he just keeps on keeping on with this governments inner ideals.

The Liberals don't care about workers mortgage pain, Via the cost of houses... they want workers to have to work 50+ hours per every-week.

This is how they plan to keep the economy ticking over. keep the workers battling financially, & they have to work fingers to the bone. if workers have less finance stress they work less hours.

the Liberals are not good for workers..... they, are only good for publicly listed companies on the stock-market.

Edited September 21, 20159 yr by dee-luded

Does Bill Shorten care about the workers pain?

What does it matter if an entire industry work force lose their rights? As long as Shorten's union membership numbers are boosted.

There is one thing worse than stripping workers rights and that is pretending to represent the workers and stripping their rights.

Does Bill Shorten care about the workers pain?

What does it matter if an entire industry work force lose their rights? As long as Shorten's union membership numbers are boosted.

There is one thing worse than stripping workers rights and that is pretending to represent the workers and stripping their rights.

I agree w45. bring up some material about the Libs, Peter Reith & peoples &/or workers rights...

& we'll see what the rabbot does, about the marriage debate, soon to be seen?

Peter Rieth & Patrick corp. lies damn lies

Peter Rieth & Howard - ,Children Overboard', & making the navy liars. lies damn lies

uncle tony rabbot ????? soon to be witnessed... don't listen to anything he says, unless its scripted.

royal commissions, as a political ploy to undermine the democratic elections.

murdocks papers/media, & right wing electioneering

peoples rights, what rights!!!

Peter Reith who enforced productivity on the warfs 4 governments ago ? I count Kevin 07 twice.

Does Bill Shorten care about the workers pain?

What does it matter if an entire industry work force lose their rights? As long as Shorten's union membership numbers are boosted.

There is one thing worse than stripping workers rights and that is pretending to represent the workers and stripping their rights.

Just out of interest Wrecker did Bill use the legislation that was enacted by Tony Abbott in the Howard government ?

Bill didnt pretend to represent workers or he wouldnt be being investigated, he represented them using the processes of the legislation. If any stripping of rights was done the Royal Commission may have to investigate the body that had responsibility for that under the Howard legislation.

Just out of interest Wrecker did Bill use the legislation that was enacted by Tony Abbott in the Howard government ?

Bill didnt pretend to represent workers or he wouldnt be being investigated, he represented them using the processes of the legislation. If any stripping of rights was done the Royal Commission may have to investigate the body that had responsibility for that under the Howard legislation.

Correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty confident the Howard Government didn't pass legislation allowing unions to bill companies for services never provided and increase their union numbers (and factional powers) whilst at the same time stripping their workers of rights.

Correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty confident the Howard Government didn't pass legislation allowing unions to bill companies for services never provided and increase their union numbers (and factional powers) whilst at the same time stripping their workers of rights.

You are wrong

the legislation allowed the employer and the workers to reach agreement which would be registered through the process.

It was designed to ensure flexibility for the employers, to achieve control and flexibility of the workforce. An admirable position.

Unfortunately workers were also capable of using that flexibility especially when united (as in unions)

Workers often saw that there were improved industry rather than employer benefits that they would benefit from if their individual employer changed and so industry benefits occurred and union membership increased.

It is a little more complicated than that, the legislation passed was not intended to achieve that outcome but it was one of the results.

You are wrong

the legislation allowed the employer and the workers to reach agreement which would be registered through the process.

It was designed to ensure flexibility for the employers, to achieve control and flexibility of the workforce. An admirable position.

Unfortunately workers were also capable of using that flexibility especially when united (as in unions)

Workers often saw that there were improved industry rather than employer benefits that they would benefit from if their individual employer changed and so industry benefits occurred and union membership increased.

It is a little more complicated than that, the legislation passed was not intended to achieve that outcome but it was one of the results.

Ok so which part of the Howard Governments legislation allowed the union to bill corporations for services they didn't provide? It's no good speaking like Shorten and answering the question you wished you were asked.

Ok so which part of the Howard Governments legislation allowed the union to bill corporations for services they didn't provide? It's no good speaking like Shorten and answering the question you wished you were asked.

the part that allowed them to have agreement with the employer ratified.

It's been a while since I looked up the act so can't refer to the exact sections but that's how it's done

If the corporation didn't want to pay for services not provided by union or anyone else they don't pay. If they paid without agreement then you are right there was no legislation. Perhaps you don't want to consider answers you don't want.

Which does beg the question why is the royal commission asking only Shorten when employers and tribunals were part of the agreement process. Oh that was the legislation which we are not attempting to demonise.

Perhaps you'd like a three word slogan rather than a reasoned response. Stop the rot.

I await the well paid commissioners decision and hope he can avoid commenting on individuals presentation style. Criticising Shorten for to expansive answers and then criticising him for too brief answers FCS. When he concentrates on the facts he will no doubt produce an outcome similar to every other politically inspired RC.

Interesting the Joe will have to pay for winning the case

His credentials as treasurer confirmed with his inability to place action over ideology.

Ok so which part of the Howard Governments legislation allowed the union to bill corporations for services they didn't provide? It's no good speaking like Shorten and answering the question you wished you were asked.

,so how does the political parties, such as the liberals, account for donations from businesses & wealthy Individuals ? for services they don't provide, wrecka ?

or is it that some form of devine providence from the magic rabbott is accrued ?

Edited August 16, 201510 yr by dee-luded

Does Bill Shorten care about the workers pain?

What does it matter if an entire industry work force lose their rights? As long as Shorten's union membership numbers are boosted.

There is one thing worse than stripping workers rights and that is pretending to represent the workers and stripping their rights.

I agree w45. bring up some material about the Libs, Peter Reith & peoples &/or workers rights...

& we'll see what the rabbot does, about the marriage debate, soon to be seen?

Peter Rieth & Patrick corp. lies damn lies

Peter Rieth & Howard - ,Children Overboard', & making the navy liars. lies damn lies

uncle tony rabbot ????? soon to be witnessed... don't listen to anything he says, unless its scripted.

royal commissions, as a political ploy to undermine the democratic elections.

murdocks papers/media, & right wing electioneering

peoples rights, what rights!!!

........ and don't forget greasy Joe's

the part that allowed them to have agreement with the employer ratified.

It's been a while since I looked up the act so can't refer to the exact sections but that's how it's done

If the corporation didn't want to pay for services not provided by union or anyone else they don't pay. If they paid without agreement then you are right there was no legislation. RC.

The corporations wanted to pay the Union for services not provided because they got favourable terms. In common language it's called a bribe. Look up Winslow Construction. When unions are taking money to worsen workers rights but strengthen their own power it stinks. Also explains why Labor, the Greens and the unions are desperate to undermine the RC which is exposing them.

The corporations wanted to pay the Union for services not provided because they got favourable terms. In common language it's called a bribe. Look up Winslow Construction. When unions are taking money to worsen workers rights but strengthen their own power it stinks. Also explains why Labor, the Greens and the unions are desperate to undermine the RC which is exposing them.

Looks like the Commissioner is doing enough to undermine the RC himself.

I'll wait for the decision before I worry about Winslow

The Royal Commissioner is one of the most honourable human beings that ever sat on a toilet.

I am astonished that it took him nearly a week to decide that his judgment was and is above reproach.

I know he's honourable because simply everyone in the Liberal and National parties says so.

I am pleased he has added respectability to my own characteristics.

I now await appointment to the next multimillion$ opportunity to display my equanimity.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/farewell-joe-hockey-champion-of-cheap-politics-20150921-gjre7g.html

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/sep/21/joe-hockey-books-a-loss-as-malcolm-turnbull-seeks-to-move-on-from-budget-blunders

Joe Hockey Resigns From Parliament

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2015/09/20/joe-hockey-resigns_n_8164818.html

Former Treasurer Joe Hockey has made a statement about his shock resignation from parliament today, saying he was quitting politics for the sake of his young family.

buy buy Joe, good luck, ta tah

It is no coincidence that our PM's keep getting over thrown when they have such weak treasurers.

Rudd/ Swan, Gillard / Swan, Abbott / Hockey.

They were no Hawke / Keating or Howard / Costello

It is no coincidence that our PM's keep getting over thrown when they have such weak treasurers.

Rudd/ Swan, Gillard / Swan, Abbott / Hockey.

They were no Hawke / Keating or Howard / Costello

keep blaming every one else, that's the way. it's always someone else s fault. except your idols.

keep blaming every one else, that's the way. it's always someone else s fault. except your idols.

That's the Labor way. Never their fault they can't run a budget surplus.

Not saying it was Swan's fault that Rudd had such an ego or Gillard was incompetent. Not saying it was Hockey's fault that Abbott kicked so many own goals. But as I said it is no coincidence that with weak treasurers they oversaw weak Governents.

That's the Labor way. Never their fault they can't run a budget surplus.

Not saying it was Swan's fault that Rudd had such an ego or Gillard was incompetent. Not saying it was Hockey's fault that Abbott kicked so many own goals. But as I said it is no coincidence that with weak treasurers they oversaw weak Governents.

you keep believing your delusions wrecka. the Libs will even wreck budgets from opposition, to aim to damage the govreernment Via ther damaged economy, & to cause a change of government; such is their obsessive neurosis in their fanciful right to rule.

you seem to be painted alike.

Edited September 23, 20159 yr by dee-luded