Talk:WorkChoices

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Page seriously needs an update

Is it WorkChoices or Work Choices?? Make up your mind people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.238.225 (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Toe-may-toe or Toe-mar-toe? Timeshift (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorkChoices#Removing_the_.22No_Disadvantage_Test.22_for_agreements - eh? Added a line on the fairness test because this section is clearly out of date by months and months. Does anyone have a good knowledge of all the workings of WorkChoices who is prepared to give the articles text an overhaul before the election? Timeshift 07:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps for this reason, the page could also do with an unblocking, for the time being at least. Timeshift 07:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a little expansion on the sentence however as you indicate above it needs quite a bit more work/updating. WikiTownsvillian 14:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page could also do with a new updated section at the bottom indicating the ALP's proposed IR changes (such as unfair dismissal laws excluded for businesses under 10, not the current under 100) to show what has changed from Beazley to Rudd. Is anyone in to the detail of the ALP's/Rudd's IR change proposals? Timeshift 07:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a very basic start but expansion would be very appreciated. Timeshift 08:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the article is severely biased against WorkChoices. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of an odd statement that Kevin Rudd is "in the process reaffirming his opposition to WorkChoices." It kind of says what Kevin Rudd is going to do in the future. Also, Kevin Rudd is opposing some aspects of Workchoices while agreeing with others, so it may not be accurate to say he "opposes Workchoices". Cheers, --Lester 03:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could not seriously argue that any of the ALP do not oppose WorkChoices, simply because there's a few aspects they're too scared to change back which don't make a difference in the scheme of things. If Labor reversed their position on AWAs for example, you might have a case... Timeshift 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you were for the position of using Labor, why refer to Kevin Rudd at all? Also, it's an obvious NPOV/too few sides article. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to your removal of tags: The pro-WorkChoices camp barely has a mention in the article and significant portions of the article are uncited. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then add information, instead of criticising the information already there. Simple really. Have a good day. Timeshift (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the recent election result, I think it's safe to say there is no "pro-WorkChoices camp", but rather a formerly pro-Workchoices party and a few scattered pro-WorkChoices individuals. --Psud (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A word from the rest of the world

Excuse the ignorance of this non-Australian English speaker, but this entire article presupposes a knowledge of how labor relations laws work in Australia. A reader from the US or Canada, for instance, finds this entire article confusing and uninformative. This is NOT how an encyclopedia is suppossed to work.75.164.153.79 (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)dwargo[reply]

Yeah. WorkChoices has been a divisive subject and there is a large NPOV/COI problem with the article so it includes a lot of arguments against WorkChoices instead of actual information about it. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what he said. And I take note that nobody else seems to agree with your NPOV/COI stance. Have a good day. Timeshift (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uninformative...? Well, there's no quorum my opinion so it can't really be proven or disproven. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uninformative to overseas readers was the context, but again nice try. If you want to add to the article to assist an overseas audience, then do so, but removing what is currently on the page blatently shows that this isn't what you're trying to achieve. Timeshift (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is the context, and that means that it's uninformative to a person who knows little about the subject. I'm not saying the pro/con arguments need to be removed at all. I believe what the anon is saying is that there need to be more basic non-partisan information to serve as a base.
"nice try"? Do you have to assume I'm some kind of super-right-wing-fanatic every time you reply? Sheesh. I admit I lean to the right but my main problem (not on the initial topic any more) is the under-representation of the Pro-WorkChoices camp as opposed to cutting out the criticism. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I guess I do support the removal of uncited statements. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for the millionth time, please add as much as you want. But there is a huge difference between adding to make an article balanced, and removing to make an article balanced. I support the former. Which do you support? Timeshift (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing, if you are removing things that aren't factual. I agree that it has NPOV issues. Also, The Steer did not state at any stage that information needed to be removed or that he wanted it removed. That saw of straw man argument is exactly how the trade unions distracted Australia from the truth about the IR system, Timeshift. Matthew 0327 20 april 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.88.116 (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archive

A lot of the discussions here are old and moving them to an archive page wouldn't hurt. Any disagreement? --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Timeshift 00:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butcher!

Yessir. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howard governments own research shows conditions stripped from AWAs

TheSeer would appear to be a Liberal Party stooge, simply reverting the harsh reality of what the Howard government research showed, without any reasoning as to why this cited information should be removed. If he is not a Liberal Party stooge, I welcome his rational discussion here before continuing to revert cited information regarding Howard government research on conditions stripped in AWAs. Timeshift (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell did I remove? It's still there, just not in a clunky-semi-list form. And, I could call you a Labor Party stooge, your pointless labels don't matter at all. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 05:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I didn't see why the bullet list needed removing however. Timeshift (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the bullets themselves as much as it was just "Leave loading 63 percent" after them all that didn't quite look right. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 05:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future of law

Now that Rudd has taken office it is almost certain these laws will be scrapped a new section should be added to give the indication of what might happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.51.235 (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The page already has what Rudd has proposed to do. Timeshift (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve the intro

Further to #A word from the rest of the world: I came here looking to find out what this controversial Aussie election issue "WorkChoices" is. A good article would tell me that in the intro; this article doesn't. Please add to the lead a summary of what WorkChoices is, what changes it introduced, and why it is controversial. This should of course not be in depth, it should be a summary of the main body per WP:LEAD. --kingboyk (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future Liberal party policy

Do you think it is relevant to mention the Liberal party's change of attitude on Workchoices since the election? Joe Hockey is saying that it "went too deep".
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/28/2103412.htm?site=elections/federal/2007

--220.233.176.121 (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire policy and article have now been ripped to shreds, not a single MP in the lower or upper house (along party lines anyway) would now support WorkChoices. See the lead of the article and the reference. WorkChoices is dead. Good times. Timeshift (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why controversial?

I understand WorkChoices was a major issue in the recent Australian election, but this article does not make clear why it is so controversial. The article needs to better explain what about the program so offended labor unions and opposition parties and generated such a widespread reaction. In America, for instance, changes to the law of labor relations, while important, don't have much resonance compared to things like abortion, gun control, taxes, war, etc. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually something we may want to look into; Australians are used to certain freedoms (universal healthcare, a certain standard of industrial rights, etc) the idea of anything less was somewhat revolutionary, however I think some context for non-Australian readers is needed Rotovia (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the freedom to get a job and decide on the terms with your employer and not be interfered with by the government? That is aa freedom. Removing government regulation os not removing freedom. Your argument is nonsense Rotovia. Matthew 0323 20 april 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.88.116 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the explanation of why the act was controversial could include the urgency with which it was rushed through parliament and the amount of time a bill would otherwise typically take to be passed. This could include the size of the explanatory memorandum and the number of days parliament was given to read it. 220.253.195.173 (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would've had much to do with it at all. I doubt that any more than a small minority of those that switched from the Coalition to Labor (vote wise) could've cared less about how fast it passed. It's the fact they disagree with the changes full stop. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 01:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, however, I think it is worth mentioning as something that was brought up when it was initially passed. Rotovia (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update tag?

Where did the update tag go? The article doesn't cover what happened in 2006 with WC - it was enacted on the 27th of March, then there was the State challenge (which nearly took all year), and then in December 2006 Kevin Rudd was elected and we knew WC would go??? What happened to the ordinary people during 2006? We seem to be covering the post-2007 elections bit reasonably well enough, but what about what actually happened when this was in force? I want to put the update tag back, or switch it to {{Recentism}} as I believe that the 2006 part of WC is not covered enough. -Malkinann (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the High Court challenge Rotovia (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The High Court challenge was already included when I re-read the article, I have split it from another section to make it visible. Rotovia (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wcpad.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Wcpad.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 14 June 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Wcpad.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on WorkChoices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on WorkChoices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WorkChoices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:WorkChoices/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Format of references needs to be cleaned up.--Grahame (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 04:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on WorkChoices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:WorkChoices"