of reform.

 

[Generator]

Work laws forced through Senate

The rush of debate yesterday angered Labor and the minor parties, but they were powerless to slow it.

They were overwhelmed by the Government releasing 337 legislative amendments just 35 minutes before it guillotined debate at noon.

The quantity of amendments, mostly technical, surprised senators, given the drafting and legislation of WorkChoices cost an estimated $131 million.

Bloody hell!

IR rush 'dangerous': Democrats
Restructures could side-step IR laws: expert - An interesting report.
Qld unions launch wage case

 

[leetom]

337? God knows what they could have thrown in there with all of that. There was probably no need for that many amendments either, rather just throwing in a ton of minor readjustments to keep Labor scrambling long enough for the thirty-five minutes to expire in order to keep the real nasties hidden. That bizarre 'Employers Greenfield Agreements' looks like one.

I bet the guy who came up with the name 'Greenfield' had a good laugh. This government's smugness offends me sometimes. Green fields indeed, for an employer.

 

[Generator]

Coalition losing its 'bark' on IR: PM

 

[Generator]

Well, the Work Choices amendment is now through (the House of Representatives had to approve the version of the amendment that was passed by the Senate).

 

[Generator]

Howard refuses union bargain right

"So 51 per cent say that a collective agreement should cover the whole workplace?" Mr Howard said. "No, I don't agree with that. I think that's a suppression of minority rights."

Yet it's fine to deny those who want to collectively bargain their rights? Wouldn't it make a bit of sense to allow for both collective and individual agreements in the workplace? Sarah, if you happen to be lurking, would that be possible?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Wouldn't it make a bit of sense to allow for both collective and individual agreements in the workplace?

That is the current situation. There are people on AWA's now, it is just that currently an AWA needs to at least meet award standards, where as I believe after the workchoices bill there will be no such requirement.

 

[erawamai]

That is the current situation. There are people on AWA's now, it is just that currently an AWA needs to at least meet award standards, where as I believe after the workchoices bill there will be no such requirement.

Goodbye no disadvantage test!

 

[= Jennifer =]

Goodbye no disadvantage test!

instead in place there will be a fair pay commission standard so it will be similar to the ndt

 

[erawamai]

instead in place there will be a fair pay commission standard so it will be similar to the ndt

You really think the Fair Pay Comission will do anything? If it was to actually do anything there would have been no reason to abandon the old system where the Idustrial Relations Court set the minimum wage.

The Fair pay comission may even be abolished once everything gets up and moving. The idea that a body of men would set the min wage (ie IRC or 'Fair pay comission') defeats the purpose of deregulation of the labour market.

 

[= Jennifer =]

You really think the Fair Pay Comission will do anything?

no i think it will be quite ineffective. I am not in support of these reforms at all

 

[erawamai]

no i think it will be quite ineffective. I am not in support of these reforms at all

I thought you were a young Liberal?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I actually quite liked the old system where AWA's were required to offer a better deal than the award.

 

[Sarah]

Howard refuses union bargain right

Yet it's fine to deny those who want to collectively bargain their rights? Wouldn't it make a bit of sense to allow for both collective and individual agreements in the workplace? Sarah, if you happen to be lurking, would that be possible?

Yes it makes sense to allow for both collective and individual agreements (as is shown in the current system). From what I read in that article, collective agreements will still be allowed so long as the employer agrees to them.

Sorry, i'm not sure if that answers your question

 

[Generator]

Thanks Sarah and NTB. I know that under the still current system people tend to have a choice between an award and an AWA (and even if they don't at least they are protected by an industrial award or a relatively robust no-disadvantage test), but for a 'Workchoices' package to offer no real choice to the employees (all this from a government that is looking out for the worker, too), I'm at a loss as to how both Howard and Andrews can continue to suggest that workchoices offers real choices to all, as opposed to offering choices to those employers who will be under the jurisdiction of the federal IR system.

 

[= Jennifer =]

I thought you were a young Liberal?

no that's Jonathan

I am Liberal but if i do not like apolicy i will say so, i have quite an open mind when it comes to politics