laughing stock, page-86

Lets do another run then butcherbird. I will do so keeping in mind that that the current leader of the Liberals is being mentored by the author of WorkChoices - non other than Little (petrol bowser attendant come economist) Johnny who has recently said that WorkChoices was a good thing even though he was dragged screaming ranting and raving against the "fine tuning" of his industrial legislation. Now line up Nick Minchin beside him and it is obvious that if the Liberals get in under Mr Abbott then draconian industrial laws will again be on the cards.

But one more thing before we commence. You did make a fundamental error in criticizing me - effectively saying that I did not know what I was talking about as regards the No Disadvantage Test didn't you butcherbird? But it turned out that you were the one who did not know a thing about it. That is right isn't matey!! Agreed, okay, now we can go on.

Debden..sorry ..been busy..some of us dont work for Getup or the Labor party.

I don't really know why I respond to this personal summation but anyway. I do not work for any party. In fact I have never at any time been a member of any political party or participated in any political activity. In fact there is much that I dislike about Labor but the truth be still there, the Liberals are so much on about avarice that I just can't support them on anything much at all. Anyway if I were politically involved I would let you and everyone else know.

Now to get down to business.

From a Leftie mag.
With Work Choices on the nose, the government was forced to introduce a "fairness test" in May (similar to the "no disadvantage" test that Work Choices legislation initially scrapped), which forced employers to provide "fair" compensation in any individual or collective agreement where "protected conditions" were cut.

Yep it sure was on the nose butcherbird. So how come you have now posted this quote/opinion when in your original post you had the following: In spite of the unions utterly misleading deceitful propaganda. the vaste majority of workers favoured workchoices particularly in the mining sectors." That's right butcherbird, despite the fact that there was a multi million dollar tax payer funded campaign to convince people that they were not being ripped off the law smelt to high heaven of a first rate rip off of workers. And the smell was true to form with workers losing entitlements left right and centre and destined to lose more as time went on.

from wikipedia
The "fairness test" was a concept of the Australian Act of Parliament, the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Act 2007. .........

The most significant change of the Act was to introduce the Fairness Test, which operated retrospectively from 7 May 2007. The Fairness Test was introduced by the then Howard government as a “fine-tuning” of WorkChoices

So Howard introduced a "fairness" test similar to the no disadvantage test....lets not waste time on semantics.

But butcherbird we are not on about semantics at all. Why didn't you post the full paragraph. Oh, I know why, you are still on the con. Anyway I will do the full paste for you so all can see. Here it is:

"The most significant change of the Act was to introduce the Fairness Test, which operated retrospectively from 7 May 2007. The Fairness Test was introduced by the then Howard government as a “fine-tuning” of WorkChoices, but received criticism from both employer associations (due to the complexity and additional burden to businesses)[1] and trade unions including the Transport Workers Union for not providing adequate protections to employees.

So there we are the full opinion. not just the part that suited your argument. Don't you think that that is fairer than what you did?

There are a couple of other things that I think you should consider amidst your claim that the the Fairness Test was at one with the No Disadvantage Test. If it restored the status quo why then did Little Johnny get the Big A from parliament. He did you know and he got it because of his industrial legislation. The other thing. If "it" restored things to give the protection offered previously why then did the union spsnd millions of dollars to fight for it's removal. Let me know will you? As you have said, the Fairness Test was similar. But it was not the same matey and it did not offer the same protection as was previous.

Now for your summation - below. You have indicated previously that you have a callous regard for the entitlements of others but have the hide to claim that legislation which suits this attitude of yours was fair and just. How in the world you think you can get away with this leaves me wondering. There again when we look below at your "End of story" statement well we can see where you are coming from and the direction does have everything to do with an irrational adherence to some form of extreme right wing ideology and not much at all to do with justice and commonsense.


End of story.
BTW the mention of volunteers was simply to show that there are some in the community more concerned with the welfare of the community than pure unionists personal greed....and yes they do rescue commies, pinkos, greenies, basket weavers and chardonnay socilaists.