User talk:Xtra
Please leave comments below.
User talk:Xtra/Archive abuse and replies
WorkChoices
In answer to what you had to say.
Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organisations and workers' organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.
This is from the ILO Convention 98 at Article 4. Australian Workplace Agreements undermine the ability of unions and workers collectively to bargain collexctively. Under WorkChoices where everyone is on an AWA unions cannot even go into a workplace. Our national conditions are not as such to say that collective agreements must be overlooked. Even America has enforceable collective bargaining rights and it is supposedly the richest country in the world with near full employment (even if millions are working poor).
The full development and utlisation of voluntary negotiations cannot occur when unions are threatened with huge fines for even daring to put in clauses regulating matters such as labour hire employees and the use of AWAs. Indeed the Howard government is interfering deliberately so that even if workers and bosses do agree that individual contracts cannot be used, this will lead to fines for the union and the boss.
The ILO is currently hearing about Australian laws and recently passed judgement on the current Workplace Relations Act 1996. Look at [1]. You can note that whilst the Committee here seems to not take either side, it is largely premised on the situation of people having choice between an individual contract or collective bargaining. As stated: The Committee noted the Government’s statement that there was an extensive system of collective bargaining and that individual negotiation was not given priority over collective bargaining. The same cannot be said for WorkChoices
>> Xtra, I really wish you knew what you were talking about. As the law currently stands, people can be told that if they do not sign an AWA then they do not get the job. Where workplaces operate entirely on AWAs it is not by staff members' choice but often because companies have forced all new employees to sign and existing staff have either been pushed or jumped.
At The Warehouse the company made its entire workforce "redundant" and said that to work for its "new" company staff would have to sign AWAs. This was under the current law.
I do not argue that people should not be able to choose whether to work on an AWA, despite my despisal for them. I believe, however, that people should have a genuine choice between an AWA or a collective agreement if they want it. I used to work at Video Ezy and saw first hand how new staff members had to sign an AWA or not the job. The AWAs paid $2 less per hour than what I earnt and had no penalties for weekend work. The people on AWAs often wondered where the choice was.
It is convenient to fall back and use the word interpretation so I will tell you what. When the ILO finds the laws in contravention of Convention 98 then I will change the article to say that is what the International Labour Organisation believes about Howard's laws. People will then draw their own conclusions.
Oh and working for a union I can tell you that we have many members on AWAs - it was never their choice to be on one but they have been forced: sign the AWA or no job. So it is not a choice between "being union" or an AWA. Most people on AWAs (particularly those in non-skilled and many of our members in rural areas) had no choice. (unsigned comments by user:Dankru)
>>I can see why PSYCH got shitty at you. I offered a compromise and you call me arrogant. How dare you.
If a staff member steals and it can be proved then they should be fired, of course. Not knowing the facts of the case I can hardly comment on it. All I can say is that if employers follow procedure then firing people is not difficult. Too often employers change the rules mid-stream and wonder why they get into problems.
I am going to leave it at that because convincing people that productivity won't mean more money for everyone is pointless. You think it will be fair when unions and workers have no power to collectively bargain so there is no point. Dankru 06:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Greens-related edits on 2004 Federal Election article
Xtra, you reverted my edits on Family First getting elected on 2004 Federal Electionwith the following comment:
- rvt. the greens only got 3% when Bob Brown was elected (quota being ~15%)
Why did you remove this? Your specified reason has got nothing to do with the information I added, which is of considerable interest to many political commentators, and rank and file members of the ALP. Peter Campbell 04:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Bob Brown has always got a lot more votes than Stephen Fielding in every election he has contested, so your comparison is not appropriate. In the 2001 Federal Election Bob Brown got 8.68% of the Senate primary votes in Tasmania. Stephen Fielding got 1.77% in 2004! More analyis can be added, I don't see this as a reason for excluding any information sourced from Antony Green. Who is crying about preference deals? I don't think emotive language like that is appropriate. Peter Campbell 06:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
St Kilda Rd
No I don't, but I can easily take some. I do have some very old images in Cooper's History of St Kilda, which I can scan if that would be useful. Adam 10:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
When an article is part of the official name, it should be included in the article title (see, for example, The Guardian, The Lord of the Rings, etc.). As the article itself used the definite article, and the link that I checked also used it, I renamed the article; if that was wrong, you should either have approached me to explain and ask me to rename it, or have gone through the proper renaming process; never move pages by cutting and pasting. If you can't move a page yourself, make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Howard
I see we nearly managed 24 hours without John Howard being vandalised. (Is that a record?)
In recognition of this great event, I'm proposing a bit of a cleanup of the article, and as you are the closest thing on Wikipedia that I know of to an Australian conservative, I'd appreciate your input.
I've made some notes on paper and put down a summary of my thoughts at [2]. I'd welcome your comments now, or equally, you can wait till I've had a go and then pick up from there.
Regards, Ben Aveling 10:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
You make that sound... ominous. Oh well. Be bold and all that. :-)
Regards, Ben Aveling 11:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
My RfA
Xtra, thanks for your support on my RfA. The final count was 46/0/0. It meant alot to get the support of great Aussie editors like yourself. I hope I'll live up to your faith in me in my use of the mop and bucket. Please accept this wikithanks as a token of my gratitude ;) --bainer (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Confused
It seems that I've got a new IP address again. I am User:Zordrac and just a few hours ago it said that I had a different IP address (this one, which it still gives me when I sign). It seems to cycle around a bit. Sorry about that. I was a bit annoyed about getting a message of vandalism warning on a talk page when I wasn't even logged in. There's a reason why I don't want to log in - because I am just looking, and have no intention to contribute. I stopped contributing on Christmas Day. I've quit. Anyway, well, you left me that annoying message, so yeah. Just thought I'd write. See if this still has the same IP address now or has Wikipedia gone crazy and displayed the wrong IP again? 203.122.203.208 05:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh and it is pointing me to this IP: User_talk:203.20.229.24 As far as I know, I've never been assigned this IP, so Wikipedia's software is stuffing up. Its annoying. You wouldn't be able to correct it so that I don't get the annoying "New messages" message, would you? 203.122.203.208 05:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for putting it on the User page rather than the talk page - I hate that "New messages" thing when I'm not logged in :). Yes, I agree that they were vandalising things. I guess its just a software glitch that I got the message, and probably out of your control. No worries. 203.122.203.208 20:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)