The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

I'll join you in feeling sorry for the plebs who need to cowtow for a crap paypacket for a crap job. If only they'd educated themselves.

:wink:

Builder, in your case, your trade is in demand and you are already employed and therefore you have some bargaining power. Take another industry where workers are required. The prospective employees are interviewed one by one in the employer's office. That's where it becomes the bosses' way or the highway. If you need a job, you will accept almost any terms.
As for writing your own AWA ... Good for you ....
In all agreements I have been involved in, we use our union to negotiate for us, and the union legal people to see that the written agreement has no hidden loopholes which can be used to our detriment.

I think bonzai is going to find it hard to convince workers that "work choices" is good for them, so union bashing is next on the agenda. Then again, "law and order" is always good for a few votes, and and and "immigration" and and .................

Re-educating yourself is rarely easy:

1. People in need of re-education often have mortage, family, car, bills etc etc

2. So you would have to do it part time, for full time you would need someone else supporting you, the kids, themselves, the mortgage, the car etc etc etc.

3. If you do it part time, then it's at least 6-8 years worth of study if you do it part time - not quick.

4. If all that is possible, then The HECS debt could still make it financially impossible. Some degrees are now around the $125K mark, with the most expensive at the $250k mark.

I'm doing a part time distance degree in IT now. It's not easy, but it's certainly possible. I don't where you get $125K to 250K from (medicine or dentistry?) They're very restrictive anyway. On current costs, I'm looking at paying 15 to 20K for fees.

I understand it's possible - my point was, for many (eg those with children, wives, mortgages, bills etc have to be balanced against the time and finances involved in doing a degree) it's not easy, and sometimes financially impossible.

In relation to the $250k fees, I read that in a newspaper article a while back, but here's what a quick google search turned up :

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2004/s1197294.htm

That's for full fees. The vast majority of Australian students pay HECS, which is substantially cheaper.

BTW, I have a wife, a mortgage, a job, and will soon have a child.

"Hello
My name is Kevin.
I'm from Queensland.
I'm here to help":

Voters want change from 'arrogant' Howard, says Rudd
April 27, 2007/the AUSTRALIAN

KEVIN Rudd has declared there is a mood for change in Australia, with the people ready to turn to Labor to navigate their way through the start of the twenty-first century.

Opening the national Labor Party annual conference with a speech focusing on direction rather than policy, the federal Opposition Leader did promise for the first time to replace John Howard's Work Choices industrial relations laws "lock, stock and barrel".

Mr Rudd began with a fierce attack on the Prime Minister, calling him arrogant and out of touch. He ridiculed Mr Howard as being stuck in the days of black and white television and said his climate change scepticism was like believing Elvis Presley was still alive.

Entering the Sydney Convention Centre to a specially-commissioned song, A Change In the Weather, an embrace from his wife Therese Rein and a standing ovation, Mr Rudd introduced himself by saying: "My name is Kevin, I'm from Queensland, and I'm here to help." ... <cont>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21630147-601,00.html

No pain, no gain for Rudd
Michelle Grattan
April 27, 2007/the AGE



The Labor leader may have an IR policy for the new century, but he won't be able to draft one that suits all sides, writes Michelle Grattan.

IN THE middle of Labor's 2000 national conference, John Howard announced the Government would attempt to give the states power to prevent single people and lesbian couples getting access to IVF.

The announcement was cleverly timed to create disunity in Labor and a headache for leader Kim Beazley.

We have yet to see if the Government has any tricks up its sleeve to try to throw Labor off its game during this year's national conference, which opens in Sydney today. When it comes to tactical wits, however, Kevin Rudd has proved more than a match for Howard so far.

The conference's timing, only months before the election, makes management easier, but also the need to avoid even minor glitches becomes greater.

In his organised way, Rudd has seen to it that the building blocks have been laid carefully.

Of these, by far the most important is Rudd's industrial relations policy. There will be some frisson around the move to liberalise Labor's stance on uranium mining, but it's a sideshow. The numbers are there, and, while views are strong, it's an argument over becoming a bit more pregnant.

IR, in contrast, has been a genuine challenge for Rudd, not just because it had to be substantially settled before the conference, but because it is an extremely difficult issue for Labor, which is beholden to the unions, wanting to gesture to business and having to prove its economic credentials.

Last week Rudd announced Labor would accept and take further the unitary system Howard has introduced. This week Labor has unveiled a proposed new body called Fair Work Australia, which would amalgamate the current Industrial Relations Commission, Fair Pay Commission, Office of the Employment Advocate and Office of Workplace Services.

Forget the name, a ridiculous product of modern spin. What this means is that Labor would beef up a rebadged IRC by restoring to it the function of setting minimum wages and giving it some new functions. The new body would still have less real power than the IRC had before enterprise bargaining transformed industrial relations.

In power, Labor would revamp and extend minimum employment conditions. But the market would continue to determine wages above the minimum (although the scrapping of AWAs would put one constraint into the system).

Labor is rebuilding the IRC house but on new foundations, courtesy of Howard. ... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/no-pain-no-gain-for-rudd/2007/04/26/1177459875608.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Thanks for the clarification on the full fee vs HECS Wilso - shows how much I don't know

Msgola, I rather liked the Crusher Kev Vs Union Ogre cartoon...I can almost imagine such a match being staged.

I started my own academic career not knowing about HECS. I was looking at the full fees and wondering how I was ever going to earn a degree. Found out about the HECS later.

Well, I think they might just have lost me on this one.
So this is the new ALP, circa 2007?
Anything, anything to get elected.
And BTW, Kevin Rudd, it is not just about some "not getting their own way". It's an issue of principle! :

Last Update: Sunday, April 29, 2007. 11:05am (AEST)


Peter Garrett says despite voting against the decision, he accepts it. (Getty Images)

ALP still digesting uranium decision

There is fallout from Labor's move to allow more uranium mines, with some in the party angry at the nature of the debate and others determined to move on to attacking the Coalition's plans for a domestic nuclear industry.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd's push for more uranium mines led to passionate debate and only made it through by 15 votes yesterday.

Mr Rudd says the division within Labor over its uranium policy will not undermine the party's ability to promote it before the next election.

He has told ABC TV's Insiders program that the normal process for developing policy involves various opinions.

"Not everyone gets their own way - I don't get my own way on everything in the past, I understand that," he said.

"It's our job however to take our unified message out to the Australian people.

"It's impossible to have, gathered in one place, several hundred delegates from one political party and for everyone to have uniform views on every item of policy, that's just not reality."

Labor's Environment spokesman Peter Garrett says despite voting against the decision, he accepts it.

He says Labor should now challenge Prime Minister John Howard over his plan for nuclear power plants.

"He's taking us down a road and a path which I think is very dangerous," he said.

"He has plans for nuclear power plants to be dotted around this country."

Meanwhile some senior Labor figures are angry at union leader and federal candidate Bill Shorten, who linked the vote to support for Mr Rudd when he warned delegates not to roll the leader.

Critics say it was immature, naive and damaging.

Later today, the conference will deal with forestry policy and climate change, and it will refer preselection in about 20 New South Wales seats straight to the national executive, which is expected to dump several sitting MPs.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1909192.htm

Well, I assume this aspect of the Rudd/Gillard IR policy has been endorsed, too. I haven't the heart to go searching for the actual details, but the (radio) reports I've heard today suggests it might well be the case.

What can you say?

I think the argument goes something like this: under the Libs (& under which-ever government prior to JH & co.) it was perfectly OK for workers to stop work & demonstrate on issues of principle. But under this brave, new ALP that will be illegal. We will be able to stop work & attend rallies only "when bargaining in a bargaining period for a new collective agreement."

So in other words, any industrial action, unless tied to (approved) bargaining for pay & conditions agreements, is outlawed.

And this from the ALP!

Apparently it was OK for workers to risk reprisals by stopping work to protest the Liberals' IR laws, but it will not be OK for workers to do the same under a Labor government, because things will be better for us!
Figure that one out!

Unions angered by Gillard's plan to make joining mass rallies illegal
Misha Schubert
April 28, 2007/the AGE

IT WOULD be illegal for workers to walk off the job to attend mass political rallies under Labor's proposed new anti-strike laws.

Labor's industrial relations spokeswoman Julia Gillard last night confirmed that her rules would make outlaws of union members attending such rallies. Asked if unionists would be allowed to take the day off work to attend workplace rights rallies such as the ACTU's Your Rights At Work gatherings, Ms Gillard was emphatic.

"No, that wouldn't be protected industrial action. We would say that the only form of protected industrial action is when bargaining in a bargaining period for a new collective agreement," she said.

Dean Mighell, Victorian state secretary of the Electrical Trade Union, said it was a huge disappointment that Labor would not restore workers rights fully.

"Our forebears fought and died for the freedom to protest, and I'd like to think one day we'll see our rights again," he said. ... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/unions-angered-by-gillards-plan-to-make-joining-mass-ralliesillegal/2007/04/27/1177459980634.html

Well <sigh> we might end up with an ALP government around November of this year (if the polls are correct), but it's sounding as though it will simply be a milder version of the extreme right wing government that we have now, on many important fronts. <sigh>

Anyone want to argue with that?

It's certainly not a good idea to stop strikes unless in an enterprise bargaining negotiation period.

That said, it would be interesting if, instead of attending rallies, 'striking' workers simply attended work, but did not work.

quote ... IT WOULD be illegal for workers to walk off the job to attend mass political rallies under Labor's proposed new anti-strike laws.

Labor's industrial relations spokeswoman Julia Gillard last night confirmed that her rules would make outlaws of union members attending such rallies. Asked if unionists would be allowed to take the day off work to attend workplace rights rallies such as the ACTU's Your Rights At Work gatherings, Ms Gillard was emphatic.

"No, that wouldn't be protected industrial action. We would say that the only form of protected industrial action is when bargaining in a bargaining period for a new collective agreement," she said. end quote

http://tinyurl.com/26cafv

I sit here in total disbelief .......
Why are these politicians pandering to big business again ?????????
I think it's time for ordinary working people to abandon this ALP and form a party of their own. These people have lost touch with the grass roots.
They will need to do a turn-around on this to get my vote.

[quote="bungie"]I sit here in total disbelief .......
Why are these politicians pandering to big business again ?????????
I think it's time for ordinary working people to abandon this ALP and form a party of their own. These people have lost touch with the grass roots.
They will need to do a turn-around on this to get my vote.[/quote]

I've been thinking of the plight of labour (small "l" with the "u" in the spelling) ... meaning ordinary people who have to work for a living, or want to work but can't find employment ...) and the deal they get under the Libs & the ALP. It seems to me that neither political party is doing much for these people.

The "natural ally of working people" has traditionally been the ALP, but under Kevin Rudd & Julia Gillard's direction it seems clear to me that workers' concerns are not of paramount importance (as in the past, under more "traditional" Labor governments). They (Rudd/Gillard) seem intent on modelling their approach on something akin to Tony Blair's "third way". Some sort of wishy washy, middle way that didn't really appeal to anyone in the UK very much. And locked the left out from decision making. I think it's clear we're watching the death throes of "the third way" right now. Is that what we want here? I, for one, will not support this sort of approach.

Just like anyone else vaguely "left" I want to see the last of John Howard's Liberals. I don't think I have to go over some of the worst excesses of the policies & practices of this government, yet again. But do I see the Rudd/Gillard "vision" as a satisfactory alternative to this? No. Could I become passionate about supporting the major decisions made at the ALP conference? Absolutely not.

What I've been thinking, as one of an ever-growing number of casualized workers in the education field, is that the ALP direction does not adequately address what's actually happening in my workplace. But then neither does my union. That's the problem. As I see it, the only way that the real issues in workplaces can be addressed is for unions to do it. And I don't think that can be done while unions are so closely tied to supporting the Labor Party, at the expense of their members' needs.

Kevin Rudd has made it clear that he believes that the ALP should distance itself from tradition labour concerns to gain government. Perhaps that might not be such a bad thing, after all, for ordinary workers if their unions return to the goal of making their members' concerns their main concern ... rather that continuing to support an ALP which seems intent on further distancing itself from union concerns.

I, for one, am sick and tired of unions which put support of the ALP before the concerns of their members. It does not surprise me that these days only 1 in 5 workers is unionized. If the unions were more concerned about improving very real real issues about workers' pay & conditions of employment (particularly casualization & contracts) they would have far more members.

Right now we have many ex-union leaders in the ALP team. But what influence have they had on the repressive policies foisted on workers at the ALP conference? Pretty close to zilch. That's if they were even trying. I am sick & tired of "high profile" union officials who approach their jobs as stepping stones to a career in ALP politics!

The best way forward for workers I can see right now is for the ALP's decision to distance itself from the unions to be accepted. And for unions to gain increased numbers in their membership by fighting for the best possible deal for them ...whichever government is in power. This Labor/unions arrangement is not serving many unionist's at all, apart from those "leaders" with ALP aspirations. It is high time that that concerns of unionists (workers) & governments were recognized as two totally different things.

... & while we're at it, if unions are obliged to now hold a secret ballot prior to stopping work, then they should also hold a secret ballot to decide whether or not to fund future ALP campaigns. After all, it's the members' money ....