SA Footy

It was mentioned on 5AA that the first thing that the incoming government wishes to do is to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the second being that all AWA agreements are to be scrapped.

If that happens and all AWA agreements are scrapped, does that mean that anyone who has had their hourly wage increased will have their wage reduced to the previous amount prior to bargaining?

Arent the existing AWA's going to stay until 2010?

What was stated was that they are to be scrapped as the second action of the incoming government after Kyoto.

Existing AWA's will remain until the term finishes, as far as I know.

The legislation will only be to stop new AWA's at this time.

Sojourner wrote:What was stated was that they are to be scrapped as the second action of the incoming government after Kyoto.

That may be that new ones aren't made, i've heard on a number of occasions existing ones will run their course. I stand corrected however.

If existing AWA's are left to run their course, that is hardly rolling back WorkChoices then is it?

Considering all the commercials on the radio of people getting a rough deal because of an AWA, why would they be left in that situation?

Sojourner wrote:Considering all the commercials on the radio of people getting a rough deal because of an AWA, why would they be left in that situation?

Because it was a bit of a beat up / fear campaign. And it was the Union movement advertising not the ALP's. If anything, Rudd distanced himself from the Unions.

The ALP had to compromise on the Union ideology or the business community would have turned on them. Scrapping AWAs straight away would have caused Administrative chaos for business. Gillard announced that ages go.

I have said it before, the Rudd Govt is in self-titled terms 'modernist' - ie, not too dissimilar from the Liberals ... don't expect a radical, left-wing govt here

hondo71 wrote:

Sojourner wrote:Considering all the commercials on the radio of people getting a rough deal because of an AWA, why would they be left in that situation?

Because it was a bit of a beat up / fear campaign. And it was the Union movement advertising not the ALP's. If anything, Rudd distanced himself from the Unions.

The ALP had to compromise on the Union ideology or the business community would have turned on them. Scrapping AWAs straight away would have caused Administrative chaos for business. Gillard announced that ages go.

I have said it before, the Rudd Govt is in self-titled terms 'modernist' - ie, not too dissimilar from the Liberals ... don't expect a radical, left-wing govt here

No, they'd have to get rid of Rudd first........

Sojourner wrote:If that happens and all AWA agreements are scrapped, does that mean that anyone who has had their hourly wage increased will have their wage reduced to the previous amount prior to bargaining?

You can't go back once you've signed an AWA

They would either go to individual contracts or the ALP have their own collective bargaining system but I can't remember the exact details. But which employee would agree to having their pay dropped?

That's why existing AWAs are running their course

there is one company that a mate works for, who have scrapped everyones AWA's and put them on the award rate

I thought AWA's run for 3yrs, so what if you signed one 2yrs ago, it should run out sometime next year then what......

Basically what the conservative side of politics has to suck up and deal with is that our scare campaign was better than yours for once. And we didn't even have to mention 'Sudan".

LMAO.

First comment - I am not a Liberal man BTW

Second comment - how good a job did Labor do with WorkChoices in the campaign

They are actually keeping big chunks of Workchoices and the phasing out of AWA's was partly a symbolic/emblematic gesture to capture votes

I wonder how many voters actually read the ALP's policies on workplace relations

HONDO

you ask the question about how many voters actually read the ALP's policy on work choices, but i would go further, does anybody really read any and every policy that is put up from any party

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:HONDO

you ask the question about how many voters actually read the ALP's policy on work choices, but i would go further, does anybody really read any and every policy that is put up from any party

True - most of us just go on the media grabs

I haven't read their industrial relations policy either to be honest but I have read some articles and heard Gillard speak on it. So its interesting to read voter's perceptions about the ALP's policy v what is actually going to be happening. Clever campaigning and full marks to the ALP for pulling it off.

I have just been given a handout of Labor / ACTU's "award safety net" that they hope to pass through senate to replace the Howard Governments IR rules. Reading it, I think it is a fair policy for both parties- employee/employer including small business owners.
see http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/campaigns/getthefacts to download policy, its in pdf format.

Yes, I think its a better IR system too

Only point I was making was that it isn't a case of throwing out WorkChoices and going back to what it was before even tho it seems that's what a lot of voters thought

As someone going through an EBA at the moment i wish for a fairer and easier system .Just as an example the company wanted all RDO's scrapped.And in their place full time employees would be allowed to finish work 23 minutes early everyday .But just remember team leaders come around 5 minutes before the end of shifts and ask will you work back please?
The only thing that got this thrown out of the talks was team leaders telling bosses that people taking sick leave would increase!! Sick Leave employees have no idea that they have or do not have.Company policy is not to tell employees if they have any sick leave .

Please an easier system for all us workers and employers.

Face facts- some people were better off, some worse off under Work Choices Legislation.

I would suggest that the majority of those worse off, were the dead wood of society- the one you & your colleagues wonder how someone so incompetent can keep their job?

Punk Rooster wrote:Face facts- some people were better off, some worse off under Work Choices Legislation.

I would suggest that the majority of those worse off, were the dead wood of society- the one you & your colleagues wonder how someone so incompetent can keep their job?

FFS! You are kidding aren't you??? If that is the case a lot of "deadwood" managed to get enough brains together to vote against the bastards who introduced it.

Punk Rooster wrote:Face facts- some people were better off, some worse off under Work Choices Legislation.

I would suggest that the majority of those worse off, were the dead wood of society- the one you & your colleagues wonder how someone so incompetent can keep their job?

Objectivity and credibility of myself questioned in another thread then I read this tripe The dead wood of society?