This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Brexit OUT of EU: What happens now?

Jump to new
moXJO said:
I notice many that sht canned folau and backed big business are the ones preaching to me about unions and workers rights in other threads
Click to expand...

The underlying issue there is the one which separates those genuinely trying to achieve progress for workers, the environment, disadvantaged groups or whatever genuine cause versus those perpetually outraged for the sake of being outraged.

It's the "endless agenda" stuff which gets the blue collar workers etc offside with that sort of politics.
 
sptrawler said:
I think moxjo was indicating some who champion the unions right to defend workers, were among those who agreed with Rugby Australia's right to sack Folau, which in reality would be a major contradiction of beliefs. IMO
Click to expand...
Yep - if he was an ordinary worker in a decent union then they'd have given the company's bosses outright hell.

Not because of agreement with what he said but on the basis that he wasn't being paid for the time and as such it's none of their business what he does in that time.

The "celebrity" aspect of it is the only thing which really made it any different.
 
Last edited:

Well if your lot went for the banks instead of the unions shareholders on here might have been better off
Your lot reckoned a Royal Commission wasn’t necessary lolz
 
moXJO said:
Legal side is his rights were infringed by big business. It doesn't matter if he is a fundamentalist or not.
Pretty simple.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that statement is not accurate.
 
Humid said:
Well if your lot went for the banks instead of the unions shareholders on here might have been better off
Your lot reckoned a Royal Commission wasn’t necessary lolz
Click to expand...
I don't support people getting ripped off.
Unions and business need to be routinely pulled in.
 
Meanwhile, the luvvies are having random conniptions in shops now
 
PZ99 said:
Better spell it out to us mate. All I'm seeing is your view that he won. Nothing legal.
Click to expand...
One of the stated objectives of Part 6-4, Division 2 of the Fair Work Act is to give effect to International Labour Organisation Conventions 111 and 158, which were adopted in 1958 and 1982 respectively, then and ratified by Australia in 1973 and 1993.

The ILO is an agency of the United Nations. Under these two instruments of international law, Australia agreed that it would enact laws eliminating religious and other discrimination in employment AND that it would legislate so that employment can't be terminated on invalid grounds, including because of an employee's religion.

According to the ILO, such religious discrimination includes discrimination based on a person's expression of their religious beliefs.

Accordingly, section 772(1) of the Fair Work Act makes it unlawful (subject to some irrelevant exceptions) for an employer to terminate an employee's employment because of, or for reasons including an employee's religion. And if an employee's religion includes a person's expression of their religious beliefs - "believers" hardly worship in a vacuum - then was Folau terminated for reasons including his religion, or not?

If an employee's employment is nonetheless terminated because of reasons including those which are statutorily unlawful under section 772(1), the employee has 21 days after the termination, to apply to the Fair Work Commission, asking it to deal with the matter.
Usually, the FWC deals with such matters by way of mediation or conciliation. Those methods of touchy-feely dispute resolution won't cut the mustard though, in resolving the dispute to the satisfaction of either RA and Folau. So once the FWC agrees, the Act requires it to issue a certificate to that effect. Thereafter, Folau is free to take his unlawful termination case to the Federal Court of Australia.
Remember, we're dealing with "unlawful" termination, not a guillotining which is merely unfair or harsh. Once unlawful termination is alleged, it's up to RA to prove the termination wasn't anything to do with any unlawful reason, or for reasons INCLUDING that unlawful reason.

And if RA can't prove the termination had nothing at all to do with religion, then the Federal Court has the full jurisdiction to order that RA reinstate Folau; pay him full compensation; pay his (no doubt significant) legal bills; and pay a civil penalty of $A50,000 or more.

It's fair to say that an immense amount hinges on RA being able to absolutely delineate between it having terminated Folau's employment because he breached RA's applicable code of conduct by reason of expressing his religious beliefs; but NOT because of his religion, religious beliefs or the expression of those beliefs.

Moreover it's a dangerous division to say that a professional athlete's right to genuinely express their religious beliefs is mutually exclusive with his or her right to work.
 
I think this discussion sums up the problem rather well actually.

Too much focus on triviality whilst failing to address the real problems facing society.

That's an observation as to why many are disenfranchised with politics and not intended as an insult to anyone posting here.

Religion, ideology and so on - yeah whatever now what are we going to do about the real problems facing workers like globalisation? That's what it comes down to, too much fuss being made about the stuffing whilst ignoring the fact that we ain't got no turkey nor an oven to cook it in.
 
PZ99 said:
as is the theory the Conservatives make life easier for workers - still chuckling at that one
Click to expand...
Actually I think historically, you will find that workers wages do better during periods the conservatives are in, this is mainly due to the fact unions are more active in those periods.
Secondly the time of worst wage outcomes for workers, was during the Hawke/Keating period, where from memory real wages dropped 18% relative to CPI.
https://www.afr.com/politics/federa...f-bob-hawke-not-gough-whitlam-20190517-p51oje
From the article:
But the first measures of the Hawke-Keating government deliberately cut real wages through a formal wage freeze in order to restore profits and get business hiring again. This fixed what was then called the “real wage overhang” after the trade unions plundered Australia’s resources boom of the late 1970s, exaggerating its collapse into the recession of the early 1980s. Mr Hawke’s immediate goal was to restore business profits and encourage them to put on workers.

By the March 1983 election, unemployment had reached 10 per cent. By 1989 it was down to 5.9 per cent. The Hawke government highlighted that the greatest social fairness was having a job, and that workers could only prosper if the economy and business did, too. With the reduction in trade union power, Australia’s reformed economy got through the end of the 2000s resources boom without a jobs recession. Now the unions are demanding more power. And, as it anticipates the reins of power, a Labor government promises to raise wages through political edict rather than through productivity.

Even as ACTU president in the 1970s, Mr Hawke was a new breed of university-educated advocates for the unions. Unlike the ACTU’s pre-modern ideologues calling for a 50 per cent rise in the minimum wage at the Fair Work Commission this week, Mr Hawke sought to marshall sound economic arguments based on productivity. He avoided the class war rhetoric of modern Labor. His radicalism was aimed instead against the antediluvian protectionists of his own labour movement and the closeted paternalism of Australian business. Both needed the blast of economic openness. An early shot came from the defining decision to float the dollar on December 12, 1983, providing both real-time market judgment on the value of the Australian economy and a cushion against foreign shocks. The Australian Financial Review enthused that the government’s “sane, rational” approach to policy was better than anyone had expected, to the point of breaking with practice to urge its readers to vote at the 1984 election for a particular party: Labor.

Also during that period, there was the pilots strike, which Hawke crushed by using the RAAF to strike break.
If a conservative government had tried that, the unions would have shut the Country down.
Times are changing and Labor are nothing like what they were in the early 1970's, to believe they are is just fairy tales, perpetuated to keep the myth going.
I'll vote Labor when they start talking sense, or when the coalition starts trying to re introduce 'work choices', but i don't think that will ever re surface it died a big death when Howard was chucked out.
It's also funny to note that Hawke said "the greatest social fairness is to have a job", the conservatives say that and they get shouted down.
 
That's because that stuff isn't allowed to get on the agenda. Real issues are not allowed to be debated.

Alinsky's book has messed that up for generations
 
If you want to select that era, sure, the Hawke Govt made a deal with unions to deal with the wage explosion left over by the Fraser Govt. The conservatives opposed every single wage rise under those accords, then got in to Govt and straight away got into dirty deals with a labour force from O/S and guard dogs in the docks, then workchoices, then (unsuccessfully) moving the pension age to 70, new taxes on super and through to now with stagnate wages and opposition to penalty rates.

This Christian Porter fellow is a real hoot - he reckons all those hospitality deals where workers were getting under payed were good deals. Gotta love it - not

But.... I'm not pushing a Labor barrow - we were talking about whether the unions benefit workers or not.

I take the view that quality of life in this country is better than the UK - with or without Brexit - but it would be better if the right didn't constantly attack it by going after workers' conditions etc.
 
Like I said, when the conservatives are in, the unions fight them tooth and nail.
When Labor are in the unions try to avoid any disruption, I have been to many stop work meetings, where we are told not to take any action because it would have an adverse effect on the sitting labor Party.
You can believe anything you like, obviously you have a good union and rep, which is great.
By the way Labor raised the pension age to 67 and I will be surprised if it isn't them, that lifts it to 70.
The stagnant wages would be there no matter who is in, the economy is contracting due to the post boom effect and the global slowdown, as I'm sure your aware.
Buying your way out of the situation at the moment, will just put us in a world of pain later, it wasn't long ago everyone was saying we were kicking the can down the road.
Well by tightening now and having a bit of pain, is the alternative, I guess we can't have it both ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

European Elections and Politics in General
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
SirRumpole
The future of... The future?
Replies
3
Views
796
qldfrog
The Under 16 Social Media Ban
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
Smurf1976
Can you make money investing in watches?
2
Replies
26
Views
941
Knobby22
R
Can trading platforms change the value of candles that have already closed?
Replies
8
Views
1K
peter2
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...