||Issue No. 301||31 March 2006|
Interview: Organising In Cyberspace
Industrial: How Low Is Low
Industrial: Cloak and Dagger
Unions: Bad Medicine
History: Right Turn, Clyde
Economics: Long Division
International: Union Proud
Politics: Howardís Sick Joke
Indigenous: The year of living dangerously
Review: Lights, Camera, Strike!
Culture: News Front
The Locker Room
The Earl Speaks
Let Us Rejoice
Letters to the Editor
The Earl Speaks
Dear Mr Howard
Does your WhatChoice industrial law overrule equal opportunity law? What is to stop an employer who employs less than a hundred employees and finds out that some of his employees belong to groups he doesn't like and finds out he is saddled with twenty people that he wants to get rid of but can't. The twenty people consist of four lesbians, four homosexual men, four Muslims, four Torres Strait Islanders and four immigrants.
Prior to your WhatChoice legislation he was stuck with them once he hired them. To sack any one of them would bring down a fire storm of equal opportunity law, he could be sued out of existence in a series of one sided equal opportunity cases, now thanks to your WhatChoice law he does not have to explain his actions to any one and that includes the equal opportunity commission. He may hate Lesbians, Homosexuals, Muslims, Torres Strait Islanders and immigrants; now he can unfairly dismiss and not mention a word about his real reasons, religious intolerance, homophobia and racism. He would be free and clear and you have helped him.
My questions to you Mr. Howard are: Have you finally abandoned equal opportunity? If religious intolerance, homophobia and racism are allowed to flourish under your WhatChoice laws, why have equal opportunity? What are you going to do to stop this? Why is it that a small employer does not have to answer questions, but a large employer does? Why does an employer who employs less than one hundred employees be immune from unfair dismissal, but an employer with one hundred an one employees not?
Do you think that your whatchoice laws will encourage religious intolerance, homophobia and racism among employers?
If an employer can sack people with no excuse then it follows that he does not have to hire these people he hates and still offer no excuse.
The AWB was giving bribes before, during and after a the war in Iraq. Why haven't they been branded and treated as war criminals?
Widen the inquiry to include yourself and your ministers. Being the prime minister you are going to be held responsible in any case.
How about a bit of action on the legislation you are stalling that would enable Dick Pratt to get the justice he deserves.
|Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue|