Talk:H. R. Nicholls Society

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WorkChoices content[edit]

Much better. Timeshift (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the way it's phrased currently; my issue with what was said previously is that HRN attacked workchoices on three grounds: firstly that it created reregulation not deregulation, secondly that it was unconstitutional and thirdly that it didn't lead to any real increase in labour market freedom (which was their goal). So arguably you could say that they opposed it because 'it didn't go far enough' as a way of addressing point three, but it doesn't address the first two (and in the first one somewhat goes against it. Hope this makes sense! :) Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposite statements can sometimes say the same thing as each other. WorkChoices regulates the market place more than even the previous legislation which upset the HR Nicholls Society which wants almost complete deregulation = hence WorkChoices went too far down the regulatory path.--VS talk 05:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be fair to say that WorkChoices achieved limited deregulation via regulation. Timeshift (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well yes but that is a bit of a circular argument insofar that it took over some of the State's responsibilities. But if argued on the basis of net gain or loss - very much the opposite - WorkChoices is both particularly regulatory (it doubled in size from previous legislation alone) and its effect on the overall arena of Industrial Relations is far far more regulations (some of which were created directly by the State's as a part of ways to get around the WorkChoices regulations).--VS talk 05:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but you just have to look at people being dismissed and then offered their jobs on individual contracts rather than based on awards, and unfair dismissal gone for companies under 100 employees. The end result is less to protect the worker, thus deregulation - but it is hard to interpret, after all according to Hockey, ministers "weren't aware you could be worse off", despite Howard unwilling to give such a guarantee that this wouldn't be the case! But your points are valid and I agree. Timeshift (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on H. R. Nicholls Society. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:H._R._Nicholls_Society&oldid=1207499116"