Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

[Squawk]

tony abbott will be pissed at the reason for the public holiday on monday (Labour day) ...yes i know whats its for and its spelt different before anyone says anything, but im sure tony will love to call it LNP day or something

Labour Day here in SA is on October 1.

Do we really need a public holiday to celebrate the 8 hour day? (Or the Queen's birthday, Easter Saturday or Adelaide Cup Day?). We don't have a public holiday for Rememberance Day, for example.

South Australia 2012Mon, 02 Jan 2012 New Year's Day
Thu, 26 Jan 2012 Australia Day
Mon, 12 Mar 2012 Adelaide Cup
Fri, 06 Apr 2012 Good Friday Sat, 07 Apr 2012 Easter Saturday Mon, 09 Apr 2012 Easter Monday
Wed, 25 Apr 2012 Anzac Day
Mon, 11 Jun 2012 Queen’s Birthday Mon, 11 Jun 2012 Volunteer's Day
Mon, 01 Oct 2012 Labour Day
Tue, 25 Dec 2012 Christmas Day
Wed, 26 Dec 2012 Proclamation Day

im in Queensland mate, Labour day public holiday is monday next week here 7/5/12

and you odviously dont work part/full time as it seems your complaining about public holidays as if someone who works full time/part time and complains about being allowed to sit at home or have a day off and get FULL pay then something must be wrong. Why complain about having a day off and being paid for it without using annual leave or sick pay???

the fact is, we should have all these public holidays and also as you say, have public holidays for remeberance day etc. the more the better

Wow Bully - you must have been having a bad day!
I gathered you weren't in SA - you actually spooked me as I suddenly wondered if I didn't have to go to work, so I looked it up! Then I remembered our May public holiday for Adelaide Cup, was moved to March.

As for public holidays - i wasn't questioning the number of them, but querying the reasons for each of them. Eg I'd keep Volunteer's Day but retire the Queen's Birthday. I'd have Rememberance Day over Easter Saturday.

Thanks for the messages though - next time I need to know something about myself, it seems I only need to ask you!

Quote - "you odviously dont work part/full time as it seems your complaining about public holidays as if someone who works full time/part time and complains about being allowed to sit at home or have a day off and get FULL pay then something must be wrong. Why complain about having a day off and being paid for it without using annual leave or sick pay???"

Classic stuff

[Bully]

think your taking it the wrong way , no one can type the way they mean it.

To me it was you seemed you were complaining about the amount of P Holidays and we shouldnt have so many, only people that do that are part time or casusal workers as they dont get paid for it

[Jimmy_041]

Not correct Bully - some people actually work on public holidays or do extra hours on the other days to keep up with our workload

[Bully]

jim, i know SOME people do work on Public holidays.....but the majority of people dont.

i as normal just worded it wrong for everyone to understand

[Jimmy_041]

Meaning: without getting extra pay (ie) not casual or part time
I pretty much always work the June holiday because its my busiest time of the year

[Sky Pilot]

...and this has what relevance to Tony Abbott?

[mighty_tiger_79]

...and this has what relevance to Tony Abbott?

because Tony will roll back in workchoices and no public holiday or penalty rates

[Psyber]

...and this has what relevance to Tony Abbott?

because Tony will roll back in workchoices and no public holiday or penalty rates

When has he said that? I doubt it would be on the agenda at all unless their were full control of both houses.
And there are a lot of Liberals who were not all that taken with it's excessive application in the first place..
I think it went with John Howard.

[Sojourner]

One way to actually stimulate the economy could be to provide further Public Holidays and allow Retail to trade on them. How much extra would Harvey Normans do on a Public Holiday Friday or Monday as opposed to a regular Friday or Monday? How many other businesses would be in the same boat? How would the various Tourist operators do? - probably quite a lot better!

[Jimmy_041]

...and this has what relevance to Tony Abbott?

because Tony will roll back in workchoices and no public holiday or penalty rates

When has he said that? I doubt it would be on the agenda at all unless their were full control of both houses.
And there are a lot of Liberals who were not all that taken with it's excessive application in the first place..
I think it went with John Howard.

Ah, they love rolling that one out when there's nothing else

[Q.]

Well, it will be interesting to see what worker rights they decide to strip from us this time around. The Power Elite influence runs deep at the LNP.

[GWW]

I can't see Abbott not trying to change the IR laws, although I'm not saying necessarily that he will do it to the extent as was done when Howard was PM.

If its the one sided rout as expected, then Abbott will surely see that as a mandate to make changes in a lot of areas.

[Q.]

Penalty rates will probably be abolished.

[Grahaml]

Lol. Love some of the comments here. The old chestnut that the Liberals will bring back workchoices is hilarious. Do any of you actually understand what that legislation was about? Do any of you realise that not all of it was undone by Rudd? The Liberals won't touch any of the controversial stuff because they know it'll lose the next election for them, no matter how well they win the current one.

Secondly, they never abolished anything. They just allowed workers to negotiate variations. Employers couldn't force workers to sign away those entitlements either. No doubt some people got taken advantage of and despite trying to educate the masses the Labor party's effective campaign of trying to make everyone think they had no choice worked. I dare say most people who got dudded actually did so after Beazley told them as much to win their votes. The reality is, as anyone of reasonable intelligence knows, that the laws were in fact an attempt to further lower the unemployment rate. They wanted to create more jobs for people who didn't have one and were considered "unemplyable". Shame on them for trying to help people! Whether the laws were good or not is another question, but the intention wasn't to try to hurt people as some sort of sick social experiment.

Thirdly, of course Tony Abbott will change laws and change how the government runs. That's what we'd be voting him in to do! Unless what you really want is a better salesman, but I'd personally just like the person who will run this country the best. If I buy a car, I don't look for the best saleman, I look for the best car. When I vote for a politician, I want the person who makes the best legislation and runs government departments most effectively. That is, after all, their real job. The whole media management side is because for some reason we thought it would be good to use the least qualified and most poorly informed group to appoint the most important job in the country!

[Q.]

So who is responsible for the average Australian household being $23 a day better off than it was five years ago? Who is responsible for the lowest unemployment rates this decade?

I'd like to know, maybe I'll vote for them

[Jimmy_041]

So who is responsible for the average Australian household being $23 a day better off than it was five years ago? Who is responsible for the lowest unemployment rates this decade?

I'd like to know, maybe I'll vote for them

Quick - MODS!!!!!!!!!!!

R&B has hacked into Quichey's account

[Q.]

[southee]

So who is responsible for the average Australian household being $23 a day better off than it was five years ago? Who is responsible for the lowest unemployment rates this decade?

I'd like to know, maybe I'll vote for them

Quick - MODS!!!!!!!!!!!

R&B has hacked into Quichey's account

[Q.]

Secondly, they never abolished anything. They just allowed workers to negotiate variations. Employers couldn't force workers to sign away those entitlements either. No doubt some people got taken advantage of and despite trying to educate the masses the Labor party's effective campaign of trying to make everyone think they had no choice worked. I dare say most people who got dudded actually did so after Beazley told them as much to win their votes. The reality is, as anyone of reasonable intelligence knows, that the laws were in fact an attempt to further lower the unemployment rate. They wanted to create more jobs for people who didn't have one and were considered "unemplyable". Shame on them for trying to help people! Whether the laws were good or not is another question, but the intention wasn't to try to hurt people as some sort of sick social experiment.

In the two years that WorkChoices was in effect, labour productivity declined to it's lowest levels in over a decade.

Lowering wages and worsening working conditions is not the solution to creating more jobs.

[Leaping Lindner]

I'm curious. If Tony Abbott wants us to start learning an Asian language in school why was he part of a government that abolished all funding for Asian language education for schools in 2002?