Green eyed Mick wrote:Point 44. increase casual loadings to a minimum of 30% and introduce the ability for casual employees to convert to permanent part time work after 3 months of continuous employment, where employment is on a continuous ongoing basis.
I used to work at a place where 30% of the workforce were casual. Many worked 72 plus hours a fortnight continuously for years. This provision is designed for people like that. Again this wouldn't have a significant impact on most companies.
They also have provisions to limit the deductablity of obscene executive salaries something I have no issues with.
TR what you have to keep in mind is the Greens are fully aware they will never hold a majority government. Their policies are a little extreme because they know if they ever form a coalition government they will have to sacrifice on their positions to get some of the more important things through.
Besides if the Greens policies on IR are geared towards the working class it is no different to many within the Libs who believe WorkChoices didn't go far enough.
What is important is that IR reform balances worker protections without seriously impacting innovation, profitability and productivity. Workchoices wasn't that balance and IMO the Greens policies if implemented wouldn't be that balance. Still the Greens and their supporters aren't silly enough to think they will ever see their policies implemented in full. Just like the Nats are kidding themselves if they think the Libs would let them bring in the kind of protections they want for farmers.
I love statements like this... "Again, this wouldn't have a significant impact on most companies'. It's not actually based on anything. You haven't run any numbers. I sincerely, sincerely doubt that you've ever had to make payroll, I sincerely doubt you've ever even had to sit down and work out who to keep and who to cut (and HOW) in a downturn. Yet you feel completely comfortable announcing to the world that 'this won't have a significant impact'. GEM, I don't want to be rude, but Bull mate. Your cred is zero on this. Show me evidence for your statement...anything. Or rather, don't bother, 'cause I'll trump you on every point. Not because I'm clever, and not because you're not, but because that is BAD policy written by ideological fanatics with zip real world experience.
And then I find out that you support the limiting of tax provisions related to executive salaries. You lost me at 'obscene', by the way. I am sure this is an informed opinion based upon years of observation of the million-plus category of earners. So, GEM, WHAT precisely will be limited under the policies? What impact will this have on the ability of Australia to retain executive talent? What impact will this have on the ability of Australia to attract entrepreneurial investment? I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
And then we find out that it doesn't matter anyway, because none of this will happen. Then why have the policies? Why establish clearly that you have NO credible ability to form a government in our country?
Sorry, but this post just seems ill-considered and poorly informed to me. But then, I've had 4 beers (and the cans are huuuuuuuge in this country), this train trip is taking forever, I've had to type this whole thing out on an ipad and the guy next to me stinks of kimchi. So, I'm a bit cranky.