Talk:H. R. Nicholls Society

message: Much better. Timeshift (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with the way it's phrased currently; my issue with what was said previously is that HRN attacked workchoices on three grounds: firstly that it created reregulation not deregulation, secondly that it was unconstitutional and thirdly that it didn't lead to any real increase in labour market freedom (which was their goal). So arguably you could say that they opposed it because 'it didn't go far enough' as a way of addressing point three, but it doesn't address the first two (and in the first one somewhat goes against it. Hope this makes sense! :) Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Opposite statements can sometimes say the same thing as each other. WorkChoices regulates the market place more than even the previous legislation which upset the HR Nicholls Society which wants almost complete deregulation = hence WorkChoices went too far down the regulatory path.--VS talk 05:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would also be fair to say that WorkChoices achieved limited deregulation via regulation. Timeshift (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *Well yes but that is a bit of a circular argument insofar that it took over some of the State's responsibilities.  But if argued on the basis of net gain or loss - very much the opposite - WorkChoices is both particularly regulatory (it doubled in size from previous legislation alone) and its effect on the overall arena of Industrial Relations is far far more regulations (some of which were created directly by the State's as a part of ways to get around the WorkChoices regulations).--VS talk 05:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but you just have to look at people being dismissed and then offered their jobs on individual contracts rather than based on awards, and unfair dismissal gone for companies under 100 employees. The end result is less to protect the worker, thus deregulation - but it is hard to interpret, after all according to Hockey, ministers "weren't aware you could be worse off", despite Howard unwilling to give such a guarantee that this wouldn't be the case! But your points are valid and I agree. Timeshift (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WorkChoices content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on H. R. Nicholls Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrnicholls.com.au/archives/vol27/vol27-3.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrnicholls.com.au/work.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://hrnicholls.com.au/board-members/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrnicholls.com.au/nicholls/nichvo13/vol132th.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrnicholls.com.au/aims.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22567537-11949,00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/14/1192300600890.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518075552/http://www.alp.org.au/media/0306/dsiii080.php to http://www.alp.org.au/media/0306/dsiii080.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified