Skip to main content

When the IR laws are not!

As always the Road to Surfdom [check it out here] blog puts it succinctly

"If members of Mr Howard’s own party think the new IR legislation sucks, why should the rest of us have to put up with it?:

(Victorian) State Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu is distancing the Victorian Liberal Party from hardline elements of the Howard Government’s industrial relations revolution.

In the lead-up to the November state election, Mr Baillieu will tell nurses, doctors, teachers, police officers and other public sector workers that under a Victorian Liberal government none of them would be forced onto individual contracts or encouraged to quit their unions.

He will pledge that as premier, and therefore effectively the biggest employer in the state, he will continue the Bracks Labor Government’s policy of negotiating collective agreements with the main public sector unions, which cover hundreds of thousands of Victorian workers.

No wait, he doesn’t think they suck:

State Liberal strategists last night emphasised that he remained a strong supporter of the Federal Government’s laws, but was keen to send a message that on industrial relations he was pro-choice rather than anti-union.

So he’s strong supporter of them, he’s just not anti-union and he’s pro-choice. In other words — and excuse me labouring the obvious implication of his words — he’s saying that WorkChoices is anti-union and anti-choice."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more