|
![]() | WorkChoices was a
good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the
good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it,
please do; it may then be
renominated. Review: July 9, 2007. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is it WorkChoices or Work Choices?? Make up your mind people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.238.225 ( talk) 02:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
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 Added a line on the fairness test because this section is clearly out of date by months and months.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)
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)
Not to mention the article is severely biased against WorkChoices. -- TheSeer ( Talkˑ Contribs) 00:03, 16 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 ( Talkˑ Contribs) 12:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
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
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)
I support removing, if you are removing things that aren't factual. I agree that it has NPOV issues. Also, The Steer did not state at any stage that information needed to be removed or that he wanted it removed. That saw of straw man argument is exactly how the trade unions distracted Australia from the truth about the IR system, Timeshift. Matthew 0327 20 april 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.88.116 ( talk) 19:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the discussions here are old and moving them to an archive page wouldn't hurt. Any disagreement? -- TheSeer ( Talkˑ Contribs) 00:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
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 ( Talkˑ Contribs) 12:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What about the freedom to get a job and decide on the terms with your employer and not be interfered with by the government? That is aa freedom. Removing government regulation os not removing freedom. Your argument is nonsense Rotovia. Matthew 0323 20 april 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.88.116 ( talk) 19:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Wcpad.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 14 June 2012
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Wcpad.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
WorkChoices. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
WorkChoices. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
WorkChoices. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:WorkChoices/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Format of references needs to be cleaned up.-- Grahame ( talk) 13:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
Substituted at 04:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on WorkChoices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)