Ruddy-IR from blogland.

We’re not going to get much in the way of critical analysis of Rudd’s IR from business – they’ll toe the ‘oh no, Labor is standing up against us evil bastards’ line, unions are wedged against Howard and a hard place so they won’t be picking through it, and the media has been quite weak on the matter. So we’ll turn to blogs.

The Solidarity blog started off positive but cautious – “all in all, Fair Work Australia seems like a good idea”. Then lost a little faith with further examination – “Labor’s IR plan is an unacceptable restriction on workers’ legitimate right to take industrial action, including strikes. It should not be supported by the union movement.”

Andrew Bartlett believes Rudd’s changes will leave IR not quite where it was before the Coalition got control of the Senate.

The Age had some good commentary, with a Your Say section here, with arguments for and against.

Mikey loves the laws. But I noticed some comments that were interesting.

Here’s a result of searching for Mikey’s opinion on unfair dismissal laws.

2005-10. Mikey defends unfair dismissal, claims only 3% went before the courts.
2005-11. Mikey gets into his argument for unfair dismissal with his boss.
2005-12. Mikey claim no access to unfair dismissal could result in sexual assault.
2006-02. Mikey refers to unfair dismissal and right to charge before incarceration as only affecting 0.001% of economic growth.
2007-04. Rudd unveils ALP's weaker unfair dismissal laws.
2007-04. Mikey claims the same unfair dismissal laws he was previously defending were broken, abused, needed fixing, and Rudd’s new plan adds balance.

I don’t want to slander Mikey, he’s a good bloke and I feel bad even mentioning this, but I found it annoying. Maybe he’s toeing the party line, maybe he just neglected to mention his opposition to unfettered unfair dismissal until after the ALP decided to restrict it, I don’t know. I hope his opinions are not a result of any organisation’s stance, but stem from his own senses.