Hockey schtick

Workers would be able to take double their annual leave at half pay and up to a year of unpaid parental leave under a re-elected Coalition government.


And grandparents will get leave rights for the first time.


Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey today talked up the government's workplace reforms as he released its workplace relations policy, aiming for full employment.


The launch came during a nationally-televised debate with his Labor opponent Julia Gillard.


"(It is) a policy that targets three per cent unemployment, a policy that locks in a stable workplace relations system to the next term of government so that business can get about employing more Australians."


Under the new policy, workers with the agreement of their employers will be able to take double their annual leave at half pay.


Parents will be able to take up to 52 weeks of unpaid parental leave.


The Age

I think I've got the government worked out now. See, what WorkChoices was really about was making workers grateful for the changes in legislation.

(Hockey) stick with me here.

Take away the awards that allow for unpaid parental leave or leave half-pay, then, when enough people have signed AWAs and just when it looks like you're up shit creek at election time, announce that you are going to allow them to have unpaid parental leave and leave half-pay!

That way, you look like you're giving them something, but you're actually just giving them back what they already had. And those people on the AWAs? Sorry, you'll have to wait until you next get together with your employer to negotiate your working conditions!

Employers don't lose out 'cause they've gotten what they want, the government doesn't lose out (and they hopefully win back the hearts and control of the minds of the people) because they've not really given anything away, and the people still lose out!

Brilliant. Just fucking brilliant. You gotta hand it to them - it's genius.

Unfairly dismissed? Who cares!? Look at all these shiny new jobs!

J-Ho was on Insiders today.

He's very proud of the fact that they've removed unfair dismissal laws. 'Cause by doing so, it has allowed for the creation of all these shiny new jobs!

How can you find that a problem? God, you people are so ungrateful.


Sorry Big Ted. You're gonna have to take one for the team. I'd rather stick bamboo under my fingernails before voting for that prick.

Could Labor's soft strategy lead to loss?

Could even John Howard make these men look impotent?

This is something that's been bothering me all week, mainly because the same thing happened during the disastrous 2004 election campaign: Labor clearly has the same people running their advertising campaigns as they did back then. This was worrying me back in July, and I really hoped the ALP would wake up to themselves in the meantime. What we should be doing is seeing ads putting some steel-toed boots into the ribs of the Libs while they're down in the polls. Some more anti-Workchoices ads. Some more 'John Howard has been asleep on climate change' ads. Some ads reminding people of how Howard spent $2 billion of their money on ads promoting himself and his policies (and maybe a promise to change the rules so that can't happen again? Helloooo?). Anything that will remind people of why they shouldn't be voting for Howard, and I don't mean more of those lame anti-Costello ads.

Instead we've been getting nice, bland Kevin Rudd, speaking in measured tones, soft enough to appeal to grandmas yet forceful enough to sound statesmanlike, with soft, inspirational music playing in the background. Enough, Kevin! You can be a statesman after you win the frigging election. Anything earlier is just playing make-believe. It didn't work for Mark Latham and it won't work for you. The polls are heading in Howard's favour already, and presidential-style ads aren't going to stop his $34 billion vote-buying spree having an impact on the electorate.

One positive to come out of this week is actually Rudd's response to the $34 billion in tax cuts- given his past form I expected Labor to fall for the same trick as last election, making lots of promises in support of schools, the healthcare system etc and then promising tax cuts on top of it all to match the government and consequently looking weak on their fiscal management.

Just one final note- how much of an ass is Wayne Swan? I guess there's the possibility that he's under instruction to 'stay on message', in which case he's been given the wrong message, but in interviews this week he seems to be running around trying to be Peter Costello to Kevin Rudd's John Howard, once again missing the opportunity to put the boot into Workchoices and the effect it has on ordinary people's earnings.

Oh, and you know who I think we should be seeing more of? Julia Gillard.

Somebody slap them!

Union attacks

Mr Hockey, whose Liberal Party has launched scathing election advertisements highlighting the 70 per cent of Labor frontbenchers with a union background, said it was incredible Labor intended to govern with such a high union representation.

"[The role of unions] is essentially over," Mr Hockey told ABC Radio today.

"That's because we have a system with a strong, independent umpire that is providing protections for workers.

"Because the unions do not cover 80 per cent of the workers out there, we find that people are turning to the Workplace Authority and the Workplace Ombudsman to obtain information and to get protection."

Mr Hockey said workers who were not union members could turn to the Workplace Ombudsman for advice, but the Labor Party wanted to dismantle that office.

He said Australians viewed unions as irrelevant and were choosing not to join them, a trend that started under former Labor prime minister Bob Hawke.

SMH

No, the reasons people aren't joining the unions is because they still have an old-fashioned view of them, and the government scare campaign over many years has wormed its way into the minds of the populace. The unions are not good at positive self-promotion.

Very few unions are as militant as they were. Because over the years they were achieving many of the goals they aimed for. But now, they have a higher profile because the government is systematically eroding their achievements. My grandfather must be rolling over in his grave. (He was heavily involved in unions. Actually even got a mention in a book about them - the name of which escapes me at present.) People started leaving the unions when Hawke was PM because they had yet to catch up with the general feelings of the public. But now they have.

Personally, I don't think much can be achieved nowdays by going on strike. Because unlike in my grandfather's era, there is less of a feeling of community in the population. If people went on strike back then, other people would support them and the reasons for the strike. People wouldn't become scabs because they knew they faced ostracisation, which doesn't happen so much now because big-business has such a foothold in the minds of the public and all people seem to care about is profit over the well-being of the people who help achieve that profit.

The public has become complacent. And now we are facing the consequences.

"I don't think anyone would have thought that in 2007 it would be credible for Kevin Rudd to go to an election with 70 per cent of his frontbench made up of former union officials, and that would be a dramatic increase in the number of union officials that, say, Bob Hawke had," he said.

Irrelevant. I'll keep saying it - you must be a union member to be in the ALP*. So naturally the chances of the bulk of the frontbench being former union officials is high. Being a union official is a politicised position. It is a natural stepping stone for someone in the ALP who wants to make a difference in the government. End of story.

Just because a politician is a former union official it does not mean that they will allow themselves to be unfairly influenced by the unions. They know that come the next election, if people are unhappy with their performance, they will be given the boot - so in a way, their involvement with the union movement can be seen as something that prevents them from making extreme choices.

The ACTU has hit back at a Liberal Party campaign highlighting the union affiliations of Labor's frontbench team, saying it is insulting to working families.

ACTU president Sharan Burrow said a television advertisement released yesterday by the Liberals was wrong to suggest unions were anti-business.

The ad was also insulting to the millions of Australians whose job security and living standards were protected by unions.

"The job of all unions is to protect secure, well-paid employment for Australian working families," she said.

"To achieve this we need profitable businesses that value their workers. (my empahsis)

Workers who are valued are happy. Happy workers are more productive. This means that businesses achieve more.

I'll concede that not all business will use WorkChoices as a means to take advantage of their workers. But there are those that will. And until you can guarantee that no workers will be unfairly treated, you cannot write off the unions. An agency set up by the government should not be relied on as the only organisation that will ensure that worker's rights are protected.

The government scare campaign will continue. You've probably seen the latest bit of propaganda by now. See it here if you've not.



Labor have hit back with Rudd calling out Howard's scare campaign with a "Fresh Ideas" ad.

*apparently this is untrue. As I said in my comment - a number of years ago before I'd gotten around to joining the QPSU, I rang the ALP and was informed I'd need to be a union member. Is this a recent thing? Can anyone enlighten?

But I don't believe that it makes my comments any less valid. Given that the ALP is traditionally aligned with the unions, it is hardly a surprise that most, if not all, of the pollies have union affiliations of some description.

Spotlight on Workchoices

Fabric retailer Spotlight, at the centre of a national controversy last year for slashing staff pay under Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), has abandoned the agreements altogether.

The announcement followed the rejection of 460 Spotlight AWAs by the federal Workplace Authority after they failed the government's fairness test.

The test ensures workers are compensated for the loss of any penalty rates and other benefits.

Spotlight chief executive Stephen Carter said the company would return to union collective agreements because it wanted to concentrate on its business.

SMH

Huh.

So, the "fairness test" does work. It makes companies revert back to collective agreements because the employer isn't being fair.

Who would have thought it?

In May last year, Labor raised in parliament the case of a 57-year-old Spotlight employee who lost penalty payments, overtime and other benefits in exchange for a pay rise of just two cents an hour under an AWA.

The embarrassment to the government from that episode was followed by a string of cases in which alleged rip-offs were occurring under AWAs.

Of course it is embarrassing. Because who said that employees would be better off under AWAs?

The government.

Hockey is spinning this (of course), saying that it proves that the "fairness test" works. What about the fact that they shouldn't need to use a fairness test because employees should be guaranteed fair working conditions and payment?

"This is an example of a strong and independent umpire doing its job and that is great for working Australians,'' Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey said.

"The Workplace Authority is more than happy to work with employers, but the bottom line is they must pay their employees properly.''

Mr Hockey said the government supported the company's attempt to reach a union collective agreement because the government's system allowed employers to choose between all types of agreements.

But I thought unions were in cahoots with the ALP out to screw over the employers? To ensure that fewer people were employed?

Huh.

Somehow I don't think this will be used as an example of "successful" outcome for the IR legislation in the election lead up.

Magic Bellybutton

Backflip

The Federal Government has promised no further industrial relations upheaval if it wins the upcoming election, admitting employees already have a poor understanding of its sweeping workplace reforms.

Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey last week flagged further tweaking of the unpopular laws before the election.

But today he ruled out any major changes to the laws, which took unfair dismissal protection away from millions of workers and allowed employees to bargain away penalty rates and other award conditions in return for more pay or flexible hours.

"We are committed absolutely to the fundamentals of our workplace relations laws," Mr Hockey told the Ten Network.

"We're not going to change them.

"Obviously, it has been a challenge in the face of the fear campaign to bed them down.

"I have no desire to undertake further structural reform to the workplace relations system for the next three years."

SMH

Over the last few months, the issues that the Coalition had good positioning on have been eroded. Interest rate rises would have diminished to some extent their lead on the Interest Rate issue (or at least its significance and positioning), Rudds APEC activity would have pushed the international issues more favourably toward the ALP, and the leadership fiasco would have shunted their Strong Team and Strong Leadership issues.

I’m starting to believe that because the strategy is failing, it will be junked.It will be junked because keeping it will lead to oblivion.

Doing more of the same just means receiving more of the same kinds of polling. The Coalition vote cannot get much lower anyway, the strategy has failed them all the way down to the bottom few percent of their electoral support level.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see a complete strategy reversal.

Look for big tax cuts, a few Workchoices backflips, a billion dollar health system injection and something large on education. The public seems to have shifted and the Coalition was caught with its pants down. Minimising their losses by focusing on their existing strong points is failing dismally through both Rudds actions and a large dose of self inflicted wounds.

A strategy reversal might minimise some of the ALPs leadership on issues like health, education and IR for a small chunk of ex-coalition voters while pushing ALP ownership of the issues for continuing ALP voters out further, while big tax cuts would play to their own strengths and might perhaps lure some of that same ex-coalition voting group back.It might be the best opportunity they have to grab a small chunk of their deserted voter base back to minimise their loss.

Possums Pollytics

Well we know that Nick Minchin doesn't think that Workchoices go far enough. We know that the BCA agree with him. So, are they lying to the BCA, who have spent millions of dollars that could have been reinvested in their members' businesses, supporting the govt. or are they lying to us, the mugs who hand over our taxes to pay for millions of dollars on Workchoices ads?