I actually think that this represents a fair analysis of the industrial relations landscape, on a two-party preferred basis.
I won't put it all here, it's far too long, but Mike Steketee of The Oz is, for once, I think, on the ball.
"OPPOSITION Deputy Leader Julia Gillard’s mishandling of the politics of industrial relations, together with an orchestrated campaign by business, has turned a policy that should be a winner for Labor into a threat to the economy," it starts.
It points out (with the backing of Freehills, the law firm that helped create Work Choices) that while it pares back some of the "freedoms" Work Choices introduced (for employers) "significant aspects of the infrastructure remain... and many of the changes do not go further back than the Howard Government’s 1996 reforms".
(And this cheap shot I enjoyed: Finland, Sweden and Norway consistently rate as more competitive, even though their workforces are highly unionised and their wage fixing systems more centralised.)
The mining industry and AWAs
The problem with AWAs isn't evident in the mining industry right now because it is booming. Steketee points out: With labour in short supply in mining industries, most AWAs are more generous than the minimum standards. The (mining companies) do not want to use them to cut pay and conditions - at least not at the moment - but because they are better suited to the way the industry works, such as 12-hour shifts or nine or 10-day fortnights.
The main problem with AWA's is that in most OTHER industries they are used to undercut the pay and conditions provided in awards.
Abolishing AWAs
The article also talks about the fact the ALP's commitment to abolishing AWA's has resulted in a brawl with the mining industry Labor didn't need.
For Labor, the debate over miners’ AWAs is a distraction from their use in other areas, particularly retail and hospitality, where they are being used to cut pay and conditions. Here, workers typically are low paid and in no position to bargain equally with employers, Steketee says. This is where Labor is on much firmer political ground.
Anyway, it is an interesting article. Go read.
The Montegiallo School of Swearing
1 month ago
7 comments:
I've always found it interesting that we seem intent on following the lead of the US when the Nordic countries do so well. Finland has the highest productivity in the world now, yet no-one ever seems to comment on them.
The unionisation comment is an interesting one though, the most efficient/effective systems seem to be the ones where everyone is a union member or where no-one is a union member... tis when you have a mixture like Aus that it causes problems....
Having fun keeping abreast of the Aussie news while abroad... LOVE the internet *g*
That's all good and well for the discerning voter, for the people who give a toss about politics and try to get both sides of the story, but will this kind of analysis ever get through to the masses?
I don't know what it is, whether it's the 11-odd years in opposition that makes me pessimistic but as much as I know Kevin Rudd is the best chance Labor's had in years, I'm yet to be convinced the Australian people, as a whole, actually want to change governments.
The Australian people are easily bought, and they're bought because of their own apathy.
"Oh, Mr Howards says we won't be disadvantaged and he's put in place a little test to make sure... sounds good to me".
And so we end up with him again. Because Mr Howard would never tell a lie just to get (re)elected... that would be going overboard.
"overboard" - heehee
My mum told me the other day that she would be voting Liberal in the next election because she "liked and respected John Howard as a person." I nearly choked. There's not a lot you can say to someone who says something like that.
PLEASE tell me you sat her down and outlined the long list of lies deceptions and the reasons Mr Howard shouldn't be trusted?
My mum won't talk politics with me anymore because I challenge these views that she has and she doesn't like it.
When she told me she voted Liberal at the last election, and said it was because she thought she would be better off under a Howard government, I told her that the difference between her and myself was that I voted for the good of the country as a whole, whereas she voted only for her best interests.
She didn't respond favourably - I think I hit a chord.
Post a Comment