Union Dominance if Rudd wins the election [Archive]

GentlemanJeff

12 Sep 2007, 17:02

IF you're considering voting for Kevin Rudd, perhaps you should consider who will sit around a Rudd cabinet table!!

Prime minister: Kevin Rudd. Life long public servant who has NEVER had a job in the private sector.

Deputy prime minister and minister for industrial relations: Julia Gillard, former student radical and AUS president.

Treasurer: Wayne Swan, former ALP state secretary.

Attorney-general: Joe Ludwig, former AWU official.

Minister for homeland security: Arch Bevis, former organiser Queensland Teachers Union.

Minister for trade: Simon Crean, former president, ACTU.

Minister for transport and tourism: Martin Ferguson, former president, ACTU.

Minister for finance: Lindsay Tanner, former state secretary, Federated Clerks Union.

Minister for the environment and the arts: Peter Garrett, lifelong anti-American activist.

Minister for infrastructure and water: Anthony Albanese, former assistant general-secretary, NSW ALP.

Minister for human services: Tanya Plibersek, former student union official, UTS.

Minister for immigration: Tony Burke, former official Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Union.

Minister for resources: Chris Evans, former official, Miscellaneous Workers Union.

Minister for veterans affairs: Alan Griffin, former official, Federated Clerks Union.

Minister for primary industry: Kerry O'Brien, former official, Miscellaneous Workers Union.

Minister for superannuation: Nick Sherry, former state secretary, Federated Liquor and Allied Trades Union.

Minister for sport: Kate Lundy, former official, CFMEU.

And if that wasn't bad enough, waiting in the wings (if they win their elections) are:

Greg Combet: House candidate and former ACTU president.

Doug Cameron: NSW Senate candidate and secretary of Australian Manufacturing Workers Union.

Bill Shorten: House candidate and national secretary, Australian Workers Union.

Richard Marles: House candidate for Corio and former assistant secretary, Transport Workers Union.

ImperialPurple

12 Sep 2007, 17:10

Not sure why I'm bothering... maybe it's because your hypocrisy has got the better of me:

Originally posted by Gentleman Jeff
Clifton should be ashamed of himself for posting that Kevin07 crap on our board.

And yet you start your own thread on politics here immediately after. :rolleyes:

HYPOCRITE :thumbsd:

Take it to the SC&P board.

Stronzo

12 Sep 2007, 17:13

What is so bad about unions GJ?

GentlemanJeff

12 Sep 2007, 17:20

Belnakor

12 Sep 2007, 18:05

If the other Kevin07 threads can stay, so can this.

Dyslexic Emo

12 Sep 2007, 18:45

Minister for homeland security: Arch Bevis, former organiser Queensland Teachers Union.
Minister for human services: Tanya Plibersek, former student union official, UTS.

LOL....that guys name is bevis huh huh beaivs LOL!!!:thumbsu:

human services....member....party.....hmmm..... now how do i work this into a joke about sex????

Bradesmaen

12 Sep 2007, 19:13

GJ... Not only are you GJ and Belnakor, but now we find out you are John Howard. When does it end?

Freo Big Fella

12 Sep 2007, 19:15

Hey, if you want overrepresentation of a certain group, you can't go past the current cabinet.

John Howard, Alexander Downer: Career Politicians with token degrees. Never held gainful employment outside of the Liberal Party or the Australian Government.

Peter Costello: Former Lawyer.

Kevin Andrews: Former Lawyer.

Julie Bishop: Former Lawyer.

Phillip Ruddock: Former Lawyer.

Helen Coonan: Former Lawyer.

Chris Ellison: Former Lawyer.

Joe Hockey: Former Lawyer

Peter McGauran: Former Lawyer.

Nick Minchin: Former Lawyer.

Leaving us Turnbull (who made most of his money as a Merchant Banker but, suprise suprise, worked as a Barrister!), Vaile (Real Estate Agent), Truss (Farmer), McFarlane (Farmer) and Abbott (wannabe Priest with a law degree).

What a well rounded group!:rolleyes:

GentlemanJeff

12 Sep 2007, 19:18

Hey, if you want overrepresentation of a certain group, you can't go past the current cabinet.

John Howard, Alexander Downer: Career Politicians with token degrees. Never held gainful employment outside of the Liberal Party or the Australian Government.

I think you will find that John Howard was a partner at a major Sydney Law Firm prior to entering politics.

So you should get your facts right.

The difference is that ALP politicians are captive to the union movement. Their party is controlled by unions. So if they go against Unions, then they will get disendorsed for their seat.

Bradesmaen

12 Sep 2007, 19:22

I think you will find that John Howard was a partner at a major Sydney Law Firm prior to entering politics.

So you should get your facts right.

The difference is that ALP politicians are captive to the union movement. Their party is controlled by unions. So if they go against Unions, then they will get disendorsed for their seat.

So? Are you new to politics or something? This happens in every seat no matter what party you are, you are always endorsed by someone for campaign money etc... Just look at the US for crying out loud and where the Presidential Candidates get their money from.

Freo Big Fella

12 Sep 2007, 19:32

Belnakor

12 Sep 2007, 19:33

Stronzo

12 Sep 2007, 19:44

I think you will find that John Howard was a partner at a major Sydney Law Firm prior to entering politics.

So you should get your facts right.

The difference is that ALP politicians are captive to the union movement. Their party is controlled by unions. So if they go against Unions, then they will get disendorsed for their seat.
I think you could say the same about the liberals being captive to big business, or the coal lobby, or the U.S. agenda.

BTW your whole attack on ALP only mirrors what the libs are doing. Are you a liberal spruiker?

Freo Big Fella

12 Sep 2007, 19:46

] Most candidates for the Liberals have to raise their own money, Labor gets handed it by the unions. You only have to look at the massive difference in spending the last couple of state elections to see Labor have been spending 4x the budget.

Utter rubbish. I suggest you and your siamese twin get your head out of the clouds.

http://fadar.aec.gov.au/arwdefault.asp?submissionid=8

A search on donations to the Liberal Party will show that Westpac, Gunns, Westfield, Inghams, ANZ, Pratt Holdings, Phillip Morris (Tobacco Distributors) and Coca Cola all donated more than $30,000 to the Liberal Party.

How much influence does that buy?

Stronzo

12 Sep 2007, 19:50

If you want to stay endorsed in the Labor party, you have to bow and scrap to the Unions, otherwise they will disendorse you, it is that simple. The Liberal party is far more fractured, with no one group holding sway. Most candidates for the Liberals have to raise their own money, Labor gets handed it by the unions. You only have to look at the massive difference in spending the last couple of state elections to see Labor have been spending 4x the budget.
What do you care what the structure of the ALP is? If they were to change their structure to be more like the libs would you vote for them?

That last question was rhetorical, because you wouldn't.

Most candidates having to raise their own money? You mean holding banquets for their business mates and charging them $1000 a head meanwhile recieving "advice" for which labor laws should be relaxed to maximise profits for them - "a sort of you scratch my back, I'll max out your profits" relationship.

Belnakor

12 Sep 2007, 19:58

Utter rubbish. I suggest you and your siamese twin get your head out of the clouds.

http://fadar.aec.gov.au/arwdefault.asp?submissionid=8

A search on donations to the Liberal Party will show that Westpac, Gunns, Westfield, Inghams, ANZ, Pratt Holdings, Phillip Morris (Tobacco Distributors) and Coca Cola all donated more than $30,000 to the Liberal Party.

How much influence does that buy?

$30,000! Well i never! How much does the Labor party get from unions?

GentlemanJeff

12 Sep 2007, 20:04

$30,000! Well i never! How much does the Labor party get from unions?

It is also a fact that most major corporations that are listed on the ASX have a policy of making equal contributions to both major parties.

The argument that the Liberals are favoured by big business with donations just is not true.

The Unions are not only the ALP's major source of donations, they also determine who gets preselected and who does not.

Contrast this with the Liberal Party, where the people who donate to the party have basically no influence over the preselections at a branch level.

Freo Big Fella

12 Sep 2007, 20:06

$30,000! Well i never! How much does the Labor party get from unions?

The Highest one I could see was $100,000 from the CFMEU.

This compared with $200,000 to the Liberal Party from Dick Pratt. Who has undue influence again?

Bradesmaen

12 Sep 2007, 20:07

It is also a fact that most major corporations that are listed on the ASX have a policy of making equal contributions to both major parties.

The argument that the Liberals are favoured by big business with donations just is not true.

The Unions are not only the ALP's major source of donations, they also determine who gets preselected and who does not.

Contrast this with the Liberal Party, where the people who donate to the party have basically no influence over the preselections at a branch level.

I think I'm not the only one who will say this... Piss off you tool. Go back to working for your local liberal candidate and let everyone make their own decisions without a stupid person like you influencing them.

GentlemanJeff

12 Sep 2007, 20:11

The Highest one I could see was $100,000 from the CFMEU.

This compared with $200,000 to the Liberal Party from Dick Pratt. Who has undue influence again?

Yes, but "Dick Pratt" has only one vote in a local preselection. He can donate to a candidate but he cant choose who actually becomes the cadidate.

Contrast this to the ALP where the "internal ALP machine" is the union movement. They determine who gets preselected and who doesnt. There is no democracy involved. The unions decide, and thats that.

Freo Big Fella

12 Sep 2007, 20:20

So you're saying that $200,000 derives no influence whatsoever?:o

Funny view of politics you seem to have.

I don't deny that the ALP is incredibly dominated by the Union movement. It was founded and practically bankrolled to serve their interests. Just like the top end of town and major corporations finance the Liberal party to serve their interests.

I make my decisions based on what policies I agree with and how much of a direct benefit the said policies are going to be to me, and on that case the ALP wins hands down compared to the tired old rabble that constitutes the other mob.

I'll leave you to your rose coloured masturbatory fantasies about how the Liberal Party are the "Party for all Australians". Hilarious.:)

Stronzo

12 Sep 2007, 20:26

The argument that the Liberals are favoured by big business with donations just is not true.

Now I've heard it all.

Have you not seen the ads on the tv from the australian business council supporting the Howard government workplace legislation?

If you are suggesting that big business doesn't favour the libs over the ALP then you are seriously delluded.

GentlemanJeff

12 Sep 2007, 20:27

Stronzo, I am not saying that - the AEC is.

NiGHTFuRY

12 Sep 2007, 21:56

Gentleman Jeff - you are very misguided about unions. Do not buy the governments rhetoric....

dominguez

12 Sep 2007, 22:03

Thats a good question Stronzo.

There is nothing wrong with Unions. But, do we want unions running the country?

Union membership accounts for 20% of the labour force. Union membership levels have been falling for decades, and they no longer speak for the majority of Australians. Rather, they act as a labor cartel for their members. They operate to benefit their members and the expense of non-members. This is what a cartel does.

Now Unions are allowed to exist, and people are free to join a union if they choose.

But, should a union representing only 20% of the population run the country?

I dont think so. And I think the majority of Australians would agree with me.

Unions only account for 20% of the population because Howard has introduced laws that essentially make them a toothless tiger. How can you get fined thousands of dollars for going on strike? It's a joke.

The average working class person now has very little rights, which is fine during a boom but will make things tough when things go bad. Without unfair dismissal laws there will be plenty of hard working people with families and mortgages given the arse once the economy takes a turn for the worse.

Belnakor

13 Sep 2007, 12:11

Unions only account for 20% of the population because Howard has introduced laws that essentially make them a toothless tiger. How can you get fined thousands of dollars for going on strike? It's a joke.

Because you are effectively holding a company to ransom. Thats just not cricket.

The average working class person now has very little rights, which is fine during a boom but will make things tough when things go bad. Without unfair dismissal laws there will be plenty of hard working people with families and mortgages given the arse once the economy takes a turn for the worse.

The idea is to keep things from going bad, by not letting wages be overinflated by union dominance. The market works best unimpeded, as has been shown. Funny that the union dominance has been wittled away by Howard, and it just so happens that our economy has gone from strength to strength.

GentlemanJeff

13 Sep 2007, 12:44

Unions only account for 20% of the population because Howard has introduced laws that essentially make them a toothless tiger. How can you get fined thousands of dollars for going on strike? It's a joke. .

You are really showing your bias here.

Union membership has been on the slide for well over 40 years. The proportion of union membership in the labour force has been falling every year since the 1960's. How the **** can you blame this on Work Choices? Work Choices have not even been around for 12 months yet.

The truth is Unions are a dinosaur. They have become irrelevant.

Stronzo

13 Sep 2007, 12:46

Because you are effectively holding a company to ransom. Thats just not cricket.

The idea is to keep things from going bad, by not letting wages be overinflated by union dominance. The market works best unimpeded, as has been shown. Funny that the union dominance has been wittled away by Howard, and it just so happens that our economy has gone from strength to strength.
The economy has improved because of a thing called the global market. We are all subject to it. If it wasn't for a massive boom in China and India the situation would be completly different.

For you to be claiming the Howard economic policy, and in particularly the industrial relations legislation, deserves all of the praise for our current economic status then you really are in dreamland.

The real kicker for these work place "reforms" will be felt when the economy is not running so well and all of the people with mortgages lose their jobs and have no proper avenue to protect themselves.

There does need to be a balance between workers and employers rights but the current arrangement doesn't provide it.

GentlemanJeff

13 Sep 2007, 13:01

The real kicker for these work place "reforms" will be felt when the economy is not running so well and all of the people with mortgages lose their jobs and have no proper avenue to protect themselves.

.

Stronzo, your comments on bigfooty are usually passable, but your panicked view of Work Choices is way off the mark.

The ALP have a history of "hitting the panic button" when ever there is a sensible economic reform. In contrast, when Hawke/Keating proposed several major economic reforms in the 1980's, the liberal party supported these changes even though it may have been politically advantageous for the liberals to run a scare campaign.

When Howard introduced the GST, the ALP tried to tell us that the one of inflationary spike would destroy the economy. They also tried to tell us that the GST would target the poor, and was unworkable.

Almost a decade on, we now see that the GST has been a huge success. (The only problem is the State Labour governments are not off setting their increased GST revenue by cutting state taxes and duties). The GST is a terrific system, and it is impossible to imagine the country going back to the old haphazard system.

The ALP is running the same argument about Work Choices. They are telling us that we will all be out of jobs, that the rich will get richer, and we poor people will fall further behind. This is of course a complete lie.

The sky will not fall in.

Stronzo

13 Sep 2007, 13:13

Stronzo, your comments on bigfooty are usually passable, but your panicked view of Work Choices is way off the mark.

The ALP have a history of "hitting the panic button" when ever there is a sensible economic reform. In contrast, when Hawke/Keating proposed several major economic reforms in the 1980's, the liberal party supported these changes even though it may have been politically advantageous for the liberals to run a scare campaign.

When Howard introduced the GST, the ALP tried to tell us that the one of inflationary spike would destroy the economy. They also tried to tell us that the GST would target the poor, and was unworkable.

Almost a decade on, we now see that the GST has been a huge success. (The only problem is the State Labour governments are not off setting their increased GST revenue by cutting state taxes and duties). The GST is a terrific system, and it is impossible to imagine the country going back to the old haphazard system.

The ALP is running the same argument about Work Choices. They are telling us that we will all be out of jobs, that the rich will get richer, and we poor people will fall further behind. This is of course a complete lie.

The sky will not fall in.
Erosion of work place rights are erosions of work place rights, there are no two ways about it.

The only reason that the government could pass this legislation is because they control both houses of parliment (which is an absolutley terrible state of affairs). People from a wide spectrum of political persuasions disagree with the workplace legislation and the polling figures reflect that. Though there are some that swallow everything they are told and will back everything the liberals do, such as you and belnakor.

Ripper

13 Sep 2007, 13:21

Erosion of work place rights are erosions of work place rights, there are no two ways about it.

The only reason that the government could pass this legislation is because they control both houses of parliment (which is an absolutley terrible state of affairs). People from a wide spectrum of political persuasions disagree with the workplace legislation and the polling figures reflect that. Though there are some that swallow everything they are told and will back everything the liberals do, such as you and belnakor.

The worst errosion of work place rights is errosion of the workplace itself.

We have always told our offspring to work hard and make yourself in despensible and you will be looked after.

So far all of them are doing well for themselves , two have recently been given an unsolicited $5K wage increase.

Belnakor

13 Sep 2007, 14:09

Thats because your children are hard working people. Labor isn't interested in protecting those people's rights.. they are interested in protecting the slack union worker who is untouchable.

I mean seriously, if companies are going around sacking smart, hard working people with no reason, they won't stay in business for very long. Anyone who has run a business or worked in managment would realize that hard working people are worth their weight in gold. You do not sack those people if you don't have to.

Why would you want to work for a company that wants to get rid of you, but can't because they have to pony up 3 formal warnings?

inferno66

13 Sep 2007, 14:18

I agree with you Belnakor. I have recently finished University and I have entered the workforce. I am quite happy with the AWA's.

GentlemanJeff

13 Sep 2007, 14:28

Yep, if they abolish AWA's it will destroy the WA economy (in particular our resources sector).

Dyslexic Emo

13 Sep 2007, 14:34

Yep, if they abolish AWA's it will destroy the WA economy (in particular our resources sector).

The old double bluff huh? put them in place promising greater benefits and more flexibility, but don't dare remove them or it will be a catastrophe. You wonder how we ever lived without them???

Stronzo

13 Sep 2007, 14:39

Yep, if they abolish AWA's it will destroy the WA economy (in particular our resources sector).
AWA aren't a revalation, they have been around for sometime now. I don't remember the Labor party claiming they were going to abolish them either.

summerthebat

13 Sep 2007, 15:41

And all of a sudden Gentleman Jeff makes so much sense.

Scotland

13 Sep 2007, 16:48

Abolishing AWA's will hurt the WA mining sector, it won't kill it.

Mining companies don't want union agreements covering all workers because of the unions' past record of causing delays and disruption.

The notion that some try to put forward that without unions the mining sector is unsafe and its workers are being exploited is far fetched.

Jetau

16 Sep 2007, 09:54

I'd like to nominate GJ as "Tool of the Century."

"Come on down!"

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Jackey J

16 Sep 2007, 10:25

I'd like to nominate GJ as "Tool of the Century."

"Come on down!"

:eek: :eek: :eek:

I agree with a lot of what GJ has to say.

I have never been part of a union and never will be.

The problem I have with workchoices is that not everyone has the capacity to protect/negotiate with a company that is determined to abuse their bargaining position.

GentlemanJeff

20 Sep 2007, 11:08

Guys, it emerged last night Rudd has a heart condition that required serious surgery:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudd-forced-to-defend-his-ticker/2007/09/19/1189881595504.html

Given his weakened health, does he have the "ticker" required to be PM?

The problem is that being PM is an incredibly stressful job and is physically taxing. Given that Kevin has a heart problem, is he the right man for the job?

We are heading into uncertain economic times: Many economists are predicting a US recession, some economists are predicting a global recession, the sub-prime crisis is spreading through the world (the latest to be hit is Northern Rock bank in the UK). All of this is happening at a time where Australian's are mortgaged to the hilt. Whoever is PM is going to have a stressful time dealing with all of these problems - is Rudd cut out for this stress?

If an AFL player had a serious heart condition, medical staff would probably advise him to retire (and spend time with his family). Given Rudd's poor health, should he stand down as Opposition Leader?

Freo Big Fella

20 Sep 2007, 11:54

You're all class Jeffnakor.

NiGHTFuRY

20 Sep 2007, 12:00

For goodness sake GJ....:o

Lach72

20 Sep 2007, 12:20

Iron Bar it's about time you outed yourself...

dockertor

20 Sep 2007, 13:01

I agree with a lot of what GJ has to say.

I have never been part of a union and never will be.

The problem I have with workchoices is that not everyone has the capacity to protect/negotiate with a company that is determined to abuse their bargaining position.

Work choices can be summed up as the old divide and conquer strategy

jacko57

20 Sep 2007, 13:16

I agree with a lot of what GJ has to say.

I have never been part of a union and never will be.

But you're happy to enjoy the benefits that unions have won for people like you over a period of decades.

freocuz

20 Sep 2007, 14:28

And John Howard's old and might croak of old age before he gets to hand over the reigns to Costello. What difference does it make?

GJ, why don't you tell us what position within the Liberal Party you hold so we can all properly understand why you are here.

Kram81

20 Sep 2007, 14:52

The ETU has done a few good things for my trade I'll admit, but mainly only for construction workers on high profile sites. However they have never done anything for the little guys, housebasher and maintenance Electricians.

As for the CFMEU and that fat idiot K.Reynolds it would be great to see the back of him and his lazy followers.

GentlemanJeff

20 Sep 2007, 14:58

As for the CFMEU and that fat idiot K.Reynolds it would be great to see the back of him and his lazy followers.

Everytime I drive past the Raffles Aparment tower (and see Kevin Reynolds' 1.5 million dollar apartment) it is a reminder that the unions are out of touch with ordinary Australians.

Kram81

20 Sep 2007, 16:26

Everytime I drive past the Raffles Aparment tower (and see Kevin Reynolds' 1.5 million dollar apartment)

Strangely I don't seem to recall many union delays on that site, intersting . .

slidetribe

20 Sep 2007, 16:49

Wow, gained some respect for some dockers posters here... Well done GJ :thumbsu:

You make very valid points but the unfortunate thing is that most people are too stubborn, stupid, or ignorant to know these things. There's also the people that want Howard out because they are having a bad year (e.g. girlfriend broke up with them, they stubbed their toe on the door, etc) and think a change of government will do just dandy.

That's my thoery anyway.

For those kind of people, I present a simpler approach... Who is more cuddly? Johnny or Kevin? I'm sure most people would rather cuddle up with the lovable Johnny than Rudd.

Billy Hunt

20 Sep 2007, 19:33

Everytime I drive past the Raffles Aparment tower (and see Kevin Reynolds' 1.5 million dollar apartment) it is a reminder that the unions are out of touch with ordinary Australians.

Big kev brought that apartment off the plans for $800,000 If it wasn’t for the housing boom or had gone backwards like in Sydney, it may have financially ruined him. He sold off his house & business interests he had to fund it plus he still has a big mortgage to pay just like every one else. Like most people of his age, he has no superannuation to retire with, no nest egg, only his apartment which he will probable sell when he retires to help fund his retirement. In reality, he has no more money than most people his age.

Stronzo

20 Sep 2007, 19:36

Big kev brought that apartment off the plans for $800,000 If it wasn’t for the housing boom or had gone backwards like in Sydney, it may have financially ruined him. He sold off his house & business interests he had to fund it plus he still has a big mortgage to pay just like every one else. Like most people of his age, he has no superannuation to retire with, no nest egg, only his apartment which he will probable sell when he retires to help fund his retirement. In reality, he has no more money than most people his age.
Perception is truth to GJ.

slidetribe

20 Sep 2007, 20:44

Jackey J

20 Sep 2007, 20:49

But you're happy to enjoy the benefits that unions have won for people like you over a period of decades.

Not sure were you got that idea as my work isn't listed any where on this site, I work in an area that has never enjoyed the support of unions.

I don't expect anyone to look after me but can appreciate the fact that some people may require that service.

Jetau

20 Sep 2007, 21:05

STOP SPAMMING THE FORUM WITH YOUR RUDD-HATRED ALREADY :thumbsd:

Jackey J

20 Sep 2007, 21:13

If nothing else, I guess it proves he has a heart.

Reveler

20 Sep 2007, 21:16

http://www.kevin07.com.au/images/header/testimonial/polaroid/007.jpg

GentlemanJeff

26 Sep 2007, 13:19

Guys, here is a very disturbing You tube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPrVxDQ5ziQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enews%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fstory%2F0%2C23599% 2C22482457%2D5012863%2C00%2Ehtml

Jackey J

26 Sep 2007, 21:35

Guys, here is a very disturbing You tube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPrVxDQ5ziQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enews%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fstory%2F0%2C23599% 2C22482457%2D5012863%2C00%2Ehtml

Here is another one.

Though from all the fuss it was creating I thought it would be funnier, bit of a let down really.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W90bfVeNhY

dugrene

27 Sep 2007, 00:28

Stating the obvious aren't you.

The Labor Party was formed and founded by the Union movement. A Party that had an objective to ensure workers were protected by the Government.

It managed to lose it's way when it got taken over by small factions, self interest groups preaching political correctness using the strength of the workers to pursue their own agenda.

It took a while but Labor got the boot when the workers realised they were being used.

The Coalition thought their policies were what got them in but it was more to do with a protest vote against the inner city lefty intellectuals who had taken over labor.

The Coalition though has made a big mistake by focusing on the worker's long hard fought conditions that most Australians get benefit from, and will get savaged at the polls.

The balance in the Senate will be restored and Labor wont change too much of Work Choices.

Rudd seems to have caught on that he needs the workers. If he lets Labor slip back to being a tool of the left then he will only get one term.