The Industrial Relations Thread

[DIEHARD]

Queensland Nationals call to block IR

The Queensland Nationals would advise their senators to vote down the Federal Government's industrial relations overhaul unless fundamental changes were made, leader Lawrence Springborg said today.

Yesterday, the Queensland Nationals sided with Peter Beattie's Labor Government calling on all Queensland senators to vote against the Bill.

Mr Springborg said today he wanted amendments made to the legislation, including paid public holidays as well as changes to unfair dismissal laws.

"This is fundamental to working families," he said.

"We don't argue that there shouldn't be some significant changes to our IR framework in this country but there are a lot of people out there, even those currently on AWAs that are concerned about the future ahead.

"We have to allay those fears while we have the opportunity."

Mr Springborg dismissed Treasurer Peter Costello's argument that employers would still pay extra for employees that worked public holidays.

"I understand where Peter Costello is coming from but also consider that in the environment that we live in, not everyone is completely empowered and some people are vulnerable, they do have to work, they do have to hold down one or two jobs to be able to sustain their family," he said.

"There is no doubt that the majority of employers are fantastic, as is the case with employees, but you are always going to have a rogue element, people who will seek to take advantage on either side."

Mr Springborg laughed off suggestions the Queensland Nationals had been leant on by their federal leader Mark Vaile or president Bruce Scott, both of whom support the legislation.

"I just make the point my 15 Nationals colleagues and the Queensland Nationals aren't very easy to lean on once we dig in on an issue that we believe in and we believe very strongly on this," he said.

Source: http://www.NEWS.com.au

[DIEHARD]

Nats hold key to IR reforms

The Queensland National Party's executive holds the key to John Howard's industrial relations reforms.

If the Queensland Nationals oppose the new workplace laws, maverick Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce has indicated he is unlikely to support the Government, forcing an embarrassing backdown.

The 45-member State executive will meet today in Brisbane to consider the Work Choices Bill.

If the Nationals oppose the Bill and Senator Joyce follows, the Government will be unable to implement the changes.

State National MPs met at Parliament House in Brisbane this week, calling for major changes to the Bill.

The Bill aims to allow greater use of contracts and reduce the scope of unfair dismissal laws.

It passed through the House of Representatives this month and will go to the Senate next week, with amendments suggested by a Senate committee.

The Queensland Nationals fear the effect of the laws in rural and regional electorates.

"The concerns raised by MPs were not geographically constrained, but came collectively from MPs representing the Nationals' southeast and urban electorates," said State Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg.

"These are legitimate concerns. We want them addressed properly and until then we can't support it (the Bill)," said Mr Springborg.

He said State MPs would ask today's meeting to withhold support for the Bill until 'a range of issues' could be discussed.

Senator Joyce said: "If my state legislative wing has serious concerns then I have to take them seriously.

"There are obvious concerns with the legislation as it stands. We have to work through those."

Queensland Nationals senator Ron Boswell refused to comment.

The Coalition holds a majority of one in the Senate and cannot afford defection, leaving the spotlight on Senator Joyce who, with Mr Springborg and others, is concerned about the removal of guaranteed penalty rates for public holidays such as Christmas Day and Anzac Day.

The group also has concerns about the removal of unfair dismissal protection for firms employing 100 or fewer staff, and whether the draft Bill can prevent rorting.

The plan to take over state industrial relations systems to form a single, national system, and the ability of workers seeking low-skilled jobs to confidently negotiate their own work conditions, also worry the group.

Nationals leader and Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile will be among those at the meeting today.

Source: Gold Coast Bulletin

[DIEHARD]

Wow the plot thickens! Nationals siding with Labor. :whatd:

I hope the Nationals sink it.

Anyway I thought I would create a I.R thread so we can follow it along without (Me haha) posting heaps of threads.

Probably develop a more quality thread anyway, keeping it all together.

Stay tuned for more I.R developments...this is an issue absolutely everyone should follow, no matter who you are.

[DIEHARD]

Vaile says IR Bill will pass

Acting Prime Minister Mark Vaile said today he believed all Coalition MPs would back the Government's workplace legislation, despite concerns being raised by the Queensland Nationals.

Mr Vaile, the Federal Nationals leader, will meet today with the Queensland Nationals' management committee in Brisbane to discuss concerns about the reforms.

15 Nationals MPs voted with Labor in the Queensland State Parliament yesterday to oppose the laws and Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce is not ruling out crossing the floor in the Senate as he pushes for changes to the Bill.

Mr Vaile said he believed the legislation would pass Federal Parliament.

"I believe all our Federal members and senators will vote for the legislation," Mr Vaile said.

"We'll work through the processes and the issues that have been raised, not just by Senator Joyce but Senator (Fiona) Nash in NSW and the Senate inquiry that concluded at the end of last week.

"We've indicated that we are prepared to make minor technical amendments."
Mr Vaile said he would continue to talk to Senator Joyce and other Nationals about their concerns.

Source: http://www.news.com.au

[DIEHARD]

Australia Post 'punishes protesters'

Australia Post has been accused of trying to intimidate its workers who attended rallies across the country last week in protest against workplace legislation.

Communications Workers Union of Australia Victorian secretary Joan Doyle said Australia Post was now doing the Howard Government's bidding.
"It's 10 days after the rally and the Government is trying to get someone who will intimidate workers and they're using Australia Post," Ms Doyle said.

"It's just intimidation and harassment."

But Australia Post external relations manager Matt Pollard said the Government had nothing to do with it.

"That's just not correct," he said.

"All we're doing is seeking to enforce an industrial agreement to which the union is a signatory."
Mr Pollard said workers were warned well in advance that if they were absent without approved leave on the day of the rallies they would be considered to be taking unauthorised industrial action and would receive formal warnings.

He said fewer than 1000 of its 46,000 workers across the country were absent and they would receive written warnings and would have to attend counselling and review sessions.

"These people abandoned their jobs and left work to their colleagues," he said.

"That's the reason these people have been given a warning, because on the day they just upped stakes and left others to do work in their absence."

Ms Doyle said the workers, who were mainly post delivery people, had offered to come to work two hours early to cover the time they had spent at the rally.

But Mr Pollard said this was irrelevant and start and finish times would not be varied so employees could attend a rally.

He said the workers' absence breached the organisation's enterprise bargaining agreement.

Ms Doyle said Australia Post was trying to intimidate workers.

"I think people have to be very concerned about the fundamental democratic implications of this," she said.

"What they're (Australia Post) saying is that free Australian citizens don't have the right to protest about unfair laws.

Mr Pollard said Australia Post had no quarrel with people attending rallies as long as they did it in their own time.

Source: http://www.news.com.au

[Titans#1]

Diehard, do you mind if we comment on these story's in here?

[DIEHARD]

Diehard, do you mind if we comment on these story's in here?

Oh no that is exactly what the thread is for.

Comments, thoughts, experiences, speculation, post your own articles you find, go for it.

I'm just posting articles to keep everyone up to date and to spice up the chat.

[DIEHARD]

Nationals set to force IR law changes

The Queensland Nationals look likely to force the Federal Government to make last-minute changes to its contentious industrialrelations laws.

On the back of concerns about parts of the legislation from renegade Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce and Queensland Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg, the state executive yesterday voted to support the overhaul with amendments.

On Thursday, Mr Springborg urged his colleagues in Federal Parliament to reject the Bill in its current form.

Senator Joyce has also asked for protection of penalty rates on public holidays and amendments to the unfair dismissal provisions to prevent companies taking advantage of them.

Following a meeting of the Queensland Nationals management committee in Brisbane yesterday, Federal Nationals leader and Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile said he was confident his colleagues would support the laws.

But Mr Springborg said the Government would likely accept the changes the state branch had requested.

"We are comfortable, based on our discussion today, that we will be able to achieve much of the sensible, common sense changes which we've asked for," said Mr Springborg.

Mr Vaile said the Government would consider 'some minor adjustments' after discussing reform concerns at the meeting yesterday.

"There's been some issues raised that might need some small or minor amendment or change," he said.

"We've said all along we're prepared to have a look at that.

"So, in that regard, I'm quite confident that we'll have the support of the Queensland division of the party."

Senator Joyce wants the Government to delay the vote on the laws until all amendments are properly considered, but expects that to happen before Christmas.

"I don't think we have the capacity in the coming week to vote for this legislation because certainly there needs to be further discussions," he said.

Senator Joyce said he was under 'significant pressure' from coalition colleagues to support it, but said he would not walk away from his role of reviewing legislation from Queensland's point of view.

"If there's pressure put on me by other quarters, then it's not going to amount to anything because I'm going to continue doing my job," he said.

"(But) crossing the floor is always an option."

Queensland Nationals MPs yesterday crossed the floor in State Parliament to support a Labor motion urging all Queensland senators to reject the workplace relations changes in their current form.

Source: Gold Coast Bulletin

[DIEHARD]

Barnaby to wreck Howard's IR agenda
Emma Chalmers, Rosanne Barrett and Matthew Franklin, National Political Editor

Rebel Queensland senator Barnaby Joyce is poised to frustrate the Howard Government's efforts to ram its industrial reforms through Federal Parliament before Christmas.

After a crisis meeting at state National Party headquarters failed to resolve the industrial relations stalemate yesterday, Senator Joyce said almost no one in Australia supported the reforms and it would be a "ridiculous proposition" to force a vote next week.

State and federal Nationals remain deadlocked over the Work Choices Bill. The Queensland branch is holding fast to its demands to preserve public holidays and close loopholes in unfair dismissal regulations.

Federal Nationals leader Mark Vaile spent two hours in Brisbane yesterday trying to convince the Queensland management committee to give unconditional support to the Bill.

But the meeting refused to give an open endorsement and Senator Joyce said he had been given no direction on whether to support or oppose the proposed laws.

A vote on the issue split the Coalition in State Parliament this week, forcing the seven Liberal MPs to stand alone in support of the Bill.

After yesterday's meeting, Senator Joyce said he was no closer to providing the vital vote needed for the laws to pass.

"I don't think anybody would be voting for it as it stands right at this moment," he said. "There's only seven people in Australia who would vote for it as it currently stands and they showed that the other day in the (state) chamber.

"Everybody else including the Liberal Party in Canberra have issues with it. These need to be cleaned up."

Senator Joyce and fellow Nationals senator Ron Boswell said there was still time for the laws to be passed by Christmas. But some amendments, particularly in relation to public holidays, were "not open to compromise".

Mr Vaile downplayed the need for amendments, saying public holidays were gazetted by state governments and "can't be taken away unless negotiated away".

He said the Federal Government would continue talks with the Queensland division and was "confident of winning their support".

But with Senate debate on the Bill due to begin on Monday, time is running out for a compromise.

Government sources confirmed no decision had been made to force the Bill to a vote next week, so the debate could spill into the following week ? the last for the year.

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said Labor would happily assist Senator Joyce to meet the requirements of his state colleagues.

"We're going to vote against this legislation lock, stock and barrel ? the whole lot," Mr Beazley said.

"If he joins us, it will go down."

State Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg said the concerns must be addressed before the Howard Government could rely on the Queensland Nationals. "There's a very strong recognition these concerns have to be addressed."

Industrial Relations Minister Tom Barton said it was time for Senator Joyce and the Queensland Nationals to show some strength.

"If they are unable to protect the major issues of pay and conditions they should stop raising the hopes of Queensland's workers who want this draconian legislation rejected," he said.

Source: http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au

Additional reporting Malcolm Cole, State Political Correspondent

[DIEHARD]

Christmas safeguarded under IR

EMPLOYEES who refuse to work on key public holidays such as Christmas Day and Anzac Day will be protected from the sack under changes to the Howard Government's industrial relations changes.

After sustained pressure from unions and Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce, the Government has agreed to include new safeguards in the legislation.
The family-friendly concession comes as the Government begins a push to secure Parliamentary backing for its industrial relations package in the next fortnight, before the Christmas recess.

However, the Government is still resisting calls to ensure workers who are rostered to work on Christmas Day or at Easter are guaranteed penalty rates; business groups strongly oppose any backdown on this issue.

Under the old "no disadvantage test", workers could trade away these conditions in exchange for more pay or longer holidays. However, critics argue there is nothing in the new legislation to ensure a worker won't be worse off in future.

Bosses have also won concessions in the legislation, including a deal allowing new projects to lock in enterprise deals and restrict union activity for up to five years on greenfield sites, such as start-up mines.

Greater protection is also expected for outworkers, including those in the clothing industry, after a government-dominated Senate inquiry raised concerns last week that they could be vulnerable to exploitation under the changes.

The Australian has learned that, as he prepares to fly back to Australia after a two-week overseas trip, John Howard is prepared to offer workers protection from being forced to work on iconic public holidays if they don't want to.

Specific provisions are expected to be added to draft legislation to ensure workers cannot be sacked if they don't want to work on certain public holidays. But guaranteed penalty rates for working those days are unlikely to be included.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Peter Hendy said yesterday employers would be "very unhappy" if the Government tried to appease Senator Joyce by legislating for penalty rates on public holidays.

Mr Hendy said the issue raised by Senator Joyce and other Nationals was an issue that existed with the present system, not the proposed one.

"We say, 'Where is the evidence there is a problem?' It is the case now that people aren't guaranteed penalty rates on public holidays.

"There are a large number of people on salaries who do work on public holidays. It is built into their packages, which is an acknowledgment that they work on public holidays - so they might get six weeks holidays instead of four weeks."

Another uncertainty is the Government's response to Senator Joyce's concerns that companies may be able to rort the unfair dismissal laws by dividing their operations into smaller companies with fewer than 100 staff.

Draft legislation, introduced into the parliament last month, will allow companies with up to 100 workers to avoid unfair dismissal provisions. Coalition sources have confirmed the Government believes there is limited scope for addressing this issue, but work is being done to provide further assurances.

The decision to address the greenfield site issue was expected and follows concerns raised by employer groups.

The changes will mean new enterprise agreements will stay in place for up to five years and cannot be amended by unions seeking a better deal for workers. This will build on the existing provisions that are mainly used in areas such as mining.

Mr Howard, speaking to reporters at the Corinthian Palace Hotel in the Maltese capital of Valletta, would not comment on specific amendments to the IR changes. But he said he was optimistic the legislation would be passed by Parliament this fortnight, despite the concerns raised by Coalition MPs.

Passing the workplace changes, tougher anti-terror laws and new welfare-to-work changes will be priority issues for the Prime Minister, who arrives back in Australia tonight.

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley warned yesterday the IR legislation could not be fixed with minor amendments.

"Slowly, like an infestation of termites, this will crumble away at family and living conditions," he said.

Asked if there were any new laws he would be inclined to keep if a Beazley government were elected, he said: "None at all. Every element from unfair dismissals across to what they do with minimum wages, across to the hammering they give people's penalty rates, holidays and the rest of it, all of it is just absolutely dreadful."

The Australian Council of Trade Unions said any proposed amendments to protect "iconic" public holidays represented an insult to working Australians designed to draw attention away from the enormous number of present entitlements workers would lose.

"If the National Party believes iconic public holidays can be traded away by workers who don't have bargaining power, they must accept that the system itself is wrong," ACTU president Sharan Burrow said.

Source: http://www.news.com.au

[wombat68]

looks like it'll be in for Chrissy :')

[DIEHARD]

Joyce still cagey on IR vote

Rebel Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce has squeezed concessions from the Government on its controversial workplace changes, but still will not commit to backing the legislation in the Senate.

Senator Joyce outlined his concerns during a meeting today with Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews as the Senate began debating the hefty 700 pages of legislation.
Unions also stepped up their calls for Senator Joyce to demand the Government make major changes to its Work Choices Bill, which they argue will strip workers of benefits.

ACTU president Sharan Burrow wheeled a trolley-load of emails from workers worried about the laws into Senator Joyce's office at Parliament House this morning.

"Barnaby, look, I've got a present for you ... 85,000 signatures telling you that you could be an Australian hero and protect working people," Ms Burrow said as she was ushered into Senator Joyce's office.

As the emails arrived, Senator Joyce said he felt like "the big bad wolf" but agreed to read a selection of the notes.

Senator Joyce's main worry is that under the new laws, employees could be sacked if they refuse to work on what he calls iconic public holidays, such as Christmas Day and Anzac Day.

The Queensland senator also wants the Government to close a loophole in the legislation to stop large companies restructuring so they can avoid new unfair dismissal rules.

Senator Joyce said he was happy with the hearing Mr Andrews gave him today.

"I'm quite happy with what we've been pushing for, for the protection of Good Friday, Christmas Day and Anzac Day, Boxing Day, New Year's Day," Senator Joyce said.

"You cannot sack people on those days. It will be illegal.

"To entice people to go to work on those days, you're going to have to offer them substantially more than any sort of baseline issue."

Senator Joyce was cagey about whether he was also pushing for guarantees that employees who worked on public holidays would be paid penalty rates.

But he stressed there was a limit to how many concessions he could extract from the Government.

"I think some people want us to fight every person in the pub and that's just not possible," Senator Joyce said.

"At the end of the day a form of legislation will go through."

While he appears to have made some headway with the Government on changes to the Work Choices Bill, Senator Joyce is yet to guarantee he will provide the key vote the coalition needs in the Senate to push through the legislation.

"There are other issues that may raise their head," he said.

"We'll follow the debate through to the end."

Unions and Labor have accused Senator Joyce of tinkering at the edges with the legislation and say more substantial changes are needed.

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley demanded in Parliament that Acting Prime Minister Mark Vaile explain why employees would not have to be compensated with penalty rates for working public holidays.

"If some Australians have to work on Christmas Day why should they work for Christmas peanuts," he said.

But Mr Vaile rejected Mr Beazley's claim.

"Workers today who have negotiated AWAs (Australian workplace agreements) have already made their own arrangements in terms of the rates of pay they will have," Mr Vaile said.

"So to make the allegation that people will be forced to work for peanuts is just ludicrous."

The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation before the end of next week.

Source: http://www.NEWS.com.au

[DIEHARD]

85,000 emails ask Joyce to say no

ACTU president Sharan Burrow knocked on Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce's door today to deliver 85,000 emails urging him to vote down the Government's workplace Bill.

The emails were collected in four days since the maverick Queensland senator demanded amendments to the Work Choices Bill relating to penalty rates on public holidays and unfair dismissals provisions.
Ms Burrow told Senator Joyce she was pleased to see he was concerned about some issues, but believed his proposed amendments were merely tinkering at the edges and he should instead use his vote defeat the legislation.

"85,189 Australians have asked Senator Joyce to use his vote to throw the government's proposed new workplace laws out of the Senate," she said.

But Senator Joyce would give no commitments. "I'll read a few of them but I won't be reading the lot," he said.

Senator Joyce said he had met Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews today to discuss his concerns, particularly with threats to so-called iconic public holidays, and was happy with the hearing he was given.

"The issues that the National Party have brought up are going forward," he said.
"I'm quite happy with what we've been pushing for, for the protection of Good Friday, Christmas Day and Anzac Day, Boxing Day, New Year's Day.

"These issues that are going to remain iconic parts of the Australian calendar will remain the same.

"People have the choice. You cannot sack people on those days. It will be illegal.

"People have the choice to either stay at home and be paid whilst they're at home, for those days to be with their family.

"To entice people to go to work on those days, you're going to have to offer them substantially more than any sort of baseline issue."

Senator Joyce would not discuss his conversation with Mr Andrews when asked about the penalty-rates issue.

"Put it this way, we've raised the issue and I'm very happy with the outcome," he said.

Senator Joyce said he would not reveal his voting intentions towards the Bill until the parliamentary process was completed.

"You don't make the decision half way through the day, otherwise there's no point to me being here," he said.

"I might as well go back to Queensland because you've made your mind up.

"There are other issues that may raise their head. We'll follow the debate through to the end."

Source: http://www.NEWS.com.au

[Steelers]

Barnaby Joyce = Last defence

STAND FIRM BARNABY :p

[DIEHARD]

Barnaby Joyce = Last defence

STAND FIRM BARNABY :p

Joyce gives nod to new workplace laws

The Federal Government's sweeping overhaul of workplace relations was in effect assured of Senate approval yesterday when the Queensland National Party senator Barnaby Joyce promised not to vote against it.

He has been under pressure from Labor, smaller parties, trade unions, church leaders and others to defeat the legislation by crossing the floor with his crucial vote.

However, he said yesterday: "I will not be voting against the bill as a whole. The Labor Party wants me to throw it out holus-bolus, but I'm not in the Labor Party. In the Senate we review and amend. If the effect of this legislation on people's lives is onerous, that will be reflected at the ballot box."

But Senator Joyce said he still had the option of crossing the floor to pass certain amendments, "as I do with every piece of legislation".

The Government is expected to allow a handful of amendments, but the Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley, said yesterday these were just token changes. Labor's industrial relations spokesman, Stephen Smith, said it was tinkering at the edges.

The changes will include protection for employees who refuse to work on key public holidays: Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Australia Day and Anzac Day and Good Friday and Easter Monday.

This change is vigorously opposed by the employer lobby the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, but it appears Senator Joyce's agitation will hold sway.

Sacking workers for refusing to turn up on these so-called iconic public holidays will be illegal and employers will need to provide sufficient financial incentive if they want staff to work on these days, Senator Joyce says.

The Government also appears to have agreed to Senator Joyce's demand that related-entity tests be used to stop big companies splitting into units of 100 employees or fewer to gain exemption from unfair dismissal laws. These tests examine whether one entity is the ultimate beneficiary and, if so, treat their sum as a single unit. Other changes were recommended by a Senate committee that reported on the legislation last week.

These include greater protection for outworkers.

The acting Prime Minister, Mark Vaile, said the committee's suggestions were constructive, and the Minister for Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, "will take [them] into consideration in the interests of all Australians".

THE ROAD AHEAD

- The Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce clears way for new workplace relations system, promising to pass legislation.

- There will be limited amendments to the legislation, including legal protection for employees who refuse to work on "iconic" public holidays such as Christmas Day.

- Lifting of unfair dismissal rules will be tightened to make sure larger companies cannot be split into smaller units.

- New laws condemned by unions, Labor and smaller parties.

Source: http://www.SMH.com.au

[Titans#1]

WORKERS could lose their right to be paid on a weekly or fortnightly basis under the Federal Government's Work Choices Bill, the ACTU says.

ACTU secretary Greg Combet said today the bill, now being debated in the Senate, included new rules that removed the right of workers under industrial awards to be paid weekly, fortnightly or even monthly.
This emerges from the exclusion of provisions in awards on how and when employees are required to be paid, as a so-called allowable matter.

Mr Combet said this exclusion would relate to current award matters requiring employees to be paid on a weekly or fortnightly basis, or in some cases, monthly.

It would also relate to provisions that, if employees were paid by cheque, that facilities were available in working hours for employees to cash or bank that cheque.

And it further related to provisions that on termination of employment, wages had to be paid within a reasonable time.

"These new IR laws will abolish the right under industrial awards of Australian workers to be paid on a weekly or fortnightly basis," Mr Combet said.
"The guarantee for every employee under the award safety net to be paid regularly and on time is to be taken away."

He said this entitled employers to unilaterally determine when and how regularly their employees are to be paid and workers will have no come-back - apart from going to court - if their employer fails to pay them on time.

"The only way to ensure you will be paid regularly and on time is to have an agreement with your employer," Mr Combet said.

"But what happens if you have no bargaining power or if you are given a take-it-or-leave-it individual contract?

"This is just another example of how these IR laws will strip away even the most basic workplace rights of Australian employees."

[Dakink]

This is the same ACTU that came out and said they want all Australians to boycott Singaporian goods & services because they were going to execute a CONVICTED drug smuggler.

[DIEHARD]

BYE BYE WORKERS RIGHTS!

Barnaby backs IR changes

The Federal Government is set to carry out its major workplace changes 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 laws.

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.

"I haven't seen the amendments tabled yet," he said. "But if we get everything we asked for, of course we will support it.

"But if people change the form or context, you are back to the issue."

Senator Joyce's main concerns with the legislation included fears that employees could be forced to work on what he calls iconic public holidays such as Christmas Day and Anzac Day.

He also wanted the Government to close a loophole in the new laws which could have allowed large companies to restructure in order to avoid new rules on unfair dismissals.

Today, Senator Joyce also promised to investigate fresh claims raised by the ACTU, which said the new laws could result in workers on industrial awards losing their right to be paid weekly, fortnightly or even monthly.

Senator Joyce said that after his talks with Mr Andrews, he had been assured the workplace legislation would be amended to reflect his concerns on all three issues.

"We are going to secure iconic public holidays," Senator Joyce said.

"They will be secured in such a fashion so that you can't sack people or change their conditions if they don't work on public holidays.

"Workers will also have to be paid every two weeks."

Senator Joyce said Mr Andrews also had agreed to carry out seven changes to the legislation recommended by a senate committee. The committee in its report handed down last week recommended the Senate pass the Work Choices Bill.

However, it suggested changes including better protection for clothing industry outworkers, a guarantee of four weeks' annual leave for full-time employees and assurances that full-time employees would always be paid for a 38-hour week.

"The seven amendments by the committee, they are all part of the deal," Senator Joyce said.

"Labor would want me to throw the whole thing out, that's not going to happen."

A special meeting of coalition backbenchers will be held later this week to thrash out amendments to the workplace legislation.

Prime Minister John Howard told a meeting of coalition MPs and senators today that he wanted all issues resolved before Parliament rises for the year on Friday week.

"He (Mr Howard) flagged there would be some government amendments to the IR (Industrial Relations) Bill but no fundamental changes, and the process of facilitating that would be a party room meeting later in the week," a party room spokesman said.

But the ACTU and Labor remain deeply concerned about the impact the changes will have on families.

The peak union body released its own family impact statement (FIS) on the Work Choices legislation today.

The FIS says the removal of unfair dismissal protection would affect women, especially young women.

It also said the six-month qualifying period for new workers removed a support for women who protested about sexual harassment.

ACTU president Sharan Burrow said this should ring alarm bells for female parliamentarians.

"This tells the story to Liberal women who won't stand up for their peers, who won't stand up in the face of the prime minister and say 'we want a better deal for families, we want a better deal for women'," she said.

"The icing on the cake for women is, if you make a sexual harassment claim in small to medium enterprises, internally, you can be sacked with no redress to unlawful termination."

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said he believed the planned laws would lead to family breakdowns.

"I'm not saying that in an alarmist way, and I'm not saying these things will occur wholesale immediately," he said.

"But in the same way this undermines people's conditions, and it will slowly do so as a sort of termite infestation, it will have the same impact on families."

Mr Andrews rejected Mr Beazley's claims.

"We will continue to prosecute the case for AWAs (Australian workplace agreements) and family friendly provisions that work for real people," he told Parliament.

Source: http://www.news.com.au

[Titans#1]

I got one word for all this: FUBAR.

[DIEHARD]

I got one word for all this: FUBAR.

Yea I would go with that as well.

[DIEHARD]

On a less serious note check this out.

It seems to be a short film made for Tropfest next year.

It's a good laugh.


Watch the LHMU's hilarious award-winning short film, 36 Ways to Get Fired thanks to John Howard. You'll be unpleasantly surprised!

http://www.lhmu.org.au/upload/multimedia/36Ways_broadband.wmv

Remember it's just a comedy short film, don't take it too seriously. It's pretty funny.

We got some good acting, bad acting and over acting on our hands here. :laugh:

[JDwCOKEnoICE]

These IR reforms are going to be GREAT!

Freedom for the employer finally! Less hassle and more productivity from employees because they will be **** scared of losing their jobs.
I personally can't wait for it all to be implemented.

[Queenslander]

JOHN Howard has cleared the way to have his far-reaching workplace legislation passed by both houses of Parliament and declared law after settling on minor amendments with his Coalition back bench last night.

A special Coalition partyroom meeting agreed to amendments to stop employers abusing the 38-hour week and giving employees the right to refuse to work on public holidays.

The legislation, which will overhaul Australia's century-old industrial relations system, is expected to be introduced into the Senate in amended form today. The Prime Minister is hopeful the legislation can be passed by tomorrow, clearing the agenda for a raft of Bills, including the crucial anti-terror and welfare-to-work legislation, to be passed before Parliament rises for Christmas next Friday.

Mr Howard last night described the changes to the Work Choices laws as "sensible amendments that don't in any way violate the principles of the bill".

Last-minute tinkering with the legislation addressed technical issues and concerns raised by Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce.

Following protests from Senator Joyce that public holidays were not protected in the original legislation, workers will be entitled to refuse to work on public holidays, providing they have reasonable grounds.

The Queensland senator dropped his earlier call for compulsory penalty rates on these days. Following complaints from Senator Joyce and unions, workers are to be guaranteed pay on a fortnightly basis unless another period is agreed.

To stop workers being forced to do excessive hours, a proposal to "average" a 38-hour week over 12 months will be deleted from new minimum working conditions. Hours worked over this limit will be treated as "additional hours" unless an averaging agreement is specifically negotiated.

Outworkers in the garment industry will be protected with provisions ensuring that current minimum conditions cannot be bargained away. Agreements at new worksites will run to a maximum five years and only new employees can be required to sign an individual employment contract, or Australian Workplace Agreement.

Apprenticeship pay rates will be protected by federal laws overriding state laws.

Mr Howard regards his 687-page legislation, which will begin operating early next year, as the supreme achievement of his 9 1/2 years in office, surpassing even the introduction of the GST, the sale of Telstra and tougher gun laws.

The historic changes include weakening the power of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and the setting of a minimum five working conditions for people on employment agreements.

The Coalition partyroom met last night after a backbench committee formally approved a batch of amendments accepted by Mr Howard since his return from overseas on Monday.

With Senator Joyce backing away from his request for mandatory penalty rates to protect public holidays, Mr Howard accepted a lesser change making it unlawful to sack people who do not want to work on those days.

The change means people who believe they are sacked unlawfully for refusing to work on Christmas Day or Good Friday would have to hire a lawyer and prove their case in court, where strict rules of evidence will apply.

Family First senator Stephen Fielding, whose vote is no longer needed by the Government, confirmed he would vote with Labor against the Bill.

Senator Fielding told parliament that families would suffer from the new laws and no one should have to work "24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year without penalty rates".

The Government also came under attack from Liberal backbencher Judi Moylan over its welfare-to-work legislation. She said the changes, which are meant to push single parents and disabled into work, could serve as a disincentive.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17421572-2,00.html

[Dakink]

I got one word for all this: FUBAR.


I got one word - actually a few - Bring it on!!

LOL

If it works he will be returned to Govt. If it doesnt he wont.

[DIEHARD]

I got one word - actually a few - Bring it on!!

LOL

If it works he will be returned to Govt. If it doesnt he wont.

That is a pretty simplistic way of looking at it and in the mean time, Australia suffers.

[Dragons]

That is a pretty simplistic way of looking at it and in the mean time, Australia suffers.
Liberal party will win again. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. :')

[In-Cyde #1]

Here's one to fire people up.

" John Howard will go down in the history books as the greatest Prime Minister ever ". (Quote: In-Cyde Dec05).

[Queenslander]

Here's one to fire people up.

" John Howard will go down in the history books as the greatest Prime Minister ever ". (Quote: In-Cyde Dec05).

If the labour reforms work then yes he will, but if they dont then he will be given the shaft. Time will tell.

[Dragons]

I got one word for all this: FUBAR.
don't understand all the letters, new to this :whatd:

[DIEHARD]

Will they work?

You have got to be kidding, they aren't going to work for the people that actually do the work.

If people measure the greatest of a Prime Minister on his ability to deceive, manipulate and lie, then he will be our greatest Prime Minister.

I have massive issues with new legislation that was hidden from the voters, which after being elected he tries to rail road. I have massive problems with the abuse of his control of the upper and lower house. It is unneccessary reform that isn't balanced and leaves one part of the working relationship disadvantaged.

It opens new mechanisms for companies to screw down workers to further maximise profits, something they can and will do.

The new IR laws do nothing but make workers worse off.

FFS we are supposed to be a democracy, we are supposed to be the nation of the fair go.

[Dragons]

Will they work?

You have got to be kidding, they aren't going to work for the people that actually do the work.

If people measure the greatest of a Prime Minister on his ability to deceive, manipulate and lie, then he will be our greatest Prime Minister.

I have massive issues with new legislation that was hidden from the voters, which after being elected he tries to rail road. I have massive problems with the abuse of his control of the upper and lower house.

The new IR laws do nothing but make workers worse off.
hear hear :clap:

[In-Cyde #1]

If the labour reforms work then yes he will, but if they dont then he will be given the shaft. Time will tell.

Too true Queenslander. Although everyone thought he was gone with GST.

These IR laws I believe will be 'storm in a tea-cup', as was all the lead up nonsense prior to the Introduction of GST.

Now if John Howard was really serious, he would increase the GST to 12.5% and eliminate Payroll Taxes. Then those who wish to spend the extra that comes in their pay packet will pay taxes via the GST. Perfect.

PS: Did you know that if you gave every person in the world an equal share of the money available in the world. Within months it would be back to where it was, because some of us are smart with money and most of us are not. I think I am one of the 'not'.

[DIEHARD]

It is time to decide what is more important to this nation, The profit or the people?

I know which side I am on. The people. They are this countries common denominator, the building blocks and the heart and soul of this nation. And I'll back them up no matter what.

I believe profit and people can work together in a mutually benefical relationship but you need to lay down rock solid parameters in order to protect people's quality of life and well being. Because entities in the seek of profit can and will utilise any means to maximise their dividend.

We can not be a slave to the shareholders of companies, that is no way to run a country, the only thing we should serve is the shareholders of the nation, the people.

[Queenslander]

IR laws pass Senate


PRIME Minister John Howard realised a 30-year political dream today when the Government's radical industrial changes passed their final hurdle.

Laws ushering in the biggest workplace shake-up in more than a century passed the Senate this evening after Nationals rebel Barnaby Joyce voted with the Government to back the legislation.
The legislation now goes back the House of Representatives next week for a final tick-off before becoming law.

The Government secured Senator Joyce's vote after it made a number of concessions, including changes so employees could not be forced to work on iconic holidays like Christmas Day.

The Opposition and minor parties ? left impotent in the face of the Government's Senate majority ? warned the changes would rob workers of their rights, hurt families and divide the nation.

Labor veteran John Faulkner called it the worst legislation Federal Parliament had ever seen.

"This is as bad as any piece of legislation we have seen in the history of the commonwealth of Australia," he told the Senate.
"It's divisive, it's extreme, it just stinks."

Mr Howard welcomed the passage of the laws as a solid foundation for the future strength of the Australian economy.

"This legislation will strengthen the Australian economy in the years ahead and because of that, it will good for jobs and it will be good for higher wages," he said.

Mr Howard rejected claims the laws were extreme or divisive.

"It's not extreme, it's not radical, it's not revolutionary, it's measured further change," he said.

Wild Canberra weather almost put a dampener on proceedings when the Senate was plunged into darkness during the final hours of debate. Light was restored after a few minutes.

Under the new laws, workers will move from a state to a single, federal system; small business won't be bound by unfair dismissal rules and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission will give the right to set minimum wages to a new Fair Pay Commission.

Labor warned it was a monumental day for Australian families, whose working lives would never be the same.

To applause from the unions filling the public galleries, Labor employment spokeswoman Penny Wong told the Senate that Mr Howard was giving Australia a nation of working poor, who would be robbed of entitlements and rights.

"What we are voting on now is a dream from an old man, a tired old dream that will turn into a nightmare for Australian families," Senator Wong said.

Unions accused the Government of turning its back on the working men and women of Australia.

ACTU president Sharan Burrow said working families would feel let down.

"This Government has not listened to them, has turned their backs on concerns and protections for working Australians," she said.

Australian Democrats industrial relations spokesman Andrew Murray said there was no economic rationale for the Government changes.

"This is un-Australian," he said.

"We think (the Government) is making not just an economic mistake, not just a social mistake but a political mistake."

Family First Senator Stephen Fielding said workers and their families would be worse off under the changes.

"The assumption that underpins this bill is that there is a level playing field between all employers and all employees but Family First does not believes this accords with reality," he said.

But the reforms were welcomed by big business.

Australia industry Group chief executive Heather Ridout said they were far reaching and would irrevocably change the conduct of workplace relations.

"The reforms are in sync with the needs of a modern economy and the structure of the emerging more diverse workforce," he said.
http://finance.news.com.au/story/0,10166,17439893-31037,00.html

[DIEHARD]

And so it begins, a new era where Australia goes down a road it never should have.

Let profit rule over people.

Blue skies for Qantas in new workplace laws

BUSINESS is forecasting financial windfalls from the Federal Government's industrial relations overhaul, with Qantas tipped as a key battleground - and a lucrative winner.

As the legislation was passed in the Senate yesterday, a global investment bank was predicting Qantas would reap big financial dividends by exploiting provisions that "significantly reduce labour costs in coming years".

Credit Suisse First Boston's rosy forecast is based on two controversial features of the bill.

The first is the ability - asserted by CS First Boston and others but denied by the Government - of firms to strip staff of their existing entitlements after one year by transferring them to other companies they control.

The other is the Government's ability to decree industries as essential services and, according to the bank, effectively spare them from industrial action.

Utilising both, argues CS First Boston, Qantas would have the upper hand in negotiations with unions, basically allowing it to push down labour costs to better compete with Asian and New Zealand rivals.

Qantas would not comment but its boss, Geoff Dixon, has set a $1.5 billion savings target over two years and has loudly championed the legislation, which was passed in the Senate after the inclusion of 337 Government amendments.

In mid-October, Mr Dixon said the changes would "give established, successful companies like Qantas greater flexibility".

The Government said yesterday that the CS First Boston analysis fundamentally misrepresented its workplace changes.

What the bank insisted was a "transmission of business" - the shifting of a large number of Qantas staff to the low-cost off-shoot, Jetstar - was in fact nothing but a transfer or secondment of staff, according to the office of the Workplace Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews.

And even if there were a transmission of business, the bank wrongly assumed that workers would be disadvantaged, because under the new system they would retain the higher pay and conditions for a maximum of only 12 months after the move, compared with the current open-ended arrangement.

"Under WorkChoices, conditions are transmitted for a guaranteed period; under current law, the Industrial Relations Commission can stop it," said one staffer.

The Government also accused CS First Boston of misunderstanding the essential services provision. If industrial action threatened life, safety, health or welfare or risked damage to the economy, and aviation was declared an emergency service, disputing parties would be pushed to arbitration.

But legal experts said Qantas was well placed to exploit "transmission" changes, a view articulated by a Flinders University law professor, Andrew Stewart, who said application of transmission rules would go beyond genuine business transfers.

CS First Boston says Qantas's profit will jump by a quarter if the airline matches Air New Zealand's unit labour costs.

Profit growth would be much bigger again if Qantas got labour costs to even 50 per cent above that of Emirates or Singapore Airlines.

Source: SMH.com.au

I wonder whose pockets the $1.5 billion will be stole from? That of the worker, I defy anyone who says this disgraceful legislation will make Australians better off. The contents of the laws are unjust to the core and the way it ws instituted was unjust to the core.

[Titans#1]

THE new Industrial Relations regime, pioneered in the far-off land of Oz, also came into effect in Fairy Tale Kingdom today.

The changes received mixed reaction from participants in a medium-level enterprise company negotiation.
Boss's daughter Snow White had a meeting with Vertically Challenged Mining Workers Union shop floor steward Grumpy in what many are seeing as a test case for the new IR regime in the class kindergarten classroom struggle.

"No more will it be once upon a time and a half story favoured by the unions," said Ms White, as she emerged from the meeting with Mr Grumpy.

"As part of the competitive need for greater overall efficiency all workers are to put in longer hours, have fewer meal breaks and fewer holidays and there will be no more striking in support of co-unionists in mining and construction such as the three little pigs," Ms White said.

"As a salary package trade-off I am prepared to increase the dwarf singing allowance. But, of course, I will expect a corresponding productivity increase in the number of hi-hos."

Ms White also announced that with the abolishment of unfairy dismissal law she regrettably had to let one of the employees go.
She, however, expressed a hope that the retrenched midget miner, Sleepy, would find a suitable position, probably a reclining one, with his previous employer the public sector.

Mr Grumpy meanwhile said that things in Fairy Tale Land had grown so Grimm that one of his members, Happy, was considering changing his name.

"All I got from Snow White today was a snow job," said Mr Grumpy, who admitted that despite his best negotiating efforts he had come up short.

Ms White had totally ignored an OH&S issue, Mr Grumpy claimed, where union medical officer Doc had advised of an increased health risk of working alongside non-union member Mr Sneezy.

"The new IR laws also prevented me from raising a workplace sexual harassment complaint made against Ms White by union member Bashful," Mr Grumpy said.

According to Mr Grumpy at the conclusion of negotiations he had told Ms White that it would be off to work he would go.

Ms White's alleged reaction was to menacingly hold out an unsigned individual contract with a pen, while saying "I wouldn't bet on that".

Meanwhile a union study claimed that the introduction of new IR laws in nearby Nurseryrhymeland had been nothing to sing about.

The drop in real wage take home pay meant that Old Mother Hubbard's dog had gone even more weeks without a bone.

Dropping incomes also meant in the sample home of Mr and Mrs Jack Sprat there was no longer either fat or lean and the couple was forced to live solely on gristle.

Meanwhile executive remuneration continued to soar such that the kings of industry were feasting on pies with almost twice the once standard ingredient of four and 20 blackbirds.

The union study concluded that under the new laws no worker could live happily ever after.

However, a spokesman for an employers lobby group said unions were still living in the land of make believe if they didn't realise that the final sentence in the union story was rapidly approaching.

That sentence simply was The End.

[Dakink]

Umm Titans#1 , Blah Blah Blah

Think I now know you are a through and through unionist sorry Labour party supporter... ;-)

[Queenslander]

Umm Titans#1 , Blah Blah Blah

Think I now know you are a through and through unionist sorry Labour party supporter... ;-)

Its actually from the news.com.au website, but like many stories about this subject so far its only make believe ;)

[Titans#1]

Umm Titans#1 , Blah Blah Blah

Think I now know you are a through and through unionist sorry Labour party supporter... ;-)


Actually, this was written so the 'simple people' that vote for JH know what they are really doing to the country, isn't that right boys and girls?

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Disclaimer: Titans#1 does not believe that all people who vote for JH are 'simple'.

[Titans#1]

Date set for IR challenge
From: AAP
February 08, 2006
THE High Court will begin to hear the states' constitutional challenge to federal industrial laws in May.

Chief Justice Murray Gleeson today set aside five days from May 8 to hear the case.
The states are challenging the right of the Federal Government to use the corporations power in the constitution to take over their industrial relations systems.

Applications were made by the New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australian governments and the Australian Workers Union.

The Victorian Government also indicated it would make a separate application.

A further directions hearing on the matter on March 9 is likely to determine if all the applications will be heard together

:fence: Bring it on...

[Queenslander]

The new IR reforms have come into play as of today.........has anybody got fired yet? :laugh:

[Titans#1]

The new IR reforms have come into play as of today.........has anybody got fired yet? :laugh:


Not sure.. My husband just started his 2 weeks holiday, will see if he has a job when he gets back lmao

[Smithy]

I am an employer and as much as I can see why everyone is worried,Lets face it. If you are a good honest worker, you really don't have anything to worry about.
I have had very ordinary employees who have made it a living hell for others. When I made up my mind that this person had to go, I found it nearly impossible to get rid of them. Other employees were quitting yet i couldn't get rid of this person. I hope the new IR laws will change this type of situation........

I think the scare tactics used by the Labour Gov were a bit over the top with the people facing the sack after saying they can't come in straight away......

JH has got this country in the best shape it is in since the last of the labour Gov. Whether you like him or not, this is true. Our economic debt has never been lower. Who do you want in there? Mark Latham or the like.

This is all I will say on the matter as I don't like to get started on politics especially on a footy forum site.
I ahve the read the ruloes to be abided by and have found that it's not quite like everyone thinks.

Just give it time. i think you will be plesantly suprised.

[Eel 33]

I am an employer and as much as I can see why everyone is worried,Lets face it. If you are a good honest worker, you really don't have anything to worry about.
I have had very ordinary employees who have made it a living hell for others. When I made up my mind that this person had to go, I found it nearly impossible to get rid of them. Other employees were quitting yet i couldn't get rid of this person. I hope the new IR laws will change this type of situation........

I think the scare tactics used by the Labour Gov were a bit over the top with the people facing the sack after saying they can't come in straight away......

JH has got this country in the best shape it is in since the last of the labour Gov. Whether you like him or not, this is true. Our economic debt has never been lower. Who do you want in there? Mark Latham or the like.

This is all I will say on the matter as I don't like to get started on politics especially on a footy forum site.
I ahve the read the ruloes to be abided by and have found that it's not quite like everyone thinks.

Just give it time. i think you will be plesantly suprised.

That's fine from an employers position. But a lot of ppl are worried because they work for big companies who are looking to squeeze as many ppl out as possible to increase profits for shareholders and their own wallets. The cutting out of entitlements is wrong, the removal of the right to strike is also wrong. I'm not going to sit here and bore you. I can see Smithy's view and appreciate it for what it is, but this whole situation is going to get worse before it gets better.

[Smithy]

I think it is just one of those things where not everyone is going to agree.
When it comes to things like this, someone is allways going to cop the raw end of the stick......I hope it happens to know one........
I am happy to read that atleast some people can respect anothers opinion.

I have never worked for a large company and have always been self employed since finishing my apprenticeship some 16 years ago. I guess this is why, maybe, I don't quite understand a lot of the fear people are facing.........
I wish you all the best....... :peace:

[Eel 33]

I think it is just one of those things where not everyone is going to agree.
When it comes to things like this, someone is allways going to cop the raw end of the stick......I hope it happens to know one........
I am happy to read that atleast some people can respect anothers opinion.

I have never worked for a large company and have always been self employed since finishing my apprenticeship some 16 years ago. I guess this is why, maybe, I don't quite understand a lot of the fear people are facing.........
I wish you all the best....... :peace:

Hopefully you can stay self employed for the rest of your working life. If you are forced out by the big boys and have to work for them, I hope they don't treat you like s***.

[Smithy]

Hopefully you can stay self employed for the rest of your working life. If you are forced out by the big boys and have to work for them, I hope they don't treat you like s***.

That's the plan Eel 33.
I don't think I need to worry about being taken over by the big companies. :D

[HodgoBerro]

i want to know something

i used to be employed at the subway in the valley metro plaza about just over a year ago just after i started there the manager who hired me left to persue another career option.

when the new manager arrived - he used to pick on me, treat me like i was stupid and worse off every day during my holidays i had a 6am - 2pm start (ok the money was great but i was exhausted)

due to some misinformation and i had some time off because i had tonsilitis he had a go at me and yelled at me for at least 1/2 an hour then told me to leave

there was no reason whatsoever why i was fired.

later on i need to reference i had previously worked there and when a friend of mine rung him up for a 'reference' he bad named me.

was this illegal?

[Eel 33]

HodgoBerro, you could have a case if this was documented or witnessed by someone else. This sounds like a good case of discrimination. Don't worry about the "bad" reference, this person will be found out shortly and get the same treatment.

[Smithy]

HodgoBerro, you could have a case if this was documented or witnessed by someone else. This sounds like a good case of discrimination. Don't worry about the "bad" reference, this person will be found out shortly and get the same treatment.
Hodgoberro....could be something in it Ithink........you should have someone have a look at it.........It depends on what sought of employee you were....fultime.......partime.etc.
I would definetly have it looked at............

[SuperCliffy#01]

i want to know something

i used to be employed at the subway in the valley metro plaza about just over a year ago just after i started there the manager who hired me left to persue another career option.

when the new manager arrived - he used to pick on me, treat me like i was stupid and worse off every day during my holidays i had a 6am - 2pm start (ok the money was great but i was exhausted)

due to some misinformation and i had some time off because i had tonsilitis he had a go at me and yelled at me for at least 1/2 an hour then told me to leave

there was no reason whatsoever why i was fired.

later on i need to reference i had previously worked there and when a friend of mine rung him up for a 'reference' he bad named me.

was this illegal?

Unfortunately as a casual (i assume your'e a part time casual) you weren't even covered by the old industrial laws, and also there is nothing you can do, your boss had the right to sack you, i know that sux but unfortunately that is life.cya

[HodgoBerro]

Hodgoberro....could be something in it Ithink........you should have someone have a look at it.........It depends on what sought of employee you were....fultime.......partime.etc.
I would definetly have it looked at............

I had looked at it just after i posted the question - i had to make a complaint 21 days after my dismissial...

Pisses me right off

but - just letting you know he's still at that subway so if you want to give him a piece of your mind.... well you've got all the chances in the world

[DIEHARD]

On ABC2 now there are some experts debating Work "Choices" on the Difference of Opinion program.

I advise everyone to watch it.

[DIEHARD]

They just asked the studio audience who supports Work NO Choices, believes it is fair.

Two people raised their hands. Everyone else raised their hand against it.

The Howard stooge responded by saying "This just illustrates how effective the ACTU's marketing campaign has been..."

The studio burst into laughter.

Heaven forbid people be able to think for themselves!

[C-Whiz]

On ABC2 now there are some experts debating Work "Choices" on the Difference of Opinion program.



What would John McClane (the Bruce Willis Diehard character, for those of you who aren't DIEHARD :) ) have to say about Work Choices? Yippy-yae-ay, mother-f........., as he blasts John Howard full of 9mm projectiles? We could only hope!

[DIEHARD]

What would John McClane (the Bruce Willis Diehard character, for those of you who aren't DIEHARD :) ) have to say about Work Choices? Yippy-yae-ay, mother-f........., as he blasts John Howard full of 9mm projectiles? We could only hope!

Hell yea. That's my reoccuring dream. I'll probably get arrested by ASIO/AFP storm troopers now... :cry:

[DIEHARD]

Gallop the former WA Premier basically got a standing ovation by the audience when he gave his final thoughts.

There is a massive ground swell against these laws.

Even if you are lucky enough to be in the upper crust and enjoying the prosperity of the economy. One of the few who will be in a strong position to individually bargain. Think of the people left at the bottom of the food chain. People trying to better themselves. you may have climbed the ladder of success. But what about your children, friends, family, parents? What if you hit tough times and you are knocked back down the the earth with the rest of us.

Australia IS the nation of the fair go. This law destroys that. The fundamental fabric of our nation. We have to defend it.

This was always on Howards agenda. Yet he didn't whisper about it before the last election. We didn't vote for this! How democratic is that?! Is that in the best interests of Australians? I guess he knows better than the collective opinions of the nation? We need our hands held by the Liberal Party of Australia and if we dare have another opinion, it isn't of our own voliation, conclusions and merit, it is because we were brain washed by the evil Trade Unions...

There aren't too many AWBs atm, but if the Liberals get back in, it will send the green light out. Labour costs is one of businesses greatest expenses, business cut costs to ensure the highest profit possible. This will be used as a tool to cut into the pockets of workers. And what happens when the economy cools down, this will be used as a tool to further save costs.

And when OUR nation is prospering, shouldn't we ALL enjoy the profits. I also see profits in many many other terms than financial. Quality of life and family quickly spring to mind.

This is divide and conquer.

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

That's fine from an employers position. But a lot of ppl are worried because they work for big companies who are looking to squeeze as many ppl out as possible to increase profits for shareholders and their own wallets. The cutting out of entitlements is wrong, the removal of the right to strike is also wrong. I'm not going to sit here and bore you. I can see Smithy's view and appreciate it for what it is, but this whole situation is going to get worse before it gets better.

The new ir laws that were introuduced only affetced companies with less than 300 employees, other wise your still on old laws, ie like me a casual at coles.

(i know this is old but the thread got bumped and i went back)

although i did find that abc thing interesting.

[DIEHARD]

I don't think I have ever worked at a workplace with more than 100 employees and I have had quite a few jobs.

Also how long until some companies restructure into smaller workplaces to exploit this law.

These unfair dismissal laws...or lack of are a disgrace. This is a terrible axe to have hanging over people. Great having such uncertainty and unstablity in peoples lives.

We work to live, under these new IR laws, Australians are living to WORK.

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

We work to live, under these new IR laws, Australians are living to WORK.


This was happening long before the ir laws were brought in, whilst i agree with most of your points and have been outragged, after the first few months, how many stories did you see of people being sackedf or no reason etc etc, it seems to have calmed down and stability in the workplace is returning to somewhat decent levels.

I just see the plus side i guess,i wish that coles could do it, you have some people working their that don't do their tasks, offload their work to others and just chill out at work on a decent wage, and they can't be sacked despite not pulling i nthe hard yards for the team.

Of course their are those that will use the ir laws to exploit workers, but whats new, its not like bosses and companies around the world have only suddenly started exploiting employees or giving them a raw deal.

[DIEHARD]

Of course the workplace has been heading in this direction, because everything is geared towards profit.

This at the moment, is the calm before the storm. There are only a small percentage of AWAs. Employers are waiting for the Howard government to get back in, that will be the green light and its ready, set, go for work force cost slashing to maximise profits.

The government has enabled business to be able to do this. They have given them the tool and trust me, businesses are going to use it.

I am not going to depend on the good graces of bosses or directors!

And I worked at Coles, two of their stores infact. And they were together the single worst employment experience of my life. It doesn't puzzle me at all why that company is so far up **** creek it isn't funny.

[DIEHARD]

Government broke its own workplace laws

THE Howard Government broke its own workplace laws when it ordered public sector managers to deny workers access to leave to take part in a national protest against the new industrial relations legislation, the Federal Court has found.

The court also found that top managers in the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, who are supposed to be impartial public servants, tried to protect the political interests of the Government.

Handing down her decision yesterday, Justice Catherine Branson also criticised the Government for violating the official "values" of the Australian Public Service Act, the first of which insists that the bureaucracy remains "apolitical".

The office of the federal Minister for Workplace Relations, Joe Hockey, refused to comment on the scathing ruling. A spokesman for the department also declined to comment, saying only that lawyers would consider an appeal.

Justice Branson found that the department had broken the very law it was supposed to uphold - the Workplace Relations Act - by denying staff in other government departments the right to freedom of association.

According to evidence presented during the case, on November 9, 2005, two top departmental officials, Michael Maynard and Tulip Chaudhury, advised all Federal Government agencies to deny leave to staff if they wanted to use it to attend the protest scheduled for November 15.

The Community and Public Sector Union, which covers federal employees, had explicitly advised its members not to take sick leave or walk off the job but to use their own holiday leave or flexitime if they wanted to attend the protest.

One department official, Jeremy O'Sullivan, sought a legal opinion on the Maynard-Chaudhury advice and also consulted the office of then Minister for Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews. The department feared political embarrassment for the Government if it tried to enforce a ban on its own staff.

The department then backed away from the Maynard-Chaudhury advice but did not stop other government departments from denying leave.

Justice Branson also found that, based on the department's advice, two other departments - the Australian Customs Service and the Department of Education Science and Training - had breached the terms of their certified agreement with employees.

CPSU national secretary Stephen Jones, who began the court action in 2006, said the decision upheld the human rights of government employees but highlighted the political interference in the public service.

http://www.smh.com.au

[Ryan]

Kevids Rudds 'Fair Go' smokescreen for the new IR laws seems quite similar to Beazleys attempt on the GST and it is destined for the same result. Beazley screamed black and blue how the GST was unfair, unAustralian, blah blah blah. Howard copped all sorts of critisim in the press then as he is now, but guess what? - Seven years later, Beazley is long gone, Howard is still in command and GST revenue alone averages $40B a year. That $40B\y has covered for major upgrades for our defence force among other things and not to mention the $96B debt that was left by the last two Labour governments.

I'd like to know why people think the new IR laws are bad\unfair? Give specific reasons why Rudds policy is better than Howards, why Rudds policy is fair but Howards isn't. How will the new IR laws affect you if they will at all? Give an example.....

Alot of people seem to be carrying on like parrots, just repeating everything Rudd says without even thinking twice about it.

[Ryan]

Howard's IR laws 'helping work-life balance'
source (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22292090-5013404,00.html)
August 23, 2007


BUSINESSES are using John Howard's workplace laws to strike a better balance between work and family life, with a dramatic increase in time off allowed so employees can look after sick children or elderly relatives.

Almost 40 per cent of employers surveyed in the most detailed study since the Howard Government introduced Work Choices last year say they have increased the number of "personal carer days" available.

The number of sick days allowed to employees has also increased, with 27 per cent providing more paid leave to help their staff recover from personal illness.

A survey by Deakin University in Melbourne for the Australian Human Resources Institute is surprise good news for the Prime Minister, after the Coalition has suffered a public relations battering over union and Labor claims that its laws are unfair and bad for family life.

The Deakin University survey also provides an early indication of less union involvement in the workplace since the Government's laws took effect in March last year.

According to 1000 human resources managers who responded, more than 26 per cent reported an increase in "direct communication with employees", and more than 25 per cent reported a rise in negotiations on pay and conditions with "individual employees".

Over the same period, about 12 per cent confirmed notable decreases in union visits to work sites, union involvement in settling grievances and the number of industrial disputes.

Less union activity could reflect tough legal curbs contained in Work Choices on union access to worksites and on the right to strike.

The results appear in keeping with the Government's preference for excluding "third parties" from negotiations and favouring direct employer-employee relationships.

But the survey is not all positive for the Government: many managers complain that the new laws have created too much red tape and confusion.

More than 55 per cent reported an increased need to seek legal advice, and 40 per cent said Work Choices had made employment arrangements more complicated.

The survey results suggest many businesses are waiting for the outcome of this year's federal election before embracing Work Choices, unsure that the laws will stay if Labor wins and keeps its promise to scrap them.

Human resources managers reported "no change" in significant numbers on whether or not they had taken up Work Choices: as many as 80 per cent confirmed no change to penalty rates, overtime, hours worked, absenteeism and industrial disputes.

Only six respondents had used an authorised secret ballot provided under the Howard Government's laws as a precondition for legal strikes.

The Government's abolition of unfair dismissal laws in most workplaces -- by eliminating the right to claim unfair termination in businesses with fewer than 100employees -- also has not significantly affected employer behaviour.

More than 82 per cent of respondents confirmed no change on unfair dismissal claims, while 87per cent said the new 100-employee threshold on unfair dismissal laws had made no difference to decisions on hiring more staff.
Productivity improvements since the introduction of Work Choices also appear modest, with just 12 per cent reporting an increase.

And while 70 per cent reported no change in workplace morale, more than 17 per cent did report a decline in morale since Work Choices was introduced.

Despite measures introduced to improve personal carers' leave, HR managers are not optimistic that operating under Work Choices would improve the "work-family balance" within their organisation over the next three years.

Only 18.9 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that the work-family balance would improve.

The Government's decision to introduce a "fairness test" in May, reimposing guarantees on conditions such as penalty rates and overtime, attracted criticism.

HR managers were divided into two camps: those disappointed because the Government had made a "backward step" on its reforms; and those who believed the test was unfair because it was not retrospective.

Respondents were also critical of the Government's "rebranding" of its laws with the fairness test run by the renamed Workplace Authority.

A series of quotes from detailed written answers said the fairness test had added complexity and compliance costs.

The survey is significant not just because of its large sample and 65 detailed questions: the respondents were hands-on HR managers, three-quarters of whom deal with Work Choices every day.

AHRI national president Peter Wilson will release the survey today in Canberra. The Australian was among those who helped compile the questions.

[C-Whiz]

Beazley screamed black and blue how the GST was unfair, unAustralian, blah blah blah. Howard copped all sorts of critisim in the press then as he is now, but guess what? - Seven years later, Beazley is long gone, Howard is still in command and GST revenue alone averages $40B a year.

Yeah, wasn't Howard the "never, ever" guy when it came to GST? Good to know he's a man of his word! And gee, imagine throwing an extra 10% on everything and suddenly having more mony coming in! Economic genius!

So, when Howard says" Trust me, these IR laws are fair, and nothing is going to change", just remember, he was "never, ever" going to introduce the GST. Maybe we could just refer to it as "Workchoices Overboard"?

[C-Whiz]

Howard's IR laws 'helping work-life balance'
source (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22292090-5013404,00.html)
August 23, 2007
According to 1000 human resources managers who responded

Well, that would be a completely unbiased, open and honest report then, wouldn't it! :duh:

[Ryan]

Well, that would be a completely unbiased, open and honest report then, wouldn't it! :duh:
As good as any other poll goin around ;)

[Ryan]

Yeah, wasn't Howard the "never, ever" guy when it came to GST? Good to know he's a man of his word! And gee, imagine throwing an extra 10% on everything and suddenly having more mony coming in! Economic genius!

So, when Howard says" Trust me, these IR laws are fair, and nothing is going to change", just remember, he was "never, ever" going to introduce the GST. Maybe we could just refer to it as "Workchoices Overboard"?
Australia was "never ever" gonna come out of debt without the GST, the past two Labour governments and the almost potential 3rd(Beazely) didn't have the balls or sense to make the call. John Howard did and Australia is now better off for it.

Thats the difference between a real leader who makes policies that will benefit the country, and a parrot who tries to scrap up uneducated votes ;)

[Ryan]

Alot of people seem to be carrying on like parrots, just repeating everything Rudd says without even thinking twice about it.

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o142/RD012/KEVIN07.jpg

[Steelers]

Alot of people seem to be carrying on like parrots, just repeating everything Rudd says without even thinking twice about it.

People were saying that these laws were unfair long before Rudd became the leader of the Labor party. Remember the tens of thousands of people marching all across the country when Howard first announced the laws?

[Ryan]

.......Remember the tens of thousands of people marching all across the country when Howard first announced the laws?

Yeah, half of them wouldn't have known what they were marching for, anything to get out of a days work. None of them got paid for it either, they should have been working! :laugh:

[DIEHARD]

Watchdog 'hiding' AWA details

JUST days after promising to be transparent in releasing information about the Howard Government's wage agreements, the head of its workplace watchdog has been accused of hiding key information that could show workers are worse off.

The Victorian Government is angered that Workplace Authority director Barbara Bennett has rejected requests for access to Australian Workplace Agreements on the basis that it would breach the "spirit" of the law.

Victorian Industrial Relations Minister Rob Hulls has received a complaint from his own state workplace watchdog, Anthony Lawrence, about Ms Bennett's obstruction over AWAs, the Howard Government's individual employment contracts.

In a letter to Mr Hulls, Mr Lawrence says Ms Bennett's position is not consistent with Work Choices laws, which "prohibit identification of the parties" but do not place restrictions on the disclosure of content. "It appears to me that it would therefore be possible for Ms Bennett to provide me with copies of the AWAs I seek, with the names of the parties masked," writes Mr Lawrence, the Workplace Rights Advocate.

On Wednesday, Ms Bennett said her Workplace Authority had a "commitment to being transparent" in publishing data about how her agency was progressing in applying the Government's "fairness test" on wage agreements.

The fairness test requires that workers on AWAs and both union and non-union collective agreements earning less than $75,000 must have their wage deals checked against a list of protected award conditions to ensure they are not worse off.

In a report released on Wednesday, Ms Bennett confirmed that one in seven agreements had been rejected by the authority since the test began in May. But she also revealed a huge backlog of 110,000 agreements that were still to be checked.

According to Ms Bennett, about 1070 agreements have been rejected.

But her agency has not revealed a breakdown of figures to show the proportion of AWAs rejected compared with collective agreements.

Nor has Ms Bennett followed the example of her predecessor Peter McIlwain in May last year by revealing what conditions such as penalty rates, overtime, allowances, holiday pay rates and rest breaks have been traded off as part of workplace negotiations.

Also unclear is the status of 44,000 agreements on which the Workplace Authority has requested "further information" from employers.

The Victorian Government and unions claim that the 44,000 figure is likely to include a high number of agreements that would also be rejected on the basis that they would fail the fairness test.

A spokeswoman for Ms Bennett was unavailable yesterday.

But she told The Australian on Thursday that the 44,000 requiring further information related to issues such as what type of work was performed by employees, and was not an indication of rejection. She confirmed that most agreements rejected by the Workplace Authority were AWAs, not collective agreements.

In a reply letter to the Victorian Workplace Rights Advocate last month, Ms Bennett said she was committed to operating in an "open and transparent manner" and had released an array of information.

But she said she needed the consent of both parties to an agreement before releasing the information.

http://www.news.com.au

[DIEHARD]

Remember the tens of thousands of people marching all across the country when Howard first announced the laws?

I was one of the thousands in Brisbane.

I hope they organise many more rallies in the lead up to the election!

[Capital_Shark]

European countries are the only ones who know how to march in protest and actually be noticed. I laugh at the tens of thousands of people who block of a street for an hour or two peacefully marching against a government decision, because its not gonna change a damn thing. People marched against the war in Iraq, how did that turn out? People marched against the GST, that did 10% of bugger all. People marched against WorkChoices, hows that doing?

If you want to get more out of your protest march than a flat battery in your pedometer, take a leaf out of the Europeans book and go absolutely ape sh!t crazy in the streets. That'll make people stand up and take notice, and probably do something from fear of more riots. I know if I was in Howard's position trying to bring in WorkChoices or whatever a few hundred thousand people having a peaceful stroll through the city wouldn't sway me one bit.

Is there a law against inciting violence or does that only apply to radical Muslim clerics?

[travop]

yea my works puttin me on a awa.......well they call it a collective agreement......dunno if thats the same thing

[jenny]

Pub fined for forcing worker on to AWA
September 19, 2007

A HOBART pub has been fined $35,000 after the Federal Magistrates Court found its owner and manager forced a 19-year-old worker to sign an Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA).

The total penalty was $35,250 on the company trading as Granada Tavern, due to actions taken by pub owner Michael Hibberd and general manager Jocelyn Berechree.

Magistrate Philip Burchardt said the behaviour of Mr Hibberd and Ms Berechree towards the young woman was bad.

"It was intended to, and I have no doubt did, place a great deal of strain on a young woman in a completely disempowered situation," he said in his judgment.

Workplace Ombudsman Nicholas Wilson said the decision and the penalty were a victory for workers, especially the young employed in the hotel and hospitality industry.
TELEGRAPH

[DIEHARD]

-> IR Thread

[Nathalie]

If the government, pollies etc are working for us then does that mean we can put them on AWAs?

:D

[DIEHARD]

Receptionist sacking investigated

QUEENSLAND'S workplace ombudsman is investigating the sacking of a Cairns receptionist two months before she was due to take long-service leave.

The woman was dismissed for reasons of misconduct, reportedly two months prior to her taking her 10-year long-service leave believed to be worth about $6000.

The unfair dismissal laws that would usually come into effect in such cases may have been negated due to the reasons for the sacking and the fact the company employs fewer than 100 employers.

Queensland's workplace ombudsman Don Brown travelled to Cairns today to meet with both parties in the hope of reaching a resolution without the involvement of the state's Industrial Relations Commission.

?The parties involved are examining a method of resolving their differences, which I believe will restore fairness,? Mr Brown said.

http://www.news.com.au/

[jenny]

:censored:
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...this ****es me off :mad:

[DIEHARD]

About 20,000 people protest against IR laws in Melbourne

UP to 20,000 Victorian workers have condemned the Federal Government's industrial relations (IR) laws during a pre-election protest march through central Melbourne.

Angry workers and their families today chanted for Prime Minister John Howard to resign and urged the government to protect their children's futures from unfair workplace conditions.

Politicians were notably absent, opting to keep their distance from union activity as the build-up to the federal election intensifies.

Traffic and trams were disrupted for more than two hours as the workers swamped Swanston Street, cutting off tram routes along Collins, Flinders and Swanston streets.

Workers marched with placards saying: "WorkChoices ... Not my choice" and "Don't give Howard another shot - protect your kids' future".

Hundreds of children, many dressed in construction hats and anti-WorkChoices T-shirts, marched with their parents.

Victorian Trades Hall Council secretary Brian Boyd said the workers wanted to protect their kids' future livelihoods.

"What we're finding out is a lot of unionised workplaces have been hammered a bit by the IR laws but they've been able to hold onto their wages and conditions in most cases," Mr Boyd said.

"As the workers' kids leave school, they're getting ripped off straight away by AWA (Australian Workplace Agreement) individual contracts - that's what we've found out over the last 12 months."

Children carried anti-Howard placards as workers called for workplace agreements to be abolished and their working conditions protected from new IR laws.

Roy Williams, a father of four from Geelong, marched with his six-year-old daughter Amanda, wanting a secure future for his family.

Amanda said she wanted to be safe.

"I want to do this for my future," she said.

Mr Williams said the workplace needed good conditions to protect workers.

"I'd like to see a little bit of fairness across the board," Mr Williams said.

"We had a young apprentice and he's just got railroaded out the gate. It's just wrong the way they are going about things.

"The boys have put up a lot of fight over the years to get the working conditions and we'd really like to keep them."

Geelong trade worker Anthony (who didn't give his surname) held his three-year-old daughter Mia as he protested over workplace reforms.

"I want job security," Anthony said.

"If work contracts come in, you never know what the future is. We want our families protected."

http://www.news.com.au/

[Coaster]

Rudd's wife cut job conditions


May 24, 2007

A COMPANY owned by Kevin Rudd's wife put workers on individual contracts that stripped them of key award conditions.

A common law contract, obtained by the Herald Sun, removed penalty rates, overtime and allowances for an extra 45c an hour.

Workplace Minister Joe Hockey said the contracts could be illegal and he would investigate the matter further.

"For a common law contract to remove conditions from an award would be unlawful but I need to get more information," he said today.

"There seems to be a lot of questions that need to be asked about this matter."

Contract details

The deal offered a $30,000 annual salary, or $576.93 a week.

This is only marginally better than the $29,219 legal minimum ($560.11 a week) applying to the most junior class of worker in the industry.

The offer did not include meal and travel allowances or loadings for work performed outside normal hours.

The June 2006 contract noted that workers were covered by the Community Employment, Training and Support Services Award.

But the Herald Sun received legal advice that, if the contract were followed to the letter, the deal would be worse than the award and most likely fail the old no-disadvantage test that Labor wants to restore.

The contract is not an Australian Workplace Agreement, and under the law, should not undercut the award.

Mr Rudd's wife, Therese Rein, is a multi-millionaire businesswoman whose companies employ 1400 workers in Australia and Europe.

Her firm Ingeus is a global player in the employment and recruitment sector and last year achieved revenues exceeding $170 million.

WorkDirections Australia Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Ingeus, took over Frankston company Your Employment Solutions last year and transferred its workers over to her business.

Last night, WorkDirections Australia admitted that workers had been underpaid.

After inquiries by the Herald Sun, a director said workers' entitlements had been reinstated.

He said former staff were being traced so they could be reimbursed.

Industrial relations

The revelation comes as Mr Rudd stakes his claim for the prime ministership on restoring fairness to industrial relations.

Ms Rein's WorkDirections job contracts removed some of the very conditions her husband wants to give back to workers.

The Opposition Leader said in a recent speech that a Labor government would "restore the rights of working families to have proper access to penalty rates, overtime and shift allowances".

Labor MP Tanya Plibersek said Ms Rein's business was a separate issue to her husband's politics.

"She's an independent person who's running a business," Ms Plibersek said.

"Therese has said and Kevin has said in the past that she will run her business at arms length from any Labor government should we be elected.

"Any decisions which are made about her businesses in the future will made independently, she'll be treated like any other business."

WorkDirections director Greg Ashmead blamed former management for the irregularities and said employees' conditions had been reviewed this year.

"The terms and conditions of all current staff now mirror and mostly exceed the minimum terms and conditions of the award," he said.

[Coaster]

Rudd's wife under attack by UK unions
25th September 2007, 22:01 WST

Kevin Rudd's wife, Therese Rein, faces new claims her privately owned job-placement company will strip workers of guaranteed conditions.

Ingeus's British arm, WorkDirections UK, is under attack from British unions after it won contracts worth $198 million to become the biggest provider of welfare-to-work programs for up to one million disabled people.

The unions fear WorkDirections UK will not give its workers conditions designed to protect staff when they transfer to a new employer or cover areas such as index-linked pensions, sick pay and holidays.

British unions plan to contact their Australian counterparts for advice on how to resist the rise of WorkDirections UK as a private work-placement agency.

"We will be campaigning against WorkDirections and against the whole process of privatising work that is now done by civil servants," a spokesman for Britain's Public Commercial Services Union told News Limited newspapers.

In May, Ms Rein was forced to sell WorkDirections Australia, the local arm of her company Ingeus, after claims it had underpaid staff on common law contracts.

The company admitted it inadvertently underpaid workers it shifted from awards to common law contracts but rectified the breach and repaid the workers.

In a statement to News Limited, Ingeus said WorkDirections UK paid well above industry standard salaries and benefits for staff, including double-matched pensions.

The federal opposition leader refused to comment on reports that the British government will be issuing more contracts for bid.

[DIEHARD]

Lots of the use of the words such as CLAIMS, WILL, FEAR.

Lots of hotair, I hope we get an update on every move by this company.

I don't agree with private work placement agencies, I greatly dislike them.

But since when was Mrs Rudd running for office. I support the UK unions move to attempt to head off such privatisations.