Quick dump
Hey y'all. Preparing for exams now, so haven't been (and won't be ) posting much for the next few weeks. Anyways, some thoughts...
Socceroos:
Could that game have been ANY better? Bloody unreal! Tune in Sunday night when the green and gold take on the ... errr... gold and green?
Politics:
Beazley announced at the NSW Labor conference, that the Labor policy would be to abolish AWA (Australian Workplace Agreements). Studies (including government studies) have shown that the vast majority of AWA's have worse conditions than awards - its clear that their purpose is singularly to circumvent minimum conditions. And AWA's are relatively rare. Most "white collar" workers are on common law contracts. Howard has been busy trying to paint AWA's as the preferred employment instrument for "Aspirational workers"... whatever that means. Most people moving "up" in the workforce move to common law contracts. If Labor can prosecute the argument effectively, this could be very potent. The question remains as to whether they are capable of doing that. They need to sell the message that the Howard IR laws are about enforcing maximum conditions, and putting downward pressure, whilst their proposed system is about enforcing minimum conditions and putting upward pressure. THe debate on IR credibility seems also to be prosecuted on a macro vs. micro level, with Howard arguing the macro issues of employment show him as a better employment manager, whereas Labor showing individual stories (on a micro level) about conditions being stripped away. The message that could potentially bite here is if they sell the line that the economy should serve the people... in this case, Howard is sacrificing people to serve the economy. Although probably not based on sound economics, that is a potent message for the "battlers". And since when has sound economics been a policy consideration?
Socceroos:
Could that game have been ANY better? Bloody unreal! Tune in Sunday night when the green and gold take on the ... errr... gold and green?
Politics:
Beazley announced at the NSW Labor conference, that the Labor policy would be to abolish AWA (Australian Workplace Agreements). Studies (including government studies) have shown that the vast majority of AWA's have worse conditions than awards - its clear that their purpose is singularly to circumvent minimum conditions. And AWA's are relatively rare. Most "white collar" workers are on common law contracts. Howard has been busy trying to paint AWA's as the preferred employment instrument for "Aspirational workers"... whatever that means. Most people moving "up" in the workforce move to common law contracts. If Labor can prosecute the argument effectively, this could be very potent. The question remains as to whether they are capable of doing that. They need to sell the message that the Howard IR laws are about enforcing maximum conditions, and putting downward pressure, whilst their proposed system is about enforcing minimum conditions and putting upward pressure. THe debate on IR credibility seems also to be prosecuted on a macro vs. micro level, with Howard arguing the macro issues of employment show him as a better employment manager, whereas Labor showing individual stories (on a micro level) about conditions being stripped away. The message that could potentially bite here is if they sell the line that the economy should serve the people... in this case, Howard is sacrificing people to serve the economy. Although probably not based on sound economics, that is a potent message for the "battlers". And since when has sound economics been a policy consideration?
Post a Comment