Labor’s Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations Stephen Smith has today conceded Kim Beazley’s pledge to abolish AWAs was a blunder.
Joining the efforts of West Australian Premier Alan Carpenter, Mr Smith is now also trying to appease the mining industry by privately acknowledging its need for AWAs, according to the Australian Financial Review (2/8/06).
We know Mr Smith was not consulted about Kim Beazley’s pledged to abolish AWAs.
1 comment:
And we know Mr Smith was blind-sided by the decision, because he had been giving private assurances to industry that AWAs would be retained in some form.
Now, according the Australian Financial Review, Mr Smith is once again offering private assurances that, "Labor was considering allowing common law contracts in the mining industry that would offer ‘the same sorts of benefits’ as an AWA."
But Mr Smith’s problem, once again, is that he will not be able to deliver.
He will not be able to deliver because he will not be able to answer these questions:
Will Labor policy overturn almost a century of legal precedent and now allow common law contracts to override awards? How will this be done?
Common law contracts are not the same as AWAs. Only AWAs, not common law contracts, can legally override prescriptive and inflexible awards.
How will Labor ensure that companies who have enjoyed the benefits of AWAs not be returned to prescriptive, inflexible award regulation?
Abolishing AWAs will allow workplaces to once again be controlled by unions who have a vested interest in maintaining awards which regulate every hour of every workers day.
What will Labor do to ensure that the 85% of employees who are not union members will continue to have the right to negotiate directly with their employer?
Abolishing AWAs in favour of common law contracts will give unions a legal right to be involved in the bargaining process.
How does Labor plan to ensure that companies are not exposed to crippling industrial action?
Abolishing AWAs in favour of common law contracts will allow the union movement to take industrial action at any time.
If Labor policy will now allow common law contracts to have the "same sorts of benefits" as AWAs, will Kim Beazley now admit that the only reason why he wants to abolish AWAs is because the union movement demanded it?
Labor and the union movement have an ideological hatred of AWAs because the union can not be a party to the AWA.
Labor claims that it will only allow those current AWAs which are "genuine" to continue to for the remaining life of the agreement. Who will decide what is a genuine AWA? Dave Robinson, Kevin Reynolds, Greg Combet or Sharan Burrow?
Kim Beazley has promised to abolish AWAs simply because his union bosses ordered him to. There is simply no other reason for Mr Beazley's commitment to what is a blueprint to cripple the mining industry.
Stephen Smith’s attempt to privately appease the mining industry has exposed Mr Beazley as a weak leader who is more interested in his own job than the jobs of hard working Australians
Post a Comment