Rudd clarifies the IR policy …
Industrial relations - - Posted on August, 28 at 9:32 pm by Ken L
Kevin Rudd announced Labor’s new, improved IR policy today. It allowed John Howard to issue a media release headed ‘Labor’s IR Policy - By the Union Bosses for the Union Bosses’ and proceed to mention ‘union bosses’ eight times in 14 lines. It also provided the space for Rudd and Julia Gillard to use the words ‘fair’ and ‘flexible’ over and over; their statement was a lot longer than Howard’s and I was stuffed if I could be bothered counting.
What else? Oh yes, the policy has been roundly criticised by both union bosses and employers, so Labor can run the old “If we’re being criticised by both sides it means we’ve got the policy right” line. Of course it could also mean it’s a dog of a policy but they probably won’t mention that interpretation.
So what earth-shattering changes will a Rudd Government make to your employment conditions? Well if you earn more than $100,000 a year the short answer is ‘none’, except that you might have to fill in some more bloody forms. But if you’re in that salary bracket you can just get your secretary to attend to that for you.
Assuming you’re on a more modest income, here’s what you can look forward to:
- flexibility
- fairness
Oh wait, there’s a bit more stuff later on.
The overwhelming message from our consultations is clear:
* Fairness: Australians want to get the balance right between fairness and flexibility. Australians believe a strong safety net should exist for those who need it or may need it in the future.
* Flexibility: a modern Australian economy requires a flexible industrial relations system that boosts productivity and drives economic growth. A safety net should be strongest for those who need it most but it should not preclude flexibility for those who are doing well.
Sorry, that wasn’t really new at all. Hang on, here’s the next bit. The first two subheadings are *drumroll* ‘Fairness‘ and ‘Flexibility‘.
Are you beginning to grasp the policy yet? Anyway there’s another subheading … ‘Certainty and Stability’. Thank god, at last. Certainty like this:
Employees earning less than $100,000 per annum will also have flexibility through awards to bargain with their employer - but a strong safety net will always exist to protect them.
I seeee … ummm doesn’t that sound pretty much like an AWA under the Howard fairness test, or am I missing something?
How about the aspects of WorkChoices that transferred so much power to the bosses … bosses’ bosses that is, not union bosses?
- Howard’s restrictions on the right to strike will be … retained by a Rudd Labor Government
- Howard’s elimination of the right of union officials to enter a workplace without the permission of the employer will be … retained by a Rudd Labor Government
- prohibition of secondary boycotts under the Trade Practices Act will be … retained by a Rudd Labor Government
- Howard’s ban on pattern bargaining will be … retained by a Rudd Labor Government
- Howard’s love of all things small business will be … retained by a Rudd Labor Government, which will introduce special IR rules to guarantee small business (yes you guessed it) fairness and flexibility. In the interests of certainty and stability, details will be announced some other time.
And here’s the really really good news: protection against unfair dismissal will be reinstated for employers of 16 to 100 employees!!!! Aren’t you excited? Never say that Labor isn’t the workers’ friend.
Rumour has it that when a gathering of union bosses at Trades Hall read the announcement they said “You’ve got to be fucking joking.” Kevin Rudd has demanded that they be expelled from the Party.
Posted in Industrial relations |
August 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
The “union bosses” refrain is getting really quite old. At least we’ll see collective bargaining come back in.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Are you sure it was Rudd doing the announcing and not Howard wearing a rubber mask?
If I didn’t hate Howard and his bullies so much, I don’t think I would able to give the ALP my second preference.
Australia is not a democracy at the moment: we really are just going to decide on Howard or Rudd not the Liberal Party or the ALP and you know what? There really is very little differentiating them.
The ALP is as much a progessive party as the Pope is a Muslim.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
The closer they get to the Treasury benches the more they are mugged by the reality of high office eh? Talk’s cheap in opposition.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Its pretty obvious that labour has realised theres 40% of ppl who are going to vote for labour over howard no matter, for whatever reason. So labour is trying to get the other 15% they need to get onside to win the election.
Anyway, rudd can just call it all non-core promises and let the unions run the country.
How come everything the unions do or think is wrong yet business councils are full of altruistic monks?
August 28th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
What can you say, I’m sure Howard has his hand up Rudd’s back. Labor the working mans friend? Not with this prick in charge.
At least at 70 now I don’t have to waste my time going to the polling booth.
P**sed off ain’t the word
Robbo
August 29th, 2007 at 12:14 am
depressing
August 29th, 2007 at 12:55 am
It appears the ALP is determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Whoa! Back off there Ken! It’s a pretty dense post and, well, quite frankly, I’m pissed. But I think some of what you’ve quoted was in fact introduced/retained by the Hawke/Keating government (Pattern bargaining is an old wheeze. Same with secondary boycotts.) Small business? Don’t frighten the horses.
Look, the unions are just going to have to chow down on a few things. If nothing else collective bargaining rights for the 50% of the workforce who want them has to be better than the current steaming pile of shit that infects people who never voted for it in the first place.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Presumably Surfdomites wouldn’t have too much problems with Labor ditching Award protections for workers on incomes of $100k or more. If that’s so why pick such a high figure? Wouldn’t it be more equitable to pick a threshold annual income that reflects average weekly earnings around $60k pa? (actually its just under $59k for all full-time employees)After all, why would you want to allow workers on above average earnings to collude collectively on price against those below the average? Any thoughts?
August 29th, 2007 at 3:57 am
Whoa obs - where do you get this $59k as the average per annum earnings of an Aussie worker in full-time employment? And in South Australia to boot. Even a degreed registered level one nurse on day duty doesn’t receive that sort of wage, nor a first class constable, state school teacher, firie, postie, or interstate truck driver working a 60 hour week, for that matter. A full-time employed Enrolled Nurse gets around $35,000 per annum, similarly a factory worker, or senior shop assistant. Clerks and mechanics wouldn’t be paid any better. And you’d have to be a fairly senior warrant officer in the armed forces to get around $59k - unless you were on active service in a war-zone.
Don’t be fooled by this $1,100 per week ‘median’ (middle) wage that the average Australian is supposed to be paid, that sum includes the salaries of our top CEO’s, such as Macquarie Bank’s Alan Moss’s $33 million per annum. It’s the ‘modal’ average wage that gives us a far better picture of what the typical Australian worker is likely to receive.
BTW, I guess Rudd’s rationale for a person receiving the very high income of $100,000 per annum not requiring award protection (a very small % of Australians receive that amount) is predicated on the thought that they can well take care of themselves in negotiating with their employer without an umpire if they so choose.
As I said some while ago, Rudd is a fully paid up economic rationalist - and proud of it. This is nothing new, this has been his mantra for years - research his writings. His thoughts on welfare to work is similar to Howard’s, Clinton and Tony Blair. Mutual Obligation and Breaching for failing to comply will not change under his stewardship. His ‘I’m with him’, where many of Howard’s recent policy proposals are concerned, are just as likely to be because he actually is, than he doesn’t wish to be wedged, though that is a factor in his thinking, and an election to win strategy. Kevin Rudd is fiscally cautious and very much a social conservative - just look at his long time voting pattern in Hansard if there is any doubt. Indeed, if PM, it’s my guess, he will be far less likely to splash large sums of largesse around in order to purchase votes.
So, why will I vote for him at the next election? Well, as a retired adult educator and registered nurse, I am so relieved at long last we have a potential leader that actually believes in publically funding the education (pre-school to tertiary) and skills training of our young people - including the almost 70% of Australian children that don’t go to private school - and in second chance education and training of mature workers. He also believes in universal health care that is state of the art, which includes access to quality dental care for the many. Further, he believes that any nation that has a thought for sustained future proofing, it must invest in research and development, as well as its people, and this includes caring for their environment. And he is less likely to undertake costly/ill thought out adventures in foreign policy just because he wants to go one better than his dad and grandad, or strut his stuff one step behind a US President - not that he was immune to being wined and dined by Murdoch, even via a minion, or being chatted up by a Burke in WA. But both those episodes have been lessons well learned, I fully suspect.
No he’s not everything I could wish in a Labor leader, but I would vote in a drover’s dog to get rid of Howard and Co. To me their mendacious behaviour over the last eleven years is absolutely beyond the pale. Rudd is a cautious, generally calculating, conservative bloke, but streets ahead of Howard in morality, truthfulness and forward thinking I contend.
Yeah, yeah, I know about the strip club outing in New York. Can you imagine his face when his unused to alcohol fugged brain realised that the ‘Gentleman’s Club’ he’d been urged to attend for a night cap was actually a pole dancing joint? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more!
August 29th, 2007 at 6:49 am
I think its fairly safe to say that anything said by either side of politics as being better or fairer for Australians at large can be taken with a grain of salt. They are not good for their word and never \’ever\’ have been. Rudd just needs to fall across the line and then we can crash tackle him on these issues. Hopefully Gillard will be able to restrain his impulses to allow the unfettered expansion of the (not so) \’free\’ market through the downgrading of worker\’s rights, pay and conditions which goes under the misleading title of \’IR reform\’.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Kevin is riding the middle rail these days. Not going out there on any policy or thought, just sittin, waitin, wishin. Why wont the Labor party run with their wins and cut their losses? Or you know, sticking to what they do best which is let the Union Bosses pick our leaders. They didnt do so bad you know.
Also, i like how howards ads show union reps as anti-jobs.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Not exactly inspiring stuff, but I’m with Christine on this, let’s get rid of Howard and move on from there.
Rudd and Gillard are selling the “fair and flexible” theme, in a highly competitive election environment, not a fully formed IR system.
Remember there will still be hostile senate to deal with until next July.
What does have me interested is the 100K cutoff for collective bargaining (about 2% of the workforce). The business bosses are already complaining about how it is too high - 75K would be better apparently.
That is a real line in the sand, and gives us something to chew over until polling day. And in the process, maybe some light will dawn in the swinging marginals.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:02 am
“Look, [xyz] are just going to have to chow down on a few things.”
We are having to do that with so many things (might I say everything?) other just the unions and this is what starting to really gnaw at my guts.
With Rudd going all the way with JWH, do we really think he’s going to turn into Santa Claus after being elected and refute all his Howard and Howard-lite policies?
I think I’m passed the point of ‘whatever it takes’ because the cost is just too high.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Libs had Work Choices and Labs had AWA’s. Both were simple concoctions that were kited in a professional way to attract the inevitable outrage.
Work Choices got amended, Labor mumbled a load of stammering BS about what they wanted in the forms of AWA’s and since then the amendments have flowed back and forth until the situation is now deliberately complicated in the usual attempt to suit each individual influence group. The result, regardless of which troupe wins the election, will be a mess/mass of conflicting rules similar to the Incopme Tax Assessment Act, and will only exist as a basis upon which to base further amendments.
“Clarifies!” - my Arse! Mr Rudd, windsock that he necessarily is, has merely fired another squib of a shot that is relevant and believeable only for the abount of time it took him to utter it.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:07 am
“Look, the unions are just going to have to chow down on a few things.”
And as I said at LP, Hawke/Keating began the destruction of the unions in the 80s. Will Rudd deliver the coup de grace and consign worker unionism to history?
(It’s interesting that as workers’ union diminish, business unions become even more powerful and more visible.)
August 29th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Have you not heard the Business Unions condemn the ALP IR policy?
Do you want to be condemning the ALP to constant abuse by business and Howard and his mob?
Get real man, it is not the same policy as the Work Choice IR policy, at least we know it want be wound back to the original WC IR, wanted buy the Business Unions.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:55 am
So Rudd should develop policies that the government doesn’t criticise? That’s an unusual approach to the art of opposition. I rather think that business and Howard’s mob would condemn ALP policies regardless of their content but maybe I’ve missed some shift in Australian political dynamics.
And I have to say this endless mantra of “Just you wait until Rudd gets in and then we’ll see the real Labor Party in action” is verging on delusional. I have no doubt that Rudd is very comfortable with his IR policy and hasn’t the slightest intention of changing it if he wins government, unless it’s in the direction of further shackling the unions’ ability to take collective action.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:14 am
At election time, the opposition has to come up with policies that are reasonable and viable.
The fact that Latham was right, when he said that Bush was the worst president ever and that Howard is an a*se licker, didn’t help him one bit.
Even though a lot of us agreed with him.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:15 am
“Just you wait until Rudd gets in and then we’ll see the real Labor Party in action” is verging on delusional.”
+1
August 29th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Too right Ken. Push now when you can, while the election is in the offing. Afterwards will they continue to listen to ‘us’ bloggers? Personally, i’m not willing to take the chance that the fear will not have worn off.
Also, I reckon Laborites have a lot more confidence in themselves than the libs, and they’re also more ‘matey’ as a group. This means they can ignore our barkings that much easier.
Don’t presume things will stay this good!!!
August 29th, 2007 at 10:20 am
But Latham had soooo many other failings. The man was blind to much of reality. Rudd is not.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Critics on the Left of politics need to take a cold shower (to use Rudd’s favourite expression).
Labor had to do something to undermine the credibility of claims by Business (followed by the Coalition) that a Labor IR regime would lead to big job losses or intensify inflation or bring back the union bullies. It has succeeded in doing that to a considerable degree (read today’s editorial in The Australian).
But Labor is still able to strongly distinguish itself from WorkChoices on the test of fairness as it is offering a stronger worker protection safety net for low paid workers, more scope for collective bargaining, an independent arbiter and unfair dismissals laws. Politics is about compromising to win.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:32 am
So, do you want the restoration of collective bargaining or not? That has always been the central issue in IR policy, precisely as Keating put it some months ago.
If the answer is yes, then its restored, up to 100K, for 98% of the working population. And this is what the business elite is really upset about, if you listen closely. All the rest is just political noise.
And if the restoration of collective bargaining get through a hostile senate before next July, then debate at the margins of IR policy can move on from a more balanced position.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Everybody now (to the tune of ‘Here we go, here we go’:
August 29th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Grace you write as if collective bargaining is impossible under WorkChoices. That’s simply incorrect. Unions are quite free to engage in collective bargaining right now. The challenge is to get the employer to co-operate. Often the employer doesn’t want to and under WorkChoices there’s not much the union can do to bring pressure to bear. Rudd’s policy won’t alter that reality much that I can see.
Labor policy states that ‘Where an employer and a union with coverage in a workplace voluntarily agree to bargain together they will be free to do so.’ That’s no different to the present situation.
The significant section of the policy reads:
This is just copying the US system, where unions now represent less than 10% of workers. Eliminating union right of entry, compulsory secret ballots before industrial action, the bizarre prohibition of pattern bargaining (what could be ‘fairer’ than trying to get the same outcomes for workers employed in the same industry?) - these kinds of measures all make it hard/next to impossible for unions to demonstrate the necessary ‘level of support’ on the part of workers. Business in the USA has become expert at winning ballots to see if employees want a union to represent them in collective bargaining. McDonald’s for example proudly boasts that it has never had to bargain collectively at any of its stores in the US, despite numerous union attempts to organise workers.
The policy might offer some genuine changes to WorkChoices depending on how the new award system is supposed to work, but we haven’t been told that yet.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:55 am
I feel sorry for the people who have signed AWA’s because they have had no choice. It is not fair that these dubious AWA’s should be allowed to run their course. Workers should be given the choice to continue with the AWA or negoitate new working conditions with their boss. I am sure there would be some avenue to sue for being locked into a contact that they signed under duress.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Can you wait another nine months Ken?
August 29th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Grace, I don’t mean to be nasty or anything but do you have anything to gain from a Labor party win? Apart from personal satisfaction?
I just think all our cards should be on the table here.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Do you mean invig, am I some sort of stooge, party plant, or agent of influence?
Nope. Just another punter, my friend.
Now do me the courtesy of explaining why you asked.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Thanks for the reply Grace.
I asked because it allows me to know how to approach your comments. If they’re from a neutral standpoint then I can consider them on the basis of the content alone, otherwise I need to include a whole bunch of other information related Labor party press releases etc. to get a full picture.
Note that this is not necessarily relevant right now on this thread - specially because my headspace is otherwise-occupied and i can’t do much better than ‘from the hip’ stuff - but in future it will certainly factor in my calculations.
Anyways, looking forward to it
August 29th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
So, all you folk here who are dark on Labor (with some justification), tell me what exactly is the realistic alternative to a Rudd Labor government? More Howard? That’s the choice, in the Reps at least. May not be pretty, but it is all there is on the table this time around.
Vote Labor in the Reps, and then kick them in nuts in the Senate by voting Green, Democrat or independent.
Anyone got a better plan?
August 29th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Seeker, I think the alternatives are more nuanced than pro-anyone. This might sound like a cop-out, but its not. Theres a lot of policy space to move, and a lot of time to do it between here and the election.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I am all for pressuring Labor between now and the election, up to a point. But the hard reality is that you have to choose between Labor and the Coalition in the Reps. There is no third option for government. Make your protest vote in the Senate, where it can count.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
No worries, invig.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
But we aren’t voting right now, we’re debating issues, and that is best done on the basis of the content of the issues.
Look, the Labor party isn’t made up of shy little flowers that need our constant reassurance. Get stuck in to them, make them question their policies, then vote for them come election day if you so choose.
Chances are that with our constant badgering, they will be much stronger than otherwise. Just as they aren’t flowers, neither are they sages - expecially given the weirdo-world of parliament house and factional politics.
In essence, just like American foreign policy, they need tough friends rather than sychophants. So let the Labor party worry about getting re-elected and get stuck in! If they don’t come to party with decent policy and lose the election therefore, then they bloody-well deserve to in my view.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I sincerely hope labour doesn’t get into government and that Costello becomes the new prime minister.
More time should be spendt doing real work instead of mulling over which government gets in or not.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Oi seeker,
I’ve got a [slightly] better solution.
Well I reckon it is.
Vote #1 Green then #2 ALP in both Senate AND Reps.
The #1 Greens in the Reps tells the ALP [and others but lets ignore them] that they are not worthy.
But the practical reality of getting the ALP in before those others is still satisfied by allowing them the #2 preference.
Separate issue.
Does the present system allow a strike, without secret ballot, at a workplace where, to use a tired and otherwise abused phrase, “a clear and present danger exists”?
Will the new ALP policy allow strike action,’down tools’ to be more precise, if workers are confronted by an extreme dangerous work situation which the company bosses refuse to acknowledge?
An illegal danger in both cases.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Invig hits it on the head. Some people tend to react in very hostile fashion to any criticism of Labor, on the grounds that they’re doing what’s necessary to win the election.
This is Howard’s approach to politics: one endless election campaign. Policies are carefully crafted and marketed like any other commodity, designed to appeal to the greatest number of
consumersvoters. I happen to believe that such an approach to politics serves Australia badly.Just occasionally it would be nice to discuss the merits of an important public policy issue without it being subsumed by tea-leaf reading about the implications for Labor’s chances in the next bloody election.
I swear if Bush nuked Tehran, a few people would post comments saying “Kevin shouldn’t be critical until after the election”.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Fred on my understanding this would not be a strike at all, but a legitimate refusal to obey an unlawful instruction. Employers have no right at common law to issue unlawful instructions and if they do, workers do not have to obey them. Refusal to disobey an unlawful instruction does not give the employer the right to withhold wages or terminate the employment. To give an example, my employer can’t instruct me to be at another place 120 km away in one hour because I would have to break the speed limit to comply.
That said, things are seldom clear-cut and what the workers regard as an unlawful situation might not appear so to the employer. As always, the circumstances of the particular case, established by suitable evidence, would have to be examined to give a proper answer.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Thanks Ken.
I was once involved a ‘non/legitimate refusal to obey an lawful/unlawful instruction’ where the distinction between the 2 depended on the definition of a word that applied to an ambiguous scenario.
We, the workers, said it [the circumstance] was unsafe and the bosses said it was safe.
We downed tools on the advice of the union rep whilst the bosses and the union secretary, who had been hastily summoned, negotiated.
I wonder how the same scenario [or similar]would pan out today and I wonder how the same scenario [or similar] would pan out in the future given an ALP victory.
Taking into account the restrictions on union access to workplaces and the secret ballot requirement.
Its not academic.
People bodies and lives are at stake.
In the scenario that I went through if I had obeyed the ‘lawful’ instuction I am convinced that there was a good chance I would have been severely injured or killed in the next half hour.
My son, who works in heavy industry, and who to my horror is not a unionist, has faced a similar, albeit more minor scenario, recently.
Legislation and policy needs to reflect the practical reality of life.
That of course has been the major nastiness of workNOchoices, it presumes an equality of power between worker and company that simply does not exist.
I worry that the ALP has not fully recognized that fact.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
This is a really strange thing for Labor to do. I don’t get it.
IR was the one area where they had it in the bag over Howard. Workchoices openly acknowledged and legislated class differences with a clear preference for the top end of town. It handed the old working class demographic back to Labor.
Howard’s already crowing that there’s no difference between them on IR. And to cement that impression in place Julia’s also said they expect the senate to pass it without a murmur. Howard’s famous mandate.
They’re kidding themselves if they think Howard’s already lost.
Stoopid.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I used to be in the Army Reserve and one night coming back from an ambush we were asked to jog along a dry creek bed full of large stones.
Yeah right. I fell behind pretty damn fast, big pussy that I am. lol
August 29th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
We may rightly be angry that the ALP didn’t put forward a more anti-Workchoices legislation, but really I can’t agree with the proposition that this may mean that Howard’s electoral fortunes will rise.
I would invite people here to read Fred Argy’s (#22) contribution.
Adding to that any anger or feeling of insecurity from the ‘battlers’ did not come because they were on AWA’s (some might but not all that many) but because they feared that they may have to be on them in the future, if they get another job or want to be promoted or their children will have to have one.
So once Rudd removes the bogey of the AWA’s (whether real or perceived) that is an electoral plus.
The issue of the right of Unions enetering the workplace is bad. Maybe focus groups showed that the bosses’ campaign was working.
But the effect on the average punter in the marginals of that decision will be little if anything.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
“Vote Labor in the Reps, and then kick them in nuts in the Senate by voting Green, Democrat or independent.
Anyone got a better plan?”
That was always my plan. I always vote for another party in Senate than I do in Reps on the theory that senate can act as a brake on loony power hungry guvmints.
The Howard government control of both houses has, IMO, proven my theory correct and government shouldn’t have control of both houses.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Someone after the election [probably me] is going to look back at all my posts at all the places I post and say to me that I was terribly inconsistent about the value of the ALP and unable to make up my mind.
So here I go again, being inconsistent I mean.
I’ve just visited LP where Lefty E [I think] has commented in detail on Brough’s latest racist dirty trick affecting the indigenous people.
Well worth a look.
There is no excuse not to much sure that the ALP replace the Coalition.
There is no way the ALP could be as incompetent or as evil as the Coalition.
Vote #1 Green, #2 ALP.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Like most people, unionists do not appreciate being taken for granted. Perhaps KRudd will begin to recognise this when he contemplates a Senate filled with GREENS.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Fair point, and I agree with most of what you said, up to this:
So another three years of Howard, with at least several months of control of the senate, and no reason not to use it, is preferable, or at least acceptable, if Labor don’t give you just what you want?
Sorry, but that is plain crazy. Straight out the tactic book of Otto, Leader of the Crack Kamikaze Squad, in Life of Brian. “Ugh, that showed ‘em.” As he fell down dead, with Brian left up on the cross.
Most political choices are compromises, often tough ones. I don’t particularly like Rudd, he is far too conservative for my taste, but he is also far better than more of unrestrained Howard, which is the only other choice.
fred: I agree. When I said vote Labor in the Reps, I meant only to preference them ahead of the Coalition, as long as that doesn’t endanger the final outcome. You are right that political candidates and parties take careful note of where they lie in the preference ladder, even if they end up winning. It is a good way to send them a message of disapproval. I rarely give a major party my first vote, if I have a choice.
And speaking of the latest shafting the indigenous folk are getting, this is the original Crikey article Lefty E over at LP quotes:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20070829-Stuart-Highway-robbery-.html
Would any other group in Oz put up with this shameless theft, humiliation and thuggery? I am too angry for words over this. It is going to be a major disaster for the indigenous.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
there’s a major economic crunch coming, america will head into a deep, long recession…Rudd and co. have few options than to keep flexible IR laws and ensure unions don’t go overboard in their reaction to upcoming crisis…voting Green is fine for senate but Labor will just use Liberal votes etc. to pass legislation that they think is required to offset revenue crunch etc. that will come (as Blair has).
But i’d rather have Labor in charge during an economic downturn than Howard’s lot who will act like Fascists during bad times, protecting corporate interests.
Howard out, Rudd in
(my computer crashed, on a friends…all for now…doing heaps of research, fill you in later)
August 29th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
I agree with you Ken that it is actually very bad politics and a cynical, darstedly way to ‘lead’ a country. But for Howard, for eleven and half years it has worked a charm, that and constantly attacking the opposition, without fail, at every opportunity.
At the risk of suggesting that the electorate by and large are a bunch of ‘I’m-alright-thanks-Jack’,-cretins, and heaven forbid that anyone should think such a thing, Howard’s approach to government which has been exactly as you describe–one long election campaign, has now become (and tanks be to the good lordy for that), the main game.
A conservative bunch of cretins, are simply not going to cop anything radical now. Rudd is the perfect man to unseat Howard, and later, well who knows, somebody with a little more je nais se whatever, might come along to unseat Rudd.
Sticking the boot into Rudd now, even though, as someone said, while we have his attention, is a lose lose situation for those who want Howard gone. Rudd has played it smart and with restraint, and has not taken the bait from Howard once. He did, (thank Christ) differentiate himself from Howard over the Brethren meeting.
Personally Rudd leaves me cold, and he is far too inscrutable which I find a bit concerning for someone in whom we are supposed to be placing such an enormous amount of trust. But Howard? The man is evil. I’d vote for King Kong to be rid of heinous little …..chappy.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
In and Out of Coalition Society this Wedensday….
Union Bosses by the score, but not an Aspirational Nationalist in sight.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Seeker, fair enough, i respect your position.
However, I can’t in good conscience allow myself to consider the election when i’m trying to design policy that I think is best (maybe thats just me - and possibly Ken). Also, if I came across as siding with one or the other, then the neither side would (assuming that they do now) felt they needed to respond to my opinion. They would either ignore it (if I was for them) or not trust it (if i was against them).
I dunno, this is all a bit confused (my brain is tired) but I just think its better for democracy to keep the politicians guessing a little. When they’re uncertain they’re more likely to change position, and God knows we have needed them to change position on so many things for so very long now I think people are willing to settle for the small hope offered by a new face.
So yeah, i’ll keep doing my thing and you keep doing yours and hopefully things will work out.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Fair point. And I think we are both actually reading from more-or-less the same page. I just agree with Gough Whitlam that: “Only the impotent are pure.” No matter how worthy your goals and tactics, if you ain’t in power, they count for diddly squat. In politics there are no prizes for coming second, especially not repeatedly.
Don’t worry, I will be turning my little blowtorch on Rudd once he is in power.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
I just agree with Gough Whitlam that: “Only the impotent are pure.”
I wasn’t going to say anything further, but this caught my attention. You know, I entirely disagree with this sentiment.
It has not been my experience, and I would suggest is more of an excuse for the moral compromises that Gough made.
Power comes from people following you, and given a choice, people follow someone they believe in and trust. People trust those who motives are pure - just look at Obama.
I think what Gough was saying is its hard to accumulate power without compromising yourself. Which used to be true - before the internet came along and ruined information assymetries everywhere!
August 29th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I think on balance that Labor’s IR Policy is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. It may not please everyone in its transition stage, but I see its major attribute as a clear intention to allay community fear, experienced not only under the Work Choices legislation.
Cynicism in some quarters over the extant nature of existing AWA’s seems to me to reflect inadequate analysis of the policy and failure to appreciate the difficulties inherent in unravelling Work Choices. Julia Gillard Lateline 28/9/07.
I await a response to my email to the ALP asking whether there is anything in the policy (or even Work Choices) in principle to prevent an individual and employer from renegotiating an existing AWA.
Understood, of course, that fear and a sense of powerlessness under the existing legislation would impede an individual or collective approach to an employer exercising disregard for appropriate conditions, recompense or adherence to proper safeguards in the workplace.
Whatever the response to my email, surely contracts can be renegotiated? Contracts are not set in impregnable cement,are they? People are free to seek a different job, knowing under Labor that they need not be subject to an unreasonable AWA.
Under Labor policy, it looks to me that implementation of the safeguards, protections and the Commission will much reduce the element of fear in the workforce. It seems too that the smaller employer has nothing to fear, if exercising reason, fairness and perhaps even Howard’s precept of mutual obligation. The more militant unions may have reason to be annoyed, but not fearful. Some in Big Business may stamp and pout. I fear they are shamming.
Fear has become Howard’s constant weapon. What he seems not to realise is that fear whipped up and exploited in respect of refugees, terror realities or possibilities, Mersey Hospital and now even Unions has a transitory effect.
Not transitory is fear under Work Choices. Nor is it diminished in contemplation of what may come if he is afforded a mandate, as he would claim, in the event of re election. Not confined to Work Choices.
Fear though, is something few of us enjoy as an ongoing experience. The natural response is a wish to be free of it.
Sadly, some employers have received the Howard fear factor as a signal to create it in the workplace.
Release from fear and a return to fairness is, I believe, the signal Kevin Rudd intends to send. And not only in the workplace.
This is the message it would appear the polled and others are hearing and heeding.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
“There is no excuse not to make (sic) sure that the ALP replace the Coalition”
Well, it cetainly can’t be worse than we’ve got at the moment especially with some of their recent lunacies especially what they are up to in the NT.
In light of which this only deepens suspicions about whaat the interventioon is really all about.
“Prime Minister John Howard has refused to hold a referendum on a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/PM-backs-off-nuke-waste-dump-referendum/2007/08/29/1188067184789.html
August 29th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Herindoors, you say-
“Whoa obs - where do you get this $59k as the average per annum earnings of an Aussie worker in full-time employment?”
ABS latest, FULL TIME average weekly earnings series for all workers. Includes public sector workers which have slightly higher AWE than the private sector. So much for all those private fat cats bumping up the private average eh?
The Oz median income from exertion is quite low around $26000, but of course that takes in casuals like uni students or the kids working at Maccas. Your points about many workers not earning near the AWE of $1100/week is quite valid and concurs with well known, positively skewed income distributions, but isn’t that simply more reason for Rudd to lower the right to collectively collude on price, down from $100k pa nearer $60k? After all, the more higher income workers can collude collectively on the price of their labour, the more it feeds into consumer prices paid by the less well remunerated. I would have thought rational leftys would have found much injustice in that, but the cat seems to have got their tongues here. It’s really all about unions, irrespective of whether they’re representing well paid wharfies or construction workers, ultimately holding the rest of the low paid to ransom, if they can.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
It was those all-night DJ sessions nas, those old 386 machines just weren’t designed to take that kind of punishment
August 30th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Ken, being a bit saner this evening I’ve had a chance to look at your post, and there’s not a lot there I could really object to, as most of the matters you mention have been with us in same shape or form over the past 25 years.
I absolutely agree that nobody should regard the ALP as a Sir Galahad, but the bottomline is that if the Howardistas are re-elected it will be carte-blanche for everyone’s worst nightmare.
As the ‘Aspirational Nationalism’ nonsense has indicated it will be ‘We’ll do whatever we like, whenever we like, to whoever we like, anytime we want’.
Mantra of the mandate…
August 30th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Agree with Christine Keeler.
I will compare Rudds Fair Go with the Rat’s workchoices 2.
As there has been no policy release by Rat of WC2 then it would be reasonable to assume that Rat will not water down WC1. It would also be reasonable to assume that if he retains power then WC2 will be introduced while he has the Senate. On that basis IMO Rudd’s Fair Go is far removed from whatever the Rat has designed for after the election. There is no comparison and we should not be saying that Rudd’s is no different from the Rats’.
Every worker in Australia should be voting to ensure that Howard is dumped just on the fear factor of the unknown quantity of the hidden agenda of WC2, let alone the numerous infrastructure issues the Rat’s Govt has failed to address.
If he gets back in our staple cereal diet will be Mandy “Rice” Davies, where you get to eat the box and all.
August 30th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
So obs, (you champion of the low paid toilers you), you agree with your mate Roskam that they would all be better off if we abolished the employment contract altogether, and simply got ‘out there’, contracting for service, paying 30% income tax,cheerfully buying all these little extras like income insurance against sickness accidents and the like, while thriftily putting away our extra little pennies (earned by being allowed to work 60 hours a week), so that we can decide whether to have a holiday this year, or expand our very own personal capital eh?
It was a great wheeze obs, the problem was the boys and girls at neolib central forgot to check one thing. ‘Bending over’ has never been popular with the ‘boys’ and the ‘girls’ not only hate bullying, they can recognise it a mile off, however persuasive the nice man sounds. That, and the fact that irrespective of the power point presentation in the boardroom and the bracing manly, realist talk over lunch, you can’t fool punters about their wages and conditions, (it’s not the Iraq war, and it’s not TEH economy) and you can never be sure exactly how a person really feels, even when they are agreeing vigorously that ‘Who moved my cheese’ is the best and most inspirational book ever.. You simply have no way of really ‘knowing’ what is going on in the heads behind the smiles and the cooperative (all points ticked for teamwork) attitudes. Ever. Your bad.
August 30th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Having awakened many non-political ppl to the injustice of Workchoices through union ads, for Labor to offer something so similar is bound to disenchant and make cynical a whole new bunch of ordinary people.
I think this idea that Labor has to do as Liberals do minimise the flack it cops is ridiculous. Labor is going to be canned by the Establishment to matter how Tory it tries to be.
In fact, the level of outrage from the Tele, Oz, etc, is a good measure of how well you’re doing. Just look at Chavez - the media attacks him with amazing ferocity - it’s just something you have to live with if you want to create a more just society.
Labor has to stop caring what commentators, newspapers and the political class says. Put good, fair policy out there and the buyers will come, so to speak. The links between the ALP and the working person or oppressed minority are thinner than ever. The BCA, ACCI, etc are seeing there dreams come true - an Antipodean replica of the US one business-party, two-faction system.
August 30th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Surfing the curl of today’s comments was like riding a long right to left break. Hope Huey keeps sendin’ ‘em up like this till Big Saturday.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:42 am
Well AS (you champion of the low paid toilers you), it’s like this. You don’t want the deli owner, (that you bypass on your way to shop at Coles or Woolies), to collude on price, anymore than your lawnmower man or the occasional tradey, even if they only earn $40k/yr,
contracting for service, paying 30% income tax, cheerfully buying all those little extras like income insurance against sickness accidents and the like, while thriftily putting away their extra little pennies (earned by being allowed to work 60 hours a week), so that they can decide whether to have a holiday this year, or expand their very own personal capital eh? However, if they’re employed on $90k/yr, with sickness and holiday pay and LSL, complete with compulsory super and Workcover, then apparently they can actively collude on price with their union to get an extra $9,999/yr and that’s OK. Sounds like typical lefty logic. Never let the facts get in the way of a good emote.