Talk:WorkChoices

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are some tasks you can do:

Wikify: per WP:EL external links shouldn't be embedded in text
Cleanup: citations need to have a consistent format
Update: the whole article - what happened during 2006 with workchoices?
NPOV: keep an eye on the pov of this article

WorkChoices was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

^{Delisted version: July 9, 2007}

Portal	WorkChoices is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Archives
Archive One

1 Page seriously needs an update
2 A word from the rest of the world
3 Talk page archive
4 Butcher!
5 Howard governments own research shows conditions stripped from AWAs
6 Future of law
7 Please improve the intro
8 Future Liberal party policy
9 Why controversial?
10 Update tag?

[edit] Page seriously needs an update

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorkChoices#Removing_the_.22No_Disadvantage_Test.22_for_agreements - eh? Added a line on the fairness test because this section is clearly out of date by months and months. Does anyone have a good knowledge of all the workings of WorkChoices who is prepared to give the articles text an overhaul before the election? Timeshift 07:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps for this reason, the page could also do with an unblocking, for the time being at least. Timeshift 07:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have done a little expansion on the sentence however as you indicate above it needs quite a bit more work/updating. Wiki Townsvillia n 14:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This page could also do with a new updated section at the bottom indicating the ALP's proposed IR changes (such as unfair dismissal laws excluded for businesses under 10, not the current under 100) to show what has changed from Beazley to Rudd. Is anyone in to the detail of the ALP's/Rudd's IR change proposals? Timeshift 07:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a very basic start but expansion would be very appreciated. Timeshift 08:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the article is severely biased against WorkChoices. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit of an odd statement that Kevin Rudd is "in the process reaffirming his opposition to WorkChoices." It kind of says what Kevin Rudd is going to do in the future. Also, Kevin Rudd is opposing some aspects of Workchoices while agreeing with others, so it may not be accurate to say he "opposes Workchoices". Cheers, --Lester 03:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You could not seriously argue that any of the ALP do not oppose WorkChoices, simply because there's a few aspects they're too scared to change back which don't make a difference in the scheme of things. If Labor reversed their position on AWAs for example, you might have a case... Timeshift 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you were for the position of using Labor, why refer to Kevin Rudd at all? Also, it's an obvious NPOV/too few sides article. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, to your removal of tags: The pro-WorkChoices camp barely has a mention in the article and significant portions of the article are uncited. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Then add information, instead of criticising the information already there. Simple really. Have a good day. Timeshift (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the recent election result, I think it's safe to say there is no "pro-WorkChoices camp", but rather a formerly pro-Workchoices party and a few scattered pro-WorkChoices individuals. --Psud (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A word from the rest of the world

Excuse the ignorance of this non-Australian English speaker, but this entire article presupposes a knowledge of how labor relations laws work in Australia. A reader from the US or Canada, for instance, finds this entire article confusing and uninformative. This is NOT how an encyclopedia is suppossed to work.75.164.153.79 (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)dwargo

Yeah. WorkChoices has been a divisive subject and there is a large NPOV/COI problem with the article so it includes a lot of arguments against WorkChoices instead of actual information about it. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not what he said. And I take note that nobody else seems to agree with your NPOV/COI stance. Have a good day. Timeshift (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Uninformative...? Well, there's no quorum my opinion so it can't really be proven or disproven. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Uninformative to overseas readers was the context, but again nice try. If you want to add to the article to assist an overseas audience, then do so, but removing what is currently on the page blatently shows that this isn't what you're trying to achieve. Timeshift (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is the context, and that means that it's uninformative to a person who knows little about the subject. I'm not saying the pro/con arguments need to be removed at all. I believe what the anon is saying is that there need to be more basic non-partisan information to serve as a base.

"nice try"? Do you have to assume I'm some kind of super-right-wing-fanatic every time you reply? Sheesh. I admit I lean to the right but my main problem (not on the initial topic any more) is the under-representation of the Pro-WorkChoices camp as opposed to cutting out the criticism. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I guess I do support the removal of uncited statements. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And for the millionth time, please add as much as you want. But there is a huge difference between adding to make an article balanced, and removing to make an article balanced. I support the former. Which do you support? Timeshift (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page archive

A lot of the discussions here are old and moving them to an archive page wouldn't hurt. Any disagreement? --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Timeshift 00:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Butcher!

It is proposed that this article be butchered (severely cutdown). It contains a large number of unsourced and original research statements and chances are it sources will not be found or no one will add them.

Yessir. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howard governments own research shows conditions stripped from AWAs

TheSeer would appear to be a Liberal Party stooge, simply reverting the harsh reality of what the Howard government research showed, without any reasoning as to why this cited information should be removed. If he is not a Liberal Party stooge, I welcome his rational discussion here before continuing to revert cited information regarding Howard government research on conditions stripped in AWAs. Timeshift (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What the hell did I remove? It's still there, just not in a clunky-semi-list form. And, I could call you a Labor Party stooge, your pointless labels don't matter at all. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 05:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't see why the bullet list needed removing however. Timeshift (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not the bullets themselves as much as it was just "Leave loading 63 percent" after them all that didn't quite look right. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 05:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future of law

Now that Rudd has taken office it is almost certain these laws will be scrapped a new section should be added to give the indication of what might happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.51.235 (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The page already has what Rudd has proposed to do. Timeshift (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please improve the intro

Further to #A word from the rest of the world: I came here looking to find out what this controversial Aussie election issue "WorkChoices" is. A good article would tell me that in the intro; this article doesn't. Please add to the lead a summary of what WorkChoices is, what changes it introduced, and why it is controversial. This should of course not be in depth, it should be a summary of the main body per WP:LEAD. --kingboyk (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future Liberal party policy

Do you think it is relevant to mention the Liberal party's change of attitude on Workchoices since the election? Joe Hockey is saying that it "went too deep".
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/28/2103412.htm?site=elections/federal/2007

--220.233.176.121 (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The entire policy and article have now been ripped to shreds, not a single MP in the lower or upper house (along party lines anyway) would now support WorkChoices. See the lead of the article and the reference. WorkChoices is dead. Good times. Timeshift (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why controversial?

I understand WorkChoices was a major issue in the recent Australian election, but this article does not make clear why it is so controversial. The article needs to better explain what about the program so offended labor unions and opposition parties and generated such a widespread reaction. In America, for instance, changes to the law of labor relations, while important, don't have much resonance compared to things like abortion, gun control, taxes, war, etc. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is actually something we may want to look into; Australians are used to certain freedoms (universal healthcare, a certain standard of industrial rights, etc) the idea of anything less was somewhat revolutionary, however I think some context for non-Australian readers is needed Rotovia (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Part of the explanation of why the act was controversial could include the urgency with which it was rushed through parliament and the amount of time a bill would otherwise typically take to be passed. This could include the size of the explanatory memorandum and the number of days parliament was given to read it. 220.253.195.173 (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would've had much to do with it at all. I doubt that any more than a small minority of those that switched from the Coalition to Labor (vote wise) could've cared less about how fast it passed. It's the fact they disagree with the changes full stop. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 01:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, however, I think it is worth mentioning as something that was brought up when it was initially passed. Rotovia (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update tag?

Where did the update tag go? The article doesn't cover what happened in 2006 with WC - it was enacted on the 27th of March, then there was the State challenge (which nearly took all year), and then in December 2006 Kevin Rudd was elected and we knew WC would go??? What happened to the ordinary people during 2006? We seem to be covering the post-2007 elections bit reasonably well enough, but what about what actually happened when this was in force? I want to put the update tag back, or switch it to {{Recentism}} as I believe that the 2006 part of WC is not covered enough. -Malkinann (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll add the High Court challenge Rotovia (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The High Court challenge was already included when I re-read the article, I have split it from another section to make it visible. Rotovia (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)