Talk:WorkChoices/Archive 1

message: I believe WorkChoices should have its own page. It is specific enough on its own and could drag on in a more generic debate about the IR changes 10:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I learnt the hard way recently, that if your underpaid, Workchoices provides NO PROTECTION if you question this with your employer. You can be sacked, and there is no recourse. This does not fall under 'unlawful' protection (despite my local liberal MP assuring me that was the case mind you!)
I dunno, perhaps the article needs to make it more obvious just how fewer protections now exist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.252.86 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Underpaid? You can't say anything about it!

message: New South Wales acting Premier John Watkins says he was horrified to learn the Federal Government plans to spend $12 million over the next three weeks on an advertising campaign to sell the package.
"It's an obscene figure. They're out there trying to convince Australian workers that this package is something other than it really is which is a vicious attack on working standards and they're spending taxpayers' money to do it. It's an obscene waste of money," he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1477956.htm
"The government is shamelessly spending $100 million of taxpayers' money on advertising it, so we're entitled to have the legislation here today," Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has told parliament.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/PM-lying-about-need-for-IR-change-ALP/2005/10/10/1128796446197.html
"think about that $100 million. It comes on top of more than $900 million spent so far by this Government on advertising - over $1 billion."
http://www.alp.org.au/media/1005/pciriiloo100.php
BARRIE CASSIDY: To our program guest now, the Workplace Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews. This week the Government, on your behalf, spent close to $15 million advertising its industrial relations changes. That's more than most large companies spend in a year. Here's one of those ads.
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2005/s1488537.htm
I agree the actual budget isn't public, I suspect there probably isn't so much a fixed budget as a commitment to spend whatever it takes.  
It's clearly in the 10's of millions.  I heard on the radio but cannot find an advertising executive estimating the amount spent so far, based on the air-time etc to date.  It was a lot.
But we can't just say that without a quote or a reference.
Maybe put back the "up to $100 M" section with a reference to Beazley?
I'd like to see it in there somewhere, but it doesn't feel right where it is.  It's too detailed for an introduction.
Maybe this is an argument to merge.
Regards, Ben Aveling 20:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising Spend 

message: we should get a "Work Choices" logo to put on the page. Xtra 01:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  logo 

message: :"As an accountant I would be able to reorganise the affairs of a company that had 10,000 employees so that they had five service trusts each with 100 employees and we're talking about full-time and part-time employees," 
Morris Iemma says the state will argue the federal workplace relations legislation is unfair and unconstitutional.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1497409.htm
Actually, here's a better one.
: "We've got legal advice that there's grounds here to challenge and we will challenge." http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1497296.htm
And just in case overload has not been reached...
:"two days of fiery debate in federal parliament over the legislation has seen 18 Labor MPs and one Liberal backbencher ejected from the House of Representatives" 
:"the past practice of unions highlighting unfair Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) will now result in a jail sentence, the union movement says.
:Unions NSW secretary John Robertson said he had received legal advice that section 83B would provide for the jailing of people who disclose the parties to an AWA."
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/High-Court-challenge-over-IR-changes/2005/11/03/1130823339858.html
Regards, Ben Aveling 02:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc Quotes 

message: Can someone point me to a link showing that the Australian Industry Group has a public position supporting these changes, as we claim?
They're certainly interested in IR.   They've had Greg Combet give them a talk on the changes.  
And they've taken positions before, but not always in favour of the govt.  
:The Senate inquiry is investigating four proposed amendments to the Workplace Relations Act, including the government's Better Bargaining Bill, and legislation to simplify federal awards.  ... a major Australian employer group (AIG) has joined the union movement in attacking government plans to further strip back award provisions.
:This is highlighted in a late submission to the Commission from the Australian Industry Group which expresses concern that the Commission should contemplate removing or changing 'employment' exemptions from the Trade Practice Act [s51(2)(a)]. AIG claims that these exemptions are, 'the very foundations upon which Australia's industrial relations system is built'.
Regards, Ben Aveling 21:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   Australian Industry Group 

message: I updated the estimate for numbers attending the Day of Protest on 15 November from 250,000 to 500,000, and attributed this estimate to the ACTU. A reference for this can be found on the ACTU website.--Takver 01:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Day of protest

message: I do not believe that Victoria has the standing to challange these laws, as Victoria gave up their industrial relations power to the Commonwealth years ago. Any comments? Xtra 04:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The constitutional litigation in the high court will be an argument about the reach of the corporations power. The distribution of powers in the federal compact is something about which each of the component states have a critical interest. Standing is not an issue. --SilasM 15:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional Challange 

message: I'm relucant to write in the article proper as I don't think I can be impartial (I'm a trade union delegate) however I feel the article should mention that after the changes new awards cannot be made and existing awards cannot be altered essetially meaning that all awards will be forced into being obsolete and will cease to exist altogether. See reference from Mallesons Stephen Jaques Law Firm below:
:"Awards cannot be varied (other than in the rationalisation process) and will, therefore, be “frozen” as at the commencement of WorkChoices. No new awards will be made. Over time, awards will become obsolete. As a result, employees will be forced to enter into workplace agreements to bring about a change in terms and conditions of employment. This, in conjunction with the ease with which new workplace agreements may be made and the fact that once such agreements have been made the employee will effectively be removed from the award system, should provide employers with a substantial opportunity to bring about significant workplace change and flexibility."Mallesons Stephen Jaques --Zig c 11:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of Awards 

message: I want to add the PM's description of Labors' and the Unions' tactics from http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18652198-29277,00.html but don't know how to use the referencing system in the article. Xtra 11:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rhetoric of either side is so loaded with bias that there is no encyclopedic reason to cite it as a source unless you are analysing the rhetoric itself. - 203.166.252.95 12:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PM's description 

message: I think the new title is more fitting, since it is called "workplace relations reforms" by bipartisan sites such as this . In addition, the Act is called Workplace Relations Act 1996. The use of "workplace" is also self-explanatory. I've changed the year to 2006, as the bulk of the Act was proclaimed and commenced in 2006, hence it is 2006 when the reforms are actually implemented. JSIN 01:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Workplace Relations is a Howard Government PR term, and still has only limited currency in the media and public. Remember that is only at a federal level that the term is used and that the states each continue use of industrial relations. Moreover, the APH website is not bipartisan. While I do agree the previous title was defecient so is this new one. The use of the word "reform" is doubtlessly contentious, as is shown below. I originally argued against WorkChoices as the title, but it would seem to now to be the most appropriate term. I've thus renamed the article.--cj | talk 04:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation for move 

message: The word "reform" suggests a positive spin to the changes. The NPOV word "changes" should be used instead, as it's neutral and has no negative or positive connotation.Mrlefty 00:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. A reform is an overhaul, and that's what this is. Xtra 00:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, an overhaul is an overhaul; the word "reform" has positive connotations.  Mrlefty 06:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been moved to WorkChoices already, so "reform" is no longer part of the title. JSIN 06:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me "reform" connotes a righteous imposition, "change" suggests a natural course of events and "choices" connotes emancipation. None of these seem particularly neutral, so having the article title the same as the official name de jure is probably fairest. I think though that it would be fascinating to have a history section on the evolving naming of the package as it was (and is) communicated to voters. DLeonard 13:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of word "reform" 

message: I would like to see more articles on the restructure of the unions. Targeting solution for the demographic time-bomb in the work place. Here is something I whipped together i will still like to enter comparisons and other facts and figures. Holger I would like your response to bench marking jobs and concerns you might have, seeing that you have been so involved in the union articles .
Currently the union legislation in Australia has been changed and many people are scared about the uncertainty of their jobs and livelihood. I am currently working on a project that could take a lot of strain and uncertainty. Australia needs to become more transparent.
This is partly achievable by forecasting when workers skills need updating, for example when a job becomes more demanding or when new technology will make current employees competencies redundant. By allowing time for adequate, government subsidised, training the workforce will have the capacity to grow whilst becoming united in strength and versatility. Keeping the workforce one step ahead is essential for triumphing over future adversities all the while being competitive in a global economy.
This system occurs in South Africa. By continuously educating people in jobs they are able to move higher up, creating a circular movement for the up and coming or in Australians case immigrants whilst some retire. With the aging population this could be very beneficial however the process is not currently transparent hence corruption in some sectors is almost a guarantee.
The government is essentially moving away from rewarding complacency, and with less regulation in the unions potential investors are less likely to be intimidated in entering into the market. These changes have create more incentives for employees with the capabilities to take the financial risk in creating a their own business with the benefits out waying the negatives. Whilst in the transitional period many people might feel the adverse effects of these new legislations. The best answer lies in bench-marking every job individually. Those of you who are reading this might think that it is a daunting task and I welcome any concerns or questions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwaldie (talk • contribs)  Xtra 10:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  union overhaul 

message: Is it worth adding the comments into this article made by Senator Nick Minchin in private to the H.R. Nichols society about taking a mandate to the next election for further Industrial Relations changes. It was front line news a while ago. Kyle sb 12:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senator Minchin 

message: To those people who voted to have this article moved to its other title (cannot remember name cause it was so long) I'd just like to say you're a bunch of idiots. The title was always going to be out of date once 2006 came around. It should always have stayed as WorkChoices. Dankru 10:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just wanted to say

message: It should be noted that in the past that referenda have been held to transfer IR powers to the commonwealth and have been defeated on each occasion. http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/when/referendums/dates.htm - Cartman02au 10:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referenda 

message: I've added a much needed WikiQuote box to the bottom of the page, any contributions are welcome.Ed- 08:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Memorable Quotes

message: Ha ha ha.  MrLefty... you are a funny bugger.  Can't use the word "reform" because it implies positive change.  Oh, you are such a joker!  What I think is even more funny is that this page features a lovely portrait of the 11 ALP MPs ejected for carrying on like pork chops over the issue, when they should have been acting like adults!  That has a lot to do with Workchoices doesn't it?  And that spanner Combet is there too.  I guess he needs an intro.  If you're going to play with the ACTU you have to let them have a seat or two.  This is such a biased article it is hilarious.--Grinning Idiot 18:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the content in the article seems to be relevant - in many ways the negative public impression of the changes are more relevant than the changes themselves in terms of political significance. The Golden rule of Wikipedia - if something is wrong, and you've got the sources to show it, fix it yourself. - 203.166.252.95 12:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And more bias

message: I'm going to put this up for good article review soon for possible delisting of its GA status due to not meeting the good article criteria 2b, 3a, and possibly 4.  Please see Wikipedia:What is a good article? for more guidance on the criteria. For example, having only one inline reference in the WorkChoices#Significant changes section, (criterion 2b) and the article not really covering what happened with WorkChoices in 2006. (3a) Was it being enacted the be all and end all of WorkChoices in 2006?  The references all need to be checked for non-404ing,(2b) and there's some concern about POV - weasel wording and the like. (4)  The references need to be consistently formatted, (2b) and the external links embedded in the text like this need to go.(1b) Please assume good faith and work quickly to improve the article. -Malkinann 00:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now at Good Article Review. -Malkinann 23:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delisted per article quality concerns, here. Giggy UCP 05:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:GA/R|Good article review]]

message: Do you notice the very specific wording used in the adds? Have a very close listen and see what they say.
EG the work choices boss 
"some people say you are alone and not protected"
"You are not alone"
Does not say anything about protected! I wonder why?
I also noticed, no adds mention when you go for a new job. Its this is the offer if you dont like it, Ill get somone else.
Thats hardly surprising tho, If I was using tax payers money (That alot of political parties do, Hi Mike Rann!) I would want it to benfit me/my interests.
--Polygamyx4 08:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they could get someone else, then someone else gets a job. The government is for *everyone* not for you alone. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal Advertising campaign funded by the tax payers 

message: Whilst I agree the standard of this article was at one stage close to outstanding, especially for how much of WorkChoices Australia had progressed through at the time, one (or I could be alone on this) cant help but wonder if this article has fallen somewhat in to disrepute. It's times like this I wish we had Adam Carr back with us. Timeshift 04:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard of the article