It’s time, once again for the Monday Message Board. As usual, civilised discussion and absolutely no coarse language, please.
It’s time, once again for the Monday Message Board. As usual, civilised discussion and absolutely no coarse language, please.
Jesus H Christ.
I ask you for your interpretation of the report made by the Employment Advocate to the Senate Estimates Committe, and your response is
His word for what?
That reminds me; under the accord Bob Hawke encouraged workers to lower their wage claims (as inflation ate away the real value of existing wages) in return for reduced taxation. A clever linkage.
This Employment Advocate?
“contrary [whizz] to [whizz] media [whizz] reports [whizz…]” noted Steve.
250 from 20,000 is representative? *snort*
I see s.t.a.b. you spend all your time here because everyone ignores your own blog.They understand that you have very little to say.
I am only taking the Employment Advocate’s word for it SJ.
Hmm, so the “employment advocate” set up by Kevin Andrews’ department isn’t critical of Kevin Andrews department’s IR “reforms”? Wnat. a. surprise. (Rolling eyes)
Very likely Helen, public servants are occassionally very good at getting unspoken messages, and Kevin Andrews is a particularly vindictive & dogged zealot at times.
There are 3 things the Employment Advocate said which were missed by all media outlets yesterday:
That only 250 AWAs have been looked at when considering his report
That conditions may have been negotiated IN as well as OUT.
That caution should be taken to not jump to conclusions
Muskiemp, please provide information on how you got to my site counter, as I have trouble getting to it. Beyond that you are entitled to your own opinion, though it says a lot about you that you don’t keep it to yourself.
Steve if you can’t do better than “snort” over problems with the sample size and can’t agree with the very person whose word you’re taking then it’s looking like you don’t get stats and you don’t get argument from authority.