Will the unions wheel out “Tracey” to take on Rudd over his workplace reforms?

“Tracey” was the character created by the unions as part of their hysterical scare campaign against the Howard government’s ‘work choices’ in the lead up to the 2007 federal election. Gillard and Rudd had promised that no worker would be worse off under the ALP’s ‘award modernisation’ reforms, ‘work choices’ by any other name.

According to a report in the Daily Telegraph, some NSW workers will be up to $370 per week worse off  under Rudd’s reforms. This will include truck drivers, funeral workers, bar staff, aged care nurses and clerks. Truckies could be up to $200 a week out of pocket while those working in the funeral sector would be up to $370 worse off per week.

In light of this assault on Australian working families by the Rudd government you would expect the union to be focussing their attention on how to protect working families from Rudd and Gillard’s ‘work choices’, instead the unions are spending the workers contributions on re-runs of “Tracey” commercials to attack Tony Abbott.

In the re-edited advertisement, Tracy’s anxious telephone exchange with a boss who threatens to sack her unless she works on short notice is spliced with footage from an Abbott press conference in which the newly installed federal Opposition Leader says: “The phrase `Work Choices’ is dead.”

The advertisement ends with the kicker: “Tony Abbott will bring back Work Choices . . . he just won’t call it that.” ~ The Australian

Neither apparently will the ALP.  A commenter on the Daily Telegraph site puts it more succinctly:

I love that the unions are spending my money to campaign against Abbot and the possible reintroduction of work choices yet dont say peep about this. Today I have decided to cancel my union memberships and urge every other worker to as they no longer have our interest at heart and have become a stooge of the labor party

Comments

  1. William says:

    In news this morning we hear of Rudd now transferring asylum seekers to Darwin who aren't genuine refugees but people who have paid a sum of money to hop on a boat. The sad thing is that those who are genuine refugees and need help from the savages of war and dictatorial regimes are left without any assistance while the ones who can afford it jump the line when they are not as desperate as many others. It seems that this government has lost control of everything. This border protection fiasco is said to cost taxpayers more than $1 billion over 4 years while genuine refugees remain unassisted.

    • I agree William. It makes me wonder why 85% are men of Muslim Arabic origins . Wouldnt this be an easy way of infiltrating Australia through the back door for purposes of jihad. Who is paying for these boat trips at $10,000 US a pop ,militant extremists? What better way of getting foot soldiers into Australia than exploit Krudds soft boarder protection. I know many have no proof of identification so they could be anyone. We all know it will be only a matter of time before a terroist attack goes undetected here and many inocinent people will be maimed or killed. It will not help telling Krudd after the fact " told you so"

  2. I must apologize for my inaccuracy of information. My above words are incorrect on the referendum on Queensland’s constitution. I was forwarded a message today apparently from Larry Hannigan which stipulates that that information was not from him. So I must apoligize for not being correctly informed. I apologize to Larry also for not cross-referencing my source. I will endeavour to be be more careful next time. Sorry APP. Genuine mistake.

  3. localyokel says:

    When will Australians wake up that we are continally being had and all the politicians are playing in each other's pockets. Their only conern is how to line their own pockets. A third world Australia can only benefit the rich not the poor.

  4. There is now a sneaky plan by the Queensland Labor government to hold a referendum on changing Queenslands constitution. Apparently these changes will more or less deem Queensland a republic and take away all property rights and property ownership rights. I hear it is set for June. Watch out for this APP as they put their deceitful spin on a marketing campaign for the changes. I just hope Queenslanders don't fall for any more lies from this government. There is more info at http://www.larryhannigan.com .

  5. Tony Ryan, I think it is important to point out that the last 15 years of Australia's booming economy would have been very difficult to achieve had the unions had free reign to do as they please. A very different era from the 50's and 60's. As a former businessman, you would be aware that business is very reluctant to invest their shareholders money into a region or nation which is dominated by unions. That doesn't mean that unions aren't important, simply that a company cannot afford to invest in a nation where unions dominate. It is simply not a good business move. Even for Australian owned companies the risk is high. I think the boom era would have been very different had the unions behaved as they had previously. Keep in mind that during the latest boom, the lowest wage increased by 20%.

    • John, just a point. Australians should'nt be wanting foreigners to invest in Australia. This is our country and foreigners should keep their nose, and money out! Foreign investment means foreign control; we do all the work and foreigners reap the profits. Australia should raise its own capital, afterall we are not a poor country. Financial independence and national sovereignty go together.

      • BK, Even Australian Owned companies fear the same when it comes to union domination. In essence, we stifle our own Australian companies while also pushing away foreign investment. Now I'm not an advocate of foreign investment though I also realize that Australia cannot stand still in time and push it away, especially while we have a heavy debt burden. When a nation has a substantial debt, it has less control over its destiny and economics begins to be the supreme ruler. We also punish our small business sector when unions dominate. This severely damages our economy further as the corporate sector once again get the upper hand because they have the resources to deal with it while small business closes its doors. I can see your point though there needs to be balance.

      • That's right Australia has been sold off for the mighty dollar. How did Australia survive before Globalisation when we lived off the sheep's back?

    • Unions are good for the workers as well as the Company. My Union and Company work together and the company still profits. The shareholer excuse is not the problem,. Greed is the true problem.

  6. the ringer from the west says:

    well well the penny is starting to drop.

  7. TonyRyan says:

    Gillard has done little, and intends to do little, to improve the lot of workers and families, and most of the unions were corrupted by the graduated progeny of Liberals during the 1970s; but union criticism of the ravages of Work Choices was most certainly not mere hysteria. Hockey and Andrews, two blokes I would dearly like to be left in a room with for half and hour, were both aware that, under their policies, many workers had the prospect of endless work without holidays or sick leave, until they died prematurely and inevitably with wrecked health. This has not changed under Labor, of course.

    Both these creeps euphemised these barbaric conditions with the word 'flexibility' and, according to our surveys, with 69% of Australians earning below $30,000 the fall from the civilised conditions of the 1960s has been horrendous.

    I'm now wondering why you report the media's propaganda. To claim some workers could lose $370 per week is to imply a higher income in the first place… perhaps the $1000 per week that John Howard claimed we get… a nice dream if it were true.

    If you cut a demographic corridor across working Australia you will find precious few are taking home more than $380 per week. This is the significant figure, making the described cuts ludicrous.

    It seems to me that the greatest failing of small political parties is that they use the enemy's statistics, thereby cutting their own throats when it comes to establishing credibility. Yet even a sample of 100 questionnaires across an accurate demographic slice of the Aussie social pie, can produce much more accurate results than a phone or passersby poll of many thousands.

    It is all a matter of getting off one's arse.

    But for the APP, does this mean that you oppose the former egalitarian principles of (1) The right to work, (2) The right to earn a living wage; (3) The right to withdraw one's labour if the employer breeches established wages or conditions, or indexed improvements thereof; and (4) the right to establish a home for one's family?

    Employer ideology aside, no employer ever voluntarily improved wages or conditions and no national wage increase ever went unapposed by employers, who screamed that increases would destroy industry. Anticipating your thought process, an empirical piece of historical evidence should regulate any discussion on this issue… that the 1950s and 1960s were the decades of greatest prosperity for Australians, yet these were the peak period of trade union activity and influence.

    This neatly exposes the lie that unions were destroying the economy, the battle cry of every small businessman and employer whom I encountered during that period. To this day, a fair-minded employer is difficult to find. Which brings me to the thought prompted by your use of the word 'hysterical'… where does the APP stand on industrial relations?

    (And yes, I have run businesses, and in extremely competitive environments).

Leave a Reply