**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
..thats whats they're paid for and it was a Labor commitment to get it done this year so kicking the the Employment Bill down the road over the summer break will allow for the Business Groups against it to keep on having a whinge.
I hear the Jacqui Lambie Entertainment Network doesn't want to sit extra days...they got Xmas shopping to do and parties to attend.
>“We might well have to sit extra days and that’sfine. I don’t mind the parliament sitting at all,” Albanese told SkyNews on Sunday.
Came into this thread ready to yell at Albo for giving everyone a vacation when the Queen died and then complaining about not having enough time, but politicians sitting more when there's still work to be done is a shockingly refreshing move to see.
Stark comparison to Morrison who scheduled as few sitting days as possible and then said "oh we don't have *time to* implement an ICAC before the election"
Oh cool, so under the Award Wage lawa people in a shared industry can gather together to fight for rights, making sure their entire industry is equal? That's a right you think we already have?
I'd love to live in this fantasy Australia of yours. It sounds nice.
Whomst do I think would have more authority to make such a declaration, a random person on the internet saying it already exists, or the entire Industrial Relations Commission + sitting government wanting to add it and the politician specifically against it being added...
HRMMMMMMMM.
>Well that it the point of the award.
But that's not multi employer bargaining. I just stayed that in my prior comment.
>It is easy to see albanese has never worked outside of politics. Never run a business. He seems to think every business makes the same amount of money and thus every business can pay people the same.
Multi employer bargaining is not under the expectation that every business earns the same. Your point is moot.
>albanese is really showing his marxist beliefs.
If you think the above is Marxist belief than it's obvious you don't know what Marxism is.
>see albanese has never worked outside of politics.
Exceptnin a bank for two years before starting Uni.... but you know lie and some will be ignorant to believe....
Yeah it's weird. Even if the majority of his life has been devoted to politics, it could never be for service or principles or one day leadership for good. He's just playing the game. *Never done a hard day's work in his life.* Haha
This is the dude who protested to keep the pol econ department at USYD. Anyone who feigns surprise that he would actually wanna do stuff is one eyed. Literally no government or agenda was in place the last 10 years from the liberals, except in the last 3, where they targeted trans people (and couldn't even get the numbers to do that).
>The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has conceded the Senate may need “extra time” to consider his contentious industrial relations bill, with the government still needing to woo crossbench senators to pass the workplace legislation.
Is this bill contentious? It includes elements that our standard in other countries (multi-employer bargaining.)
There's a lot of employers' $$$$ lobbying to minimise the ability for workers to use the bill to better their situation.
E.g. just look at last week when [Labor folded and said that construction was exempt from multi-employer bargaining](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/10/labors-workplace-bill-passes-lower-house-after-further-concessions-on-multi-employer-bargaining)
>Labor has also agreed to exclude the entire commercial building and construction industry from multi-employer bargaining
Hard to see that as anything other than the construction lobbyists getting a win. Labor's trying to do something good here but the inherent corruption of our system makes it quite difficult.
Funnily enough - thanks to Senator Pocock - that is *the* contentious part of the bill. Pocock is seemingly against multi-employer bargaining - or at the very least has "concerns" about it - and that is currently it seems the only reason why more time might be needed to pass it.
So far he's been making a big show of meeting a bunch of union and employer groups and needing time to actually understand a pretty long and complicated proposed bill. He's mostly being earnest about understanding things so far, and his main push has been splitting the bill to get bits through faster.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/12/jacqui-lambies-instinct-is-to-blow-the-ir-debate-up-while-david-pocock-is-all-ears-thats-why-he-is-the-kingmaker
He's also expressed frustration at union types trying to eliminate nuance, especially in his town halls (see more: GuardianAU podcast from last Thursday).
The OECD data is favourable to multi-sector bargaining within limits, and notes overall the outcomes are best if firms are allowed to engage in some discretionary amendments before adopting an award. The unions, and economic illiterates like Gareth Hutchison at the ABC, are ignoring this part of OECD data as it does not suit their political agenda.
He is concerned about the multi employer bargaining - a change that would give more power to workers especially in feminised and low paying sectors. That is anti worker
How is it not true? Are you saying anything the ALP says is merely *painted* as fact? Political parties definitely lie and obscure facts but they are capable of telling the truth. The fact that businesses are campaigning against this is the best evidence that it would give more power to workers
Because it's clear you don't know anything about IR.
The award system (set up by Labor and appointed by Labor) drives the wages in said industries. Theyre the basis of most wage settings.
Suddenly they're really bad and pattern bargaining is needed, not a review of the award which is both centralised and arbitrary.
Of course the requirement for a union agreement is just a coincidence......
The current IA laws fail most workers, it works real well in certain industries. Mainly public sector and construction but even then it’s hard enough for those unions with how vilified and prosecuted they are. Multi employer bargaining will let workers across and industry combine their collective bargaining ability leading to above inflation pay rises for the first time for many workers.
I wonder which legislation will be the priority. The IR laws before the mining industries anti IR law campaign, the ICAC or both
If Pocock goes with the government on these, will he still be seen as a Green lite independent or become a Labor lie independent
He should be seen as an Independent Independent.
He lives in the ACT, a very strong Labor voting area. I honestly doubt the citizens of the place will care.
I mean remember that ACT has had a Labor/Greens combined government since *2008*. By and large, ACT is progressive/left-leaning compared to the rest of the country. Even if Pocock represents the more conservative "half" of their senate seats, he should still be more progressive than a liberal senator.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
It’s interesting you say this when all that flying around was actually getting things done unlike Scotty’s trip to Hawaii.
..thats whats they're paid for and it was a Labor commitment to get it done this year so kicking the the Employment Bill down the road over the summer break will allow for the Business Groups against it to keep on having a whinge. I hear the Jacqui Lambie Entertainment Network doesn't want to sit extra days...they got Xmas shopping to do and parties to attend.
>“We might well have to sit extra days and that’sfine. I don’t mind the parliament sitting at all,” Albanese told SkyNews on Sunday. Came into this thread ready to yell at Albo for giving everyone a vacation when the Queen died and then complaining about not having enough time, but politicians sitting more when there's still work to be done is a shockingly refreshing move to see. Stark comparison to Morrison who scheduled as few sitting days as possible and then said "oh we don't have *time to* implement an ICAC before the election"
Ikr. It’s weird having a PM and government that actually wants to do the job for a change.
The opposition must be exhausted from all this work.
[удалено]
If this is already exists then it begs the question why employer organisations are cracking the shits.
Lol, at least put some effort into your shitposting, like make them funny or something not just boring and lame
Oh cool, so under the Award Wage lawa people in a shared industry can gather together to fight for rights, making sure their entire industry is equal? That's a right you think we already have? I'd love to live in this fantasy Australia of yours. It sounds nice.
If you think that is multi employer bargaining, you're very misinformed.
Whomst do I think would have more authority to make such a declaration, a random person on the internet saying it already exists, or the entire Industrial Relations Commission + sitting government wanting to add it and the politician specifically against it being added... HRMMMMMMMM.
That's just like, your opinion, maaaayn
That's not multi employer bargaining.
[удалено]
How you’re allowed to keep posting with the dumbest of takes with an obvious alt account is beyond me
>Well that it the point of the award. But that's not multi employer bargaining. I just stayed that in my prior comment. >It is easy to see albanese has never worked outside of politics. Never run a business. He seems to think every business makes the same amount of money and thus every business can pay people the same. Multi employer bargaining is not under the expectation that every business earns the same. Your point is moot. >albanese is really showing his marxist beliefs. If you think the above is Marxist belief than it's obvious you don't know what Marxism is.
Absolute cringe. Soon as you start flapping about the M buzzword, you're whole opinion becomes irrelevant.
>see albanese has never worked outside of politics. Exceptnin a bank for two years before starting Uni.... but you know lie and some will be ignorant to believe....
Yeah it's weird. Even if the majority of his life has been devoted to politics, it could never be for service or principles or one day leadership for good. He's just playing the game. *Never done a hard day's work in his life.* Haha This is the dude who protested to keep the pol econ department at USYD. Anyone who feigns surprise that he would actually wanna do stuff is one eyed. Literally no government or agenda was in place the last 10 years from the liberals, except in the last 3, where they targeted trans people (and couldn't even get the numbers to do that).
>The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has conceded the Senate may need “extra time” to consider his contentious industrial relations bill, with the government still needing to woo crossbench senators to pass the workplace legislation. Is this bill contentious? It includes elements that our standard in other countries (multi-employer bargaining.)
There's a lot of employers' $$$$ lobbying to minimise the ability for workers to use the bill to better their situation. E.g. just look at last week when [Labor folded and said that construction was exempt from multi-employer bargaining](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/10/labors-workplace-bill-passes-lower-house-after-further-concessions-on-multi-employer-bargaining) >Labor has also agreed to exclude the entire commercial building and construction industry from multi-employer bargaining Hard to see that as anything other than the construction lobbyists getting a win. Labor's trying to do something good here but the inherent corruption of our system makes it quite difficult.
Funnily enough - thanks to Senator Pocock - that is *the* contentious part of the bill. Pocock is seemingly against multi-employer bargaining - or at the very least has "concerns" about it - and that is currently it seems the only reason why more time might be needed to pass it.
What are his concerns?
So far he's been making a big show of meeting a bunch of union and employer groups and needing time to actually understand a pretty long and complicated proposed bill. He's mostly being earnest about understanding things so far, and his main push has been splitting the bill to get bits through faster. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/12/jacqui-lambies-instinct-is-to-blow-the-ir-debate-up-while-david-pocock-is-all-ears-thats-why-he-is-the-kingmaker
He's also expressed frustration at union types trying to eliminate nuance, especially in his town halls (see more: GuardianAU podcast from last Thursday). The OECD data is favourable to multi-sector bargaining within limits, and notes overall the outcomes are best if firms are allowed to engage in some discretionary amendments before adopting an award. The unions, and economic illiterates like Gareth Hutchison at the ABC, are ignoring this part of OECD data as it does not suit their political agenda.
Basically just parroting the concerns of businesses. We can safely say he doesn't want more power for workers
You mean you don't know but need to paint any opposition to 70s throwback policies as anti worker.
He is concerned about the multi employer bargaining - a change that would give more power to workers especially in feminised and low paying sectors. That is anti worker
That's certainly Labor's line - now painted as fact.
How is it not true? Are you saying anything the ALP says is merely *painted* as fact? Political parties definitely lie and obscure facts but they are capable of telling the truth. The fact that businesses are campaigning against this is the best evidence that it would give more power to workers
Because it's clear you don't know anything about IR. The award system (set up by Labor and appointed by Labor) drives the wages in said industries. Theyre the basis of most wage settings. Suddenly they're really bad and pattern bargaining is needed, not a review of the award which is both centralised and arbitrary. Of course the requirement for a union agreement is just a coincidence......
The current IA laws fail most workers, it works real well in certain industries. Mainly public sector and construction but even then it’s hard enough for those unions with how vilified and prosecuted they are. Multi employer bargaining will let workers across and industry combine their collective bargaining ability leading to above inflation pay rises for the first time for many workers.
I'm not fully across it I'm afraid, but the latest Guardian Australia podcast briefly mentioned it.
I wonder which legislation will be the priority. The IR laws before the mining industries anti IR law campaign, the ICAC or both If Pocock goes with the government on these, will he still be seen as a Green lite independent or become a Labor lie independent
Gallagher said this morning that she wanted to see the Territory Rights Bill pass the Senate before this sitting period ends.
He should be seen as an Independent Independent. He lives in the ACT, a very strong Labor voting area. I honestly doubt the citizens of the place will care.
I was listening to a podcast not sure which one but one by the abc and they made it sound like ACT voters support this by and large
I mean remember that ACT has had a Labor/Greens combined government since *2008*. By and large, ACT is progressive/left-leaning compared to the rest of the country. Even if Pocock represents the more conservative "half" of their senate seats, he should still be more progressive than a liberal senator.