Melbourne Chat

So what - you do support and erosion of FWA's independence - and on purely political grounds?.

 

Yes or no would be fine.

"Seems a bit more productive than simply refusing to prove your other allegations when they are challenged. LOL! "

 

 

No need to posit on the contents of my dreams - at all - you just need to indicate your basic stance on this.

 

Anything else is a red herring, and admission.

 

Happily you at least recognise that BS has a very tarnished record in dealing with his very own union members.

 

It's not a great step from there to support independence for FWA. 

For the record the heroes that execise their poltical independence are just like all other pollies - driven by vote garnering.

 

 1 Nation, NXT, Bob Katter, Derryn Hinch, are hardly my idea of political heroes, but if you think they are that's your privilege and right.

Who said they were heroes? Not me. They are public servants tasked with representing the people independently.


Not to limit themselves to towing some party line.

 

You support the people voting against elitist establishment politics in America so why not do it here?

 

I don't have a problem with the FWA being independent if it really is independent. However this latest decision, along with prior suspect events gives me grounds to question its independence.... just like you question the independence of the ABC.

 

It's not purely on political grounds. You think the ABC is biased, I think the FWA is biased.

 

At least you admit the assertion of penalty rates being reduced under an ALP Govt was a dream divorced from reality.

Heh HehHeh, :LMAO:

 

I could maybe agree that FWA is biased but for very different verifiable reasons!! I don't however make that claim.

 

A creature of the ALP, staffed by the ALP carrying out ALP policy related to penalty rates review mandated by Bill Shorten, I see no biase toward this governments policies - and I see no attempt by the present government to interfere with the FWA independence.

 

The ALP on the other hand is attempting with the connivance of your heroically independent crossbenchers to do just exactly that - interfere with FWA independence. :gathering:

 

One marvels at the lack of respect and support for their very own creation :pacman:

On the other hand one marvels at the full respect and support for the will of the voting public, an attribute you and the Coalition appear to have abandoned during this debate :ras:

 

"carrying out ALP policy related to penalty rates review mandated by Bill Shorten"

 

Ok so you're saying it was biased in 2012/13 but not in 2017 despite this large change of direction on penalty rates that just happens to match this altruistic Govt's policy from 2014?

 

That's a big call, it's a bit like saying that Andrew Bolt is some kind of ALP apparatchik :bee:

 

Happily, the electorate don't agree with this decision.

 

So let's have an early election, gotta love that "heroic" independence

The popularity or otherwise of the government has nothing to do with the threat to the independence of the FWA.

 

This threat is not coming from the usual suspects - the conservatives, it comes from the ALP and it's populist cross bench supporters.

 

Me, I really think that any award worker should shiver at this development - the threat to FWA independence, after all, if the ALP want to behave in this way and it garners - in your opinion, popular support, then it's not unlikely that the government would be tempted to do the same.

 

I do not comment on FWA's biases in this debate, whichever way they may lie.

 

All I say is: biased or not, the FWA's independence should be respected and supported.

 

That the "champions" of the workers see it differently is altogether ironic. :wacky:

If the FWA have made a bad decision they can't be immune from being held to account simply because they are supposedly independent. They exist for the betterment of the community by adhering to their expectations.


The majority of the community does not agree with award workers being mugged of some of their Sunday rate and never have done.


Why would any worker shiver at attempts to reverse this decision?


I don't think affected workers would see a pay cut reversal as a threat Aloy.


A promise maybe, and a positive one.

Bad decision in your opinion.

Everyone will not agree with you.


Have trouble with referees at all?


The apparent inability to look a little further than your nose does not guarrantee others need not be concerned about the attempted sabotaging of FWA independence.


Once independence is diminished anyone take take advantage of it.


Contniually citing the present workers and ignoring future workers that get jobs via this decision, is altogther one eyed.


That was the reasoning of FWA and it should be in mind when looking at this issue.

Quote:Bad decision in your opinion.
Everyone will not agree with you.

Have trouble with referees at all?

No but I have trouble when the goalposts are moved after the game has started.

When referees make a bad decision it goes to the third umpire, in this case, it goes to the people.

The people have spoken, most people agree it's a bad decision.

Quote:The apparent inability to look a little further than your nose does not guarrantee others need not be concerned about the attempted sabotaging of FWA independence.

Once independence is diminished anyone take take advantage of it.

I can see it further than you can. Unlike yourself I'm also capable of learning from past Govt errors.

The independence of the industrial relations commission was diminished by the Howard Govt when they started Workchoices.

Given your previous support of Workchoices this makes your "concern" about sabotaging independence a bit one eyed to me


 

Quote:Contniually citing the present workers and ignoring future workers that get jobs via this decision, is altogther one eyed.

That was the reasoning of FWA and it should be in mind when looking at this issue.

Present workers are more important. They are faced with present challenges such as record high living costs.

Future workers have a choice, and a safety net. Current workers don't.

Current workers are more likely to become future employers in a small business if they have a decent wage to support their goals.

Humbug!

 

Dragging up the past to excuse interference in the decisions of FWA????

 

As for your tawdry remarks that says present workers are more important than any others: Dumb luck is no criteria for favoritism!

 

Matter of a fact your opinion in this regard indicates that you are actually fair dinkum in wanting to diminish the authority of FWA - I find that quite incompatible with so many of your other liberal view points - but as I have said - frequently - that is your right.

 

We ask for leadership in this country and so often undermine it at the first hint of it's demonstration - in this case carefully studied issues have resulted in leadership decision making - but so many reject it - far better in their "minds" for us to slide into a miasma of inertia and steady decline.

 

Oh, and tough luck to the unemployed!!

Uh, OK so it's more rank hypocrisy from the born to rule Tories is it?

Don't talk to me about favouritism if it's OK for John Howard to diminish an independent tribunal but not OK for Labor to do it. 


Dunno where you get this "other liberal view points" stuff from.

I have never supported the regressive ideal of punishing workers.

Those who do are either greedy, ignorant, jealous or just plain nasty.


Inertia and steady decline is a direct result of wage growth not keeping up with the cost of living in this country.

And that's coming from the reserve bank.


Taking income off workers isn't leadership. It's gross stupidity bordering on legalising wage theft.

 

And given your other Tory remarks you really expect me to believe you feeling sorry for the unemployed?

 

Pull the other one  :laugh: 

 

OK I pulled the other one days ago and you didn't notice Heh Heh :ras:  :LMAO:

 

You are hopelessly compromised - you are suppporting an anti democratic attack on a basic right - the right to an independent judiciary.

 

Well keep going, it's your right, wrong as you may be :Shame:

 

Oh and the last time I checked  unemployment was considerably lower in the Howard days than anything since - does that maybe tell you something?

 

I would guess not

Yeah, I remember the first 10 years of the Howard Govt. Penalty rates and redundancies in full force along with falling unemployment, high consumer spending, a thriving economy plus high interest rates and high taxes.

 

Penalty rates did not increase unemployment - at all.

 

I'm not in the least bit compromised - I'm supporting workers rights and have done for many years.

 

You supported an anti democratic attack by the Howard Govt on those very rights when you sided with Workchoices which came with its own attack on the independent judiciary known as the industrial relations commission, another fact you are avoiding in your replies.


If anyone is wrong and/or hopelessly compromised it's you.

 

The only thing you have going for you in your last reply is the admission that you are treating this whole thing as a joke.

Oh no , no joke at all, I totally reject interference in a duly constituted arm of government, no matter who authored it, in this case the "supporters of workers rights"

 

Just what part of our rule of law is safe from the whingers and political hacks?

 

We could of course legally change the law - wanna revisit FWA?

 

I doubt it - in that case support the rule of law.

 

No worker will be safe if we water down these systems there will be no rules.

 

The sheer arrogance of those who self proclaim their support for workers rights and thereby hint that they alone care. 

This is demonstrably untrue, after all the AWU voluntarily negotiated away penalty rates during enterprise bargaining negotiations.

 

Using your logic these self proclaimed protectors of "workers rights" are worse than the FWA, and both are worse than the government.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

Compromised???? :Cry:  :Cry:

You are not using my logic correctly. I have never supported the AWU or any union trading away penalty rates. I have however used that as an example as to how flexible our IR laws were without the need for changes such as cutting Sunday rates with no compensation whatsoever. You yourself were a beneficiary of the ability to exchange your penalty rates for a better overall package.


That is one of the reasons why this paranoia about watering down the tribunal is a bit misplaced. The FWA didn't exist 9 years ago. Prior to that we had a system where mandated minimum wages were set by the IRC and other allowances like penalty rates, holidays, sickies etc were set into legislation and voted for democratically by the people. It was a system that worked well until the Howard Govt abolished the entire safety net with their Workchoices policy which was about as compromised as you can get given that it wasn't taken to an election.

 

I personally don't have a problem with Fairwork setting minimum wages as long as it's fair.

 

But penalty rates or any other safety nets shouldn't be changed unless it's done democratically and I suspect it's this area that will form the basis of Labor's IR policy at the next election. 

Aaaaaaaah whatever!

 

The ALP didn't rebirth the IRC so again your logic fails once more.

 

Seems that to you the unions are wrong, the ALP is wrong, the FWA is wrong, hell, even the government who did nothing are wrong!!!! (All on the record)

 

The paranoia is yours and it's about penalty rates.

 

Get over it PZ 

Why not get over it yourself mate?

 

Several weeks ago you told us you don't even care about this subject which really means the only reason you're dragging this out to the nth degree is for the sake of nothing.

 

What are you talking about anyway? How on earth did you arrive at the theory of The ALP rebirthing the IRC?

 

According to you the ALP are wrong, the Greens are wrong, Jacqui Lambie is wrong, Pauline Hanson is wrong, Bob Katter is wrong, Derryn Hinch is wrong, Nick Xenophon is wrong, the ACTU are wrong, the unions are wrong, the workers are wrong... even the voters are wrong.

 

Hello? Only you and the Coalition are right? In your own authoritarian world maybe... not on this democracy mate.

 

Paranoia? I said penalty rates were under threat and that's exactly what's happened. That's not paranoia, it's fact.

 

When someone says "any award worker should shiver at this development - the threat to FWA independence" ?

 

That's paranoia.

Ok, you will never get it.


That's your right to remain immune to all reality.


No one can say that you were not dealt with, with inordinate patience, all to no avail.


I agree, might as well agree to disagree.

I'm happy for you to agree to disagree.

But that doesn't make you superior in this debate. Quite the opposite.

I work, you don't. You can't impugn my connection with reality.

My opinion is just as valid as yours.

Have a nice day mate