New IR changes to take effect

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by GreenMachine

ANyone posing in this thread actually read the legislation?

Are thousands of pages of definitions, transitional arrangements etc. particularly relevant to an ideological discussion?

[347Stroker]

Originally Posted by parawolf

Personally I wouldn't know the union rep on this floor or in this building.

And you should make it your business to find out who he is, and ask him whats going on.
A union isnt a fighting machine for employees, its a guiding tool to get the collective together.
Its NOT the union that does things, its the rank and file, the unity of the members.
And the fact that you dont know the rep on the floor is even worse now that he LEGALLY CANNOT enter the premisis, unless invited by management.

[Des]

Originally Posted by parawolf

This is my biggest issue with the FSU - unfortunately I don't have time to be directly involved with the Union - but I do pay my fees. Apart from the regular newsletter I don't see what they are getting me. I have had no communication since I joined apart from the newsletter which I barely read these days, and i'm just disillusioned about it all now.

Personally I wouldn't know the union rep on this floor or in this building.

That's a sad indictment of the current situation. Your the "bread and butter" for both sides of this campaign. When both have forgotten you, who wins then?

[GreenMachine]

A few highlights: (don't rev me, they're direct quotes, apart from my comments in bold):

On "prohibited content" in workplace agreements (that's an AWA or a contract that you sign with your boss)

Workplace Relations Act 2006, S356

(from the regulations):

A term of a workplace agreement is prohibited content to the extent that it deals with the following:

a) deductions from the pay or wages of an employee bound by the agreement of trade union membership subscriptions or dues (they're making it harder to be a union member)
..
c) employees bound by the agreement recieving leave to attend training (however described) provided by a trade union (union picnic days, union training, workplace meetings banned)
e) the renegotiation of a workplace agreement (this means that your current contract is prohibited from including provisions as to when, where or how your next contract is to be negotiated)
g) the rights of an official of an organisation of employers or employees to enter the premises of the employer bound by the agreement (No more site visits from your union rep)

Regulations, section 8.5 (2)

A term of a workplace agreement is prohibited content to the extent that it permits a person bound by the agreement to engage in or organise industrial action (no more industrial action over safety or other workplace issues)

Regs, section 8.5 (5)

A term of a workplace agreement is prohibited content to the extent that it confers a right or remedy in relation to the termination of employment of an employee bound by the agreement for a reason that is harsh, unjust or unreasonable (no provisions in your contract for a right of action if you're dismissed for no reason)

Yeah, quoting legislation is a dry agrument, but if you're not informed, these things will be rolled right over you. And they have. You speak of fear campaigns, 4.9 EF - damn right. If workers in this country aren't scared of what happened yesterday, they should be.

[Des]

Originally Posted by 347Stroker

And you should make it your business to find out who he is, and ask him whats going on.
A union isnt a fighting machine for employees, its a guiding tool to get the collective together.
Its NOT the union that does things, its the rank and file, the unity of the members.
And the fact that you dont know the rep on the floor is even worse now that he LEGALLY CANNOT enter the premisis, unless invited by management.

I dis-agree with you there mate. It's the Reps. role to know his workplace and therefore the workforce he represents. I was a member of a small union, we voted and merged with the CFMEU. The best outcome was the CFMEU supported us. How? By putting a face in our workplace, not just for meetings, but during lunch and after work. We knew we had our Reps. with us anytime we needed them, because they took the time to get to know us and our concerns.
They supported us, not us supporting them! As it should be....

[GreenMachine]

Originally Posted by Des

They supported us, not us supporting them! As it should be....

If you don't support your union, why should your union support you? The union isn't some office in town, mate - it's you, the member.

It's more important to be a member now than ever - Howard can legislate over the top of our rights, but he can never stop workers from organising and fighting for a better working life.

[347Stroker]

Originally Posted by Des

I dis-agree with you there mate. It's the Reps. role to know his workplace and therefore the workforce he represents. I was a member of a small union, we voted and merged with the CFMEU. The best outcome was the CFMEU supported us. How? By putting a face in our workplace, not just for meetings, but during lunch and after work. We knew we had our Reps. with us anytime we needed them, because they took the time to get to know us and our concerns.
They supported us, not us supporting them! As it should be....

If a rep comes to a workforce that does not take the time to tell him whats going on, how can he get them interested. A union is there to help, and give guidance. If no one tells him their problems, whats he supposed to do?

[muppet]

The workplace minister was just on the TV talking about the different reasons that people might be sacked and he said sometimes peoples personalitys clash. Does this mean that you can be sacked because someone doesn't like you. He also said you cant be sacked if it is not leagal . Did they not just make it leagal to sack you for no reason. Most of the workers in australia will not be able to bargan with their employer because most are not high skilled workers that cannot be easily replaced. Any one who thinks someone that shovels ИИИИИ for a liveing can go to their boss and bargan with them is liveing in dream land . I follow a simple rule when it comes to politicions. If they say yes it means no, if they say no it means yes . If politicions are suppost to work for us then when do we get to negotiate their work place agreement and get rid of their criminal super pay outs. Please do not say when we vote for them because that has nothing to do with their entitlements . these laws are just the lib's way of weekening the labor party even more by getting even more people out of the unions . Mind you the labor party seems to be doing a good job of this all by them selves.

[Des]

A union is there to support the workers, be a voice for their concerns, be supportive in their time of need, be the conduit for gathering intelligence to help the worker, and if need be, the fist to fight for the members. The easiest way to do this is to have "the few" (union officals) go to "the many" (the workforce). Then you have an easier time not just gathering but sorting and coalatting the information from the members into something coherant. Otherwise "the few" are overloaded by "the many" bombarding them with information from every direction, meaning less coherant information and less satisfied members.
Maybe this is why modern unionism is dieing.
At worksites where the union is very active and gets around to all of the members regularly, as well as the company. All benefit, the workers, the union and the company, as all walk in the same direction. When this balance shifts, one or more will loose out, guarenteed.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by GreenMachine

A few highlights: (don't rev me, they're direct quotes, apart from my comments in bold):

At the risk of entering some sort of cut and paste style battle...

Check out division 2 of part 8 of the Act. Sections 327 - 331 which define workplace agreements which are not AWAs. The Act clearly states that an employer and employee may enter into (not limited to):

Employee collective agreements (sec 327)
Union collective agreements (sec 328)

Division 3 of pt 8- bargaining agents... sec 334 and 335 state the employer or employee can appoint a bargaining agent and the other party is required to acknowledge this...

Division 7 of pt 8 subdivision a - required content... includes nominal expiry dates (addresses greenmachine's Sec 356 para e concern)... dispute settlement procedures... sec 354 protected award conditions (protected award matters and conditions... leave loading, public hols, allowances, overtime loadings etc etc )


The fact of the matter being that the rug hasnt been pulled out from underneath anyone. Yes - some australians are offered less protection and life is being made difficult for the unions - there's been no secret about that and i wouldnt hold your breath waiting for an apology...

But dont believe people when they tell you that howard has removed all of your rights. Get your union involved, appoint a bargaining agent... but FFS dont accept the ACTU's position that we're all dead in the water.

[pauljh74]

It's also been reported that 3 workers from a Melbourne cabinet making firm InstallEx were told they were "redundant", but could come back as casuals or contract workers. If they take the new deal, they lose sick leave, annual leave and public holidays and will have to use their own vehicles instead of company cars. In the end, they stand to lose $20,000 a year.

This is what the working majority are afraid of. The employer in this case is willing to keep you on despite sacking you, but for significantly less pay for the same job. Alot of businesses don't care about giving people a fair go, just making bigger profits and will exploit the laws to screw the workers. It won't necessarily matter that you do your job well, the beancounter has already made the suggestion to cut your wages to improve the bottom line without knowing what contribution you make to the company. Some employers will be fair because they are decent people, but what I find is that alot of "successful" managers and business people make it to where they are not from being nice or fair, but being ruthless by sinking the proverbial knife in one's back to progress up that corporate ladder.

As John mentioned before, bankruptcies will likely increase as people who are kicked out of their job for no valid reason will lose their homes. The so called protection workers have can easily be bypassed - if a company can't get rid of you for not working back because you have to be home to look after your kids while your partner goes to work, they'll just say there's a "personality conflict" or a company restructure and out the door you go. Consumer confidence will drop as people feel the need to keep more for a rainy day and spend less. This is in contradiction to Johnny Howard's claim these changes are needed to maintain economic growth. The wealth will just re-distribute to the rich even more with this system. We can't compete with China and 3rd world countries where the tax systems, regulations (such as workplace safety) and labour costs are lower. It's not just the price of labour that drives business offshore. Australian companies (*cough* Telstra *cough*) are throwing their cash overseas - the Indian call centre workers are a perfect example.

If you work in an industry where demand for workers is high - good for you. For many, they are in the firing line for pay cuts or even job losses - even if they do a decent job.

[AC/DC]

I think the new laws are a good idea and will work for both sides, the employer and the employee.

Dont forget that small business previously was too scared to employ someone extra because if they couldnt afford it in the long run, then they could not get rid of that person.

Jobs will go up. The unemployment will fall.

People on the un-employment line will accept more casual and part time positions.

I know, because at my office, I have got a drawer full of resume's from people wanting ANYTHING.. ( Electrical Retail )

AC/DC

( unions are a joke, and will disappear in 10 years )

[070mstg]

Originally Posted by AC/DC

I think the new laws are a good idea and will work for both sides, the employer and the employee.


Jobs will go up. The unemployment will fall.

People on the un-employment line will accept more casual and part time positions.

I know, because at my office, I have got a drawer full of resume's from people wanting ANYTHING.. ( Electrical Retail )

AC/DC

( unions are a joke, and will disappear in 10 years )

wow, you state that all as FACT,you must know if you,e got a drawer full of resumes, wanna be treasurer? sorry if this sounds like a personal attack, but a drawer full of resumes could simply be covered by last years school leavers.

i believe strongly in the IDEA of unions,and there are some good ones, and personally i beleive all their good work is ruined by militant unions like the CFMEU with their old school bully/thug approach. calling it a 'war' etc.

sorry havent read all the thread yet,but be wary of a guy that said(excuse the wording,from memory,or if its been covered)

remember this GEM!

THERE WILL NEVER,EVER BE A GST.THAT IDEA IS DEAD IN THE WATER.THE VOTERS KILLED THAT IN THE (LAST) ELECTION.

(the honerable?) john howard,man of his word...

[GreenMachine]

It's interesting - This is obviously a very personal, ideological issue. You guys all know my viewpoint, and it's no secret that I work for a trade union. Although my job is secure after this legislation, I'm affected in a different way.

This legislation is an attack on what I do for a living. Agree with it or disagree, but that's the way it is.

All of us face risks under the new laws - even for doing bread and butter union work.

It will be illegal to ask for workers to be protected against unfair dismissal when negotiating an agreement - and there's a $33,000 fine just for asking.

And there will be a $33,000 fine for asking for union involvement in a disputes settlement procedure.
A $33,000 fine for asking for the right for people to attend union education courses.
A $33,000 fine for asking to protect jobs against contracting out.
A $33,000 fine for asking for a commitment to collectively bargain.
And a $33,000 fine for asking for anything else the Government might like to ban.

These are scandalous abuses of democratic rights.

AFF probably isn't an appropriate forum for this discussion, so I'll stop arguing.

[pauljh74]

Originally Posted by AC/DC

I think the new laws are a good idea and will work for both sides, the employer and the employee.

Dont forget that small business previously was too scared to employ someone extra because if they couldnt afford it in the long run, then they could not get rid of that person.

Jobs will go up. The unemployment will fall.

People on the un-employment line will accept more casual and part time positions.

I know, because at my office, I have got a drawer full of resume's from people wanting ANYTHING.. ( Electrical Retail )

AC/DC

( unions are a joke, and will disappear in 10 years )

You will end up with more people under employed - taking part-time and casual positions which aren't enough, compared to their previous full-time work so they won't show up in unemployment figures. Effectively unemployment won't change - just on paper. The under employed aren't earning enough money, yet aren't eligible for government assistance. The turnover of jobs will be higher, meaning the figures for long term unemployed may drop, but many more will now face unemployment - maybe a few months here and there. This will place much more stress on many workers - especially those burdened by debt like a mortgage.

Your comment that those unemployed now will accept more part-time and casual positions - like they haven't been doing so at an increasing rate for the past 10 years or more? You said yourself, that you have a drawer full of resumes from people wanting anything.

[flappist]

I used to be in a union, the ETU. I used to work for what is now known as ERGON Energy based in Maryborough. We were the laziest bludging bastards you have ever seen. I got into lots of trouble for doing too much work (I was ruining budgets apparently).
Before any industrial action all the documentation was studied (tide times, weather etc). We always knocked off 10 minutes before the hooter to clean up even if we were already clean.
We had employees there who would not work, almost always turned up hung over and would just stuff things up for the fun of it.
We used to have one driver who did not like stop signs so would drive 10 km out of the way to avoid them.
We used to hide when the engineers were about.

Then Joh sorted it out. Now ERGON is an efficient productive operation.
I learned a good lesson in life.

I run a SME (9-14 staff) and have done so for 21 years. My staff are all paid way over the award and have vehicles provided.
The biggest problem I have is finding good people. As I am in IT I get many many resumes from computer gurus who have degrees in resume writing and as they wrote them on a computer (actually copied them from the net and modded them) they are experts.
I have had a couple of parasites over the years, one was stealling components and build systems for his mates, the other was hopeless and just hid all day and played computer games.
Both ended in unfair dismissal fights (which they lost) but they cost me money and time and upset moral.
Because of this I have been very cautious in employing new people. This has been unfair to many prople who really do want to work and be fair dinkum.
I have to make a decission based on a resume and a 5 minute interview.
Many have not got a start because I was not 100% sure and if they did turn out to be dropkicks I am stuck with them.

Under the new system I am now free to give people a go. If they are up to it they have a job for a long as they want (I have people with 20 years service here), if they are not up to it then no harm, no foul, they should try something else.

21 years ago I bet everything I had on a 2 man band IT company. Over the years I have had many employees and have only evey sacked 3. I often get visits from previous employees when they are in town telling me about what they are up to now.
I am VERY in favour of the work place reforms because I personally believe that if you don't want to work then we should not have to carry you.

P.S. When I was an apprentice there was one person in my year "the spook" who was the world champion expert in being somewhere else when work had to be done. I ran into him a few years ago, he is now a union rep.

[Des]

Originally Posted by GreenMachine

It will be illegal to ask for workers to be protected against unfair dismissal when negotiating an agreement - and there's a $33,000 fine just for asking.

And there will be a $33,000 fine for asking for union involvement in a disputes settlement procedure.
A $33,000 fine for asking for the right for people to attend union education courses.
A $33,000 fine for asking to protect jobs against contracting out.
A $33,000 fine for asking for a commitment to collectively bargain.
And a $33,000 fine for asking for anything else the Government might like to ban.

I agree with you here. All of the above must be worded into all agreements, whether it be a special clause or sub-clause, or to just show the relevent Laws/Acts that cover these areas.
As per alot of current awards/agreements that quote relevent legislation on certain points, e.g. anti-discrimination laws or mandated entitlements, so should all agreements moving forward. If there is a negotiated clause covering the above or whether just the standard legislation covers them, the employee as the right to know, and this (I believe) must be part of all agreements.

[Sourbastard]

I think the system we had was fine. It seemed fair in that it mostly protected employers from frivalous union actions through the Industrial Relations Tribunal, and the employees were mostly protected from being exploited/endangered through the same body and legislation.

Small employers already had the ability to hire casuals or contractors at whatever rates/benefits they wanted if they did not want to deal with a union or the implied rights of a full time employee, so I cant see where this "Scared to take on new employees" crap is from. Ive been a contractor for years, never a day of paid sick leave, never a PDO, never a day of paid annual leave, no redundancy payments. Complain about losing your benefits? Buddy, they have been gone for a long time for alot of us.

Will this new legislation benefit anyone? Well, so far every other piece of legislation thats been written only benefits the government, so chances are they will be the only winners, as usual.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Des

A union is there to support the workers, be a voice for their concerns, be supportive in their time of need, be the conduit for gathering intelligence to help the worker, and if need be, the fist to fight for the members. The easiest way to do this is to have "the few" (union officals) go to "the many" (the workforce). Then you have an easier time not just gathering but sorting and coalatting the information from the members into something coherant. Otherwise "the few" are overloaded by "the many" bombarding them with information from every direction, meaning less coherant information and less satisfied members.
Maybe this is why modern unionism is dieing.
At worksites where the union is very active and gets around to all of the members regularly, as well as the company. All benefit, the workers, the union and the company, as all walk in the same direction. When this balance shifts, one or more will loose out, guarenteed.

not quite right there des . a union cannot instruct (by law ) any worker to take any action whatsoever . if they do they face being sued . and every member along with them . believe it or not the is the 2nd wave of industrial regulation the govt really has every employee and union over a barrel. now they have changed the laws unfairly making it impossible for you or any union to have rights. forcing a hand that will need illigal action collectively to overturn the situation . many will fall. only civil action will force thier hand as has been done in the past . but people dont know thier rights anymore and dont stand up anymore . its a f u jack i'm ok situation as many here have already stated.
i do think that lots of people rorted the unfair dismissal laws . it happens . just as it will happen with employers now but it wont be employers who suffer it will be employees . the big business always wins . small business owners are only going to serve big business interests. small business are going to be wioped out by big business competition . this is where the dissikllusionment is feeding strong . give with one hand than take away. (on a mass scale ) elitists never lose .untill the masses take action . not with votes but with profit losses.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by flappist

I used to be in a union, the ETU. I used to work for what is now known as ERGON Energy based in Maryborough. We were the laziest bludging bastards you have ever seen. I got into lots of trouble for doing too much work (I was ruining budgets apparently).
Before any industrial action all the documentation was studied (tide times, weather etc). We always knocked off 10 minutes before the hooter to clean up even if we were already clean.
We had employees there who would not work, almost always turned up hung over and would just stuff things up for the fun of it.
We used to have one driver who did not like stop signs so would drive 10 km out of the way to avoid them.
We used to hide when the engineers were about.

Then Joh sorted it out. Now ERGON is an efficient productive operation.
I learned a good lesson in life.

I run a SME (9-14 staff) and have done so for 21 years. My staff are all paid way over the award and have vehicles provided.
The biggest problem I have is finding good people. As I am in IT I get many many resumes from computer gurus who have degrees in resume writing and as they wrote them on a computer (actually copied them from the net and modded them) they are experts.
I have had a couple of parasites over the years, one was stealling components and build systems for his mates, the other was hopeless and just hid all day and played computer games.
Both ended in unfair dismissal fights (which they lost) but they cost me money and time and upset moral.
Because of this I have been very cautious in employing new people. This has been unfair to many prople who really do want to work and be fair dinkum.
I have to make a decission based on a resume and a 5 minute interview.
Many have not got a start because I was not 100% sure and if they did turn out to be dropkicks I am stuck with them.

Under the new system I am now free to give people a go. If they are up to it they have a job for a long as they want (I have people with 20 years service here), if they are not up to it then no harm, no foul, they should try something else.

21 years ago I bet everything I had on a 2 man band IT company. Over the years I have had many employees and have only evey sacked 3. I often get visits from previous employees when they are in town telling me about what they are up to now.
I am VERY in favour of the work place reforms because I personally believe that if you don't want to work then we should not have to carry you.

P.S. When I was an apprentice there was one person in my year "the spook" who was the world champion expert in being somewhere else when work had to be done. I ran into him a few years ago, he is now a union rep.

for you the new changes are probably benificial for your company and your employees but what about your competition . big business can annialate small business . i feel for people like you the most because you will be forced to compete with them . they control rents etc etc for businesses . look at a successfull hairdresser for example they look after their employees and woolwoths could start giving haircuts at cost prices and at the same time be able to absorb a 40% increase in rents . employ overseas guests for bare minimum . forcing your hand . big business is all about maximum profits for minimal outlay . and thats what these laws are about . they are dusguised. but they have made everything illegal for the rights of everyone employed and will force the hand of employers .

[brenx]

Originally Posted by nathen

guys im in a gov job and they are not as safe as people may think

I hve a gov't job and they are far from safe. Guy's don't think getting a gov't job will make you any safe. It'll actually make it less safe. Gov't jobs are very insecure.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

I think the system we had was fine. It seemed fair in that it mostly protected employers from frivalous union actions through the Industrial Relations Tribunal, and the employees were mostly protected from being exploited/endangered through the same body and legislation.

Small employers already had the ability to hire casuals or contractors at whatever rates/benefits they wanted if they did not want to deal with a union or the implied rights of a full time employee, so I cant see where this "Scared to take on new employees" crap is from. Ive been a contractor for years, never a day of paid sick leave, never a PDO, never a day of paid annual leave, no redundancy payments. Complain about losing your benefits? Buddy, they have been gone for a long time for alot of us.

Will this new legislation benefit anyone? Well, so far every other piece of legislation thats been written only benefits the government, so chances are they will be the only winners, as usual.

Ok, fair comment, this is my view.

I do not hire casual or contract staff ever as I want continuity of staff.
Everyone is permenant full time with 4 weeks holiday etc....
I believe everyone has a life outside work and it is important that they are not afraid of losing their jobs due to outside events affecting them or their families.
Families are far more important than work so if there is a reason why a staff member needs to be elsewhere, e.g. sick child etc., then that is far more important than work but it is also nice that if a job needs to be finished then they stay back and do it rather than clock watch.
I trust my people absolutely (which is why I git robbed, but that was a one off) and they have full access to everything.
I believe in quid quo pro, if I look after my people they will look after me. I help them whenever possible.

The previous system allowed unscupulous people to take advantage, now that advantage has been negated to a certain extent. For me this is good.
For others it is not.
There will be an election soon, if the people do not want it then they can vote the other side in and maybe they will change it but then maybe they will not.

The one point that seems to be missed here.

If everyone is sacked or reduced to peasant status then no one will be buying anything and all the big end of town will hurt.
Where will all the money for the dole come from? Not speed cameras because no one will drive......

Rather than scream & yell why don't we all just sit back and watch for a while. Maybe this will be a good thing for the whole country.

Of course there will always be some people who will be against it for no reason other than their personal dogma and will have a million reasons why they are right.
The "Harold Scroobys" of the world are not just confined to motor transport......

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by brenx

I hve a gov't job and they are far from safe. Guy's don't think getting a gov't job will make you any safe. It'll actually make it less safe. Gov't jobs are very insecure.

true also most executive jobs are unsafe . but well compensated.

[brenx]

I'm nowhere near exec level. Never want to be. They get paid peanuts for what they do. I get paid $50-$250 less per fortnight. The extra stress is worth so much more ;)

[SB076]

Originally Posted by flappist

I believe in quid quo pro, if I look after my people they will look after me. I help them whenever possible.

I agree with this, you look after people they look after you, governments and unions should stay out unless absolutely necessary. Nett result bad employees and employers are forced to lift there game. If an employer provides poor conditions for employees then the good employees will move on and that organisation will suffer.

[Eithor]

Well i just told my boss to stick it up his bumb.. i asked for a saturday off 4 weeks ago got it.. then today important apointment come up with the bank before settlement for my house and he thinks i'm asking too much... HAHA.. so i hanged up on him go back to work..

He comes down and goes why did i hang up on him. i say dude u think i ask too much when i just did 6 weeks in a row doing 6 day weeks (i'm only spose to do 5 days ).. and u think i'm asking too much.. well he goes ok u can have it off.. i'm like GOOD cause i gonna put my 2 weeks notice in cause i just got phone call saying i just got a job doing forklifting for the government Whoot.. so me is happy chappy atm =D

[Outbackjack]

Just been reading about the predicted in flux of workers from China, Korea, Thailand etc.... I wonder if the Goverment makes it a condition of their work visa that they do not join a union??? Just a thought, has any one got any firm info on this????

The only bright side of this "I hope" is that this will spell the end of Jack boot Johny and his kronies. That is, if the ALP can stop ИИИИИing at each other and get organised..... But I guess that Johny is busy organising another Tampa or kids over board affair..... Geeeez I hope the majority of Australian see through him this time.

[Des]

Originally Posted by Eithor

Well i just told my boss to stick it up his bumb.. i asked for a saturday off 4 weeks ago got it.. then today important apointment come up with the bank before settlement for my house and he thinks i'm asking too much... HAHA.. so i hanged up on him go back to work..

He comes down and goes why did i hang up on him. i say dude u think i ask too much when i just did 6 weeks in a row doing 6 day weeks (i'm only spose to do 5 days ).. and u think i'm asking too much.. well he goes ok u can have it off.. i'm like GOOD cause i gonna put my 2 weeks notice in cause i just got phone call saying i just got a job doing forklifting for the government Whoot.. so me is happy chappy atm =D

Never leave on bad terms, it bite you in the @rse one day....

[Bluefreak]

Originally Posted by 347Stroker

I am with you brother....

I wonder just hom many on here realise what the worker, and collective unionism has really done for them in the past....and I bet if they did there would be many more financial members.

I'm an AWU member, they have done nothing but bend over and meet the demands of my employer... Under their watchful eye, our conditions have slowly been erroded, we lost OT, public hols, first aider pay and a host of other things... Boy am I payed up and proud...
:

[Des]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

Just been reading about the predicted in flux of workers from China, Korea, Thailand etc.... I wonder if the Goverment makes it a condition of their work visa that they do not join a union??? Just a thought, has any one got any firm info on this????

The only bright side of this "I hope" is that this will spell the end of Jack boot Johny and his kronies. That is, if the ALP can stop ИИИИИing at each other and get organised..... But I guess that Johny is busy organising another Tampa or kids over board affair..... Geeeez I hope the majority of Australian see through him this time.

That's a big "if"....There's no difference between either party for most voters anymore. Most people now vote by who the leader is, (I've asked around everytime an election comes up, "Don't tell me who, but why did you vote for "X" party?"). Labour have not had a popular leader in a long time, so it's either Johnny or some clown who doesn't appear to be able to run a choko vine over an outhouse....