|
September 8, 2007
Well I know where I stand. WorkChoices is a big turn off as it impacts too heavily on the poorly paid and so is unfair and inequitable. It works in favour of the more highly paid and skilled.
Gary Sauer-Thompson, William Street, Melbourne, 2007
The big business advert campaign made no difference to where I stand. It reinforced my stand if anything. My mind is made up. Howard has gone too far in the name of flexibility.
That response to the advert indicates the failure of the Government's advertising blitz.
I note that an survey of the Government's and Big Business Work Choices advertising conducted for the ACTU indicates this advertising has been largely ineffectual: Only they had either made no difference to their views(44%) or made them feel less favourable (33%). Only 17% of respondents said the adverts had made them more favourable to the government's industrial relations laws.
That is significant as the use of taxpayer funded advertising by the government has failed to deliver votes –even though that advertising is probably the greatest electoral benefit of incumbency, especially with the current government. They used it to great effect in the last two elections. Today however, the advertising blitz works in Labor's favour as they own the issue. When the PM , Hockey or big business talk about Workchoices, they simply reinforce existing voter views that are detrimental to the Coalitions electoral prospects. That’s been reflected in the polls.
The attempt to demonise trade unions and their leaders falls flat. Union leaders whom Howard likes to characterise always as "bosses" are actually elected by their members and accountable to them, quite unlike the real bosses in the workplace who exercise real power that is sometimes absolute, seldom accountable and never democratic.
|
Funny.
Thought you might have proceeded from here to outline the nasty rap on the knuckles the government received from Federal Court Justice Catherine Branson over government coercion instigated within the Public Service, concerning harrassment of workers taking time of to protest against "W.........s" IR.
Significant and a sort of IR version of the Spender,J on Haneef smack, especially if you place this against the tens of $millions of OUR money wasted on the putrid Barbara Bennett adds reassuring us how 'they' protect us from persecution to the exclusion of any thing else. Particularly when Hockey is said to be contemplating an appeal.