The power the federal parliament now has under the corporations power is very sweeping.

Mark, the power of the federal government has always been sweeping. It could pass a new law for every day of the week, and compliance costs would skyrocket.

Rudd is doing well politically, generally and with business as an interest group, by projecting a steady, gradualist image of reform. This means he’s not promising far-reaching change, requiring significant adjustments for all concerned (for good or ill) in the short term.

I agree with you about the nature of the power and the need for analysis. I hate the way that ministers refer to their outfit as “the Australian government”, which is fine if you’re talking about relations with other countries but the implications of this usage is that those who take positions against the Federal government on particular issues are unAustralian.

I don’t agree (not that I’m accusing anyone of advancing or defending this notion) that to ratify an international agreement is to absorb it whole into Australian law, as happens in US law.

You insist that your words must be taken at face value, when the realities of workplaces in which I have worked, or of which I am aware, would yield negative results for workers if the measures that you support to be enacted.

I don’t believe that unions have an automatic right of entry, and I don’t believe that unions are necessarily responsive to their members’ interests. In theory, this is inconceivable – members are unions! – but in practice it doesn’t happen. If that upsets you, or your perception of me, then too bad.

this is a rather silly diversion, off the point. Policy provides the foundations for legislative programs once a party gets into power. In this case, Rudd’s modification of policy has undermined the past four years of ALP commitment to restoring workplace fairness

Nobody takes pre-election commitments literally, Jim. Look at the achievements of any previous Labor government, then go back and see what, if any, link exists between those and the resolutions of the relevant state/federal ALP decision-making body. Bugger-all, I’d suggest. You’ll note that the past four years includes no Labor government, and the link between policy and practice is much stronger after the hurlyburly of the election is done, not before. Your words assume victory and hold Rudd to a higher standard than Howard.

… the altruistic commitment of the thousands of union officials who work on behalf of their members. As a former union official …

It is nonsense to imply that every single union official in Australia, past or present, operates always and entirely from a position of altruism. Absolute nonsense. Not only that, it breeds a repulsive self-righteousness that inhibits the uptake of opinions from others (including current and “potential” members). This is no more accurate than the stereotype you would load onto others.

I know full well that union officials aren’t thugs, and that they’re not altruistic saints either. The best of them do a difficult job under trying circumstances. The worst of them are self-righteous jerks who are so focused on toeing their line they don’t listen to anyone else and regard othrs as the enemy. Just like management really.

No I haven’t Greg, you have, when you said ‘International obligations is a bit of a stale argument.’ Stale or otherwise, it wasn’t an argument of mine.

This little game seems to be spreading like horse flu amongst the right this week.

That is, after all, the very issue you have raised.

No I haven’t Greg, you have, when you said ‘International obligations is a bit of a stale argument.’ Stale or otherwise, it wasn’t an argument of mine.

OK — but what does all this mean in practice? I admit I know little about IR, so what would a better ALP policy involve, in detail?

The ALP press release said, “You will be free to collectively bargain with other employees in your workplace if you choose to do so, whether you’re part of a union or not. For non-unionised workplaces this will result in a genuine non-union collective agreement, approved by Fair Work Australia.”

Why does this policy fail the principle of collective bargaining?

http://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/ITUC_submission_to_WTO_2007_final_Australia__2_.pdf

Where has the Workchoices legislation (not that I am a fan of it) involved Australia not abiding by international agreements that the Australian Parliament has ratified?

Can you do so? That is, after all, the very issue you have raised.

In Australia currently there is no obligation on the employer to negotiate collectively even if 100% of employees wish to do so, and there is no obligation to recognise a bargaining agent either for an individual or a collective agreement. In theory, you have a right to appoint anyone to negotiate on your behalf – it could be a lawyer, it could be an industrial advocate, it could be a union, it could be your mum (and that’s serious – think about 15 year old high school kids). But the employer is under no obligation to recognise them as your agent.

GregM, in the context, it should have been clear that I was talking about the right to collective bargaining. I was writing quickly from a net cafe, so my apologies if I didn’t make it clear.

Ok then, Mark. Just on the issue of collective bargaining then, not a right to those employees who don’t want to be represented by unions, rather an infringement on their rights, but I will leave that aside, care to do a comparison on legislated collective bargaining rights between Australia and the much touted land of the free, the US?