Work(NO)choices strikes again.

[stui magpie]

[stui magpie]

[HAL]

Do you really mean it?

[member34258]

[sherrife]

Stui... The Age is FAR from left-wing, and definitely not the Labor party mouth piece you seem to be suggesting that it is. It is a Murdoch rag, and selects its articles accordingly. Check the opinion pieces, they may seem to be slightly left-wing by mainstream standards, but this is simply due to the radically conservative stuff most other sources print.

The most we can say about The Age is that it's centrist. However notice that it will always follow the Sun and print virtual government propaganda...

For a classic example just look at the ridiculous stories that were coming out a few weeks ago claiming that Rudd's policy is supporting unions and drastically undermining the economy. Actually, the feeble tweaking that Rudd is suggesting is MUCH less than the majority of Australians would actually desire, and he is only reinstating a tiny handful of the policies that WorkChoices eliminated.

The fact is that Rudd is as anti-union as Howard, and the Labor left has completely lost its voice in their pragmatic quest to win the election.

[David]

I do wonder, though... if all the newspapers are so far right-wing, why do the left-wing 'majority' put up with this?

Personally, though, I cannot stomach the Herald Sun or Telegraph any more... The Australian is pretty good, but impossible to read while sitting down (gotta hate broadsheet papers).

BTW, Omar, agreed on the last point... Labor are definitely making a push for the conservative vote. I reckon there would be Liberals who are more left-wing than Rudd.

[stui magpie]

[sherrife]

Jesus... you think that's fair.

If it wasn't already obvious... we have wildly, incredibly different perspectives! This is so horrible! We physically can't have a proper (ie. middle-ground finding) conversation because we're on such totally different pages.

The bloody article is written towards business owners and other assorted rich individuals. "The business was a success" - Actually, people are attacking the woman because she was paying her workers jack sh#t. Hence it was a corporate success, but a complete social and moral failure. On top of that, the contracts of the employees of that company were worse off under WorkChoices than before. Therefore i would argue that it is a classic example of the DANGER of WC, not the benefits. (It also shows Rudd is as bourgeousie as they come, and is just as conservative as Howard)

[stui magpie]

Look on the bright side, we may have wildy opposing views but at least we can both make arguments with what passes for logic rather than hurl abuse at each other.

You see the capacity for conditions of employment to be undermined whereas I see the opportunity for individual flexibility that doesn't exist to anything like the same degree in collective ones.

You obviously see a role for unions in the running of business, I see their best role (in the main) as being low grade garden fertiliser

Yeah, I do consider it a fair article as it acknowledged the capacity for abuse but focused more on the upsides.

And keep in mind that Mr's Rudd's company didn't use the worchoices legislation to strip conditions, they used common law contracts which is (potentially) illegal.

If everyone had the same perspective, it'd be a pretty boring world. I don't consider myself to be extreme right wing by any stretch. My bias is toward the business point of view, yes, because that's the arena I have my experience and expertise in but as I've said earlier, I don't condone or support people being exploited (eg clothing company outworkers) or abused.