Australian workers should indeed be worried about the direction in which the nation is heading - one in which Business will set the pay and conditions under which most of us work.

As ACTU secretary Greg Combet said at a Workers Rights Convention organised in Hobart by Unions Tasmania (Friday November 4th), the aim of the Howard Government’s new industrial relations laws is to get rid of unions and kill off collective bargaining in a massive assault on people’s democratic rights that will drive down living standards.

‘If you believe people should have a decent safety net you have a responsibility to fight for it ... you have to stand up and fight for it,” he said to about 300 union delegates. I was there as Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance Tasmania Branch president.

The Howard Government “is on the side of big business,” Combet said. The ACTU must collect $5.50 from every union member in Australia (50 cents of it going to the Government in GST revenue, to raise $9 million to continue the campaign against the IR laws until the next Federal election. Then, Combet said,  “the Labor party will have to decide whether to ride the crest of our campaign. If they do, they will give themselves a winning chance.”

Workplace conditions can be difficult as they are, without the the drastic changes which the Howard Government will undoubtedly enact.

Andrew Muthy makes a claim about the “intellectual rigour” of whoever Brad’s “masters” are supposed to be.

This might be an opportune time to have a look at Mr Muthy’s intellectual rigour.

His article consists of the following:

State Cinema ... blah blah ... John Kelly ... blah blah ... single instance of something that is purportedly undesirable happening in small Tasmanian city ... blah blah ....

and then, from this, draws the conclusion:

“So much for the claim that Howard’s reforms will create jobs. “

Didn’t take Methodology 101, Andrew?  Has no-one ever told you that generalising out to a broad conclusion (like the one above) from a single example (even if it is true) involves obviously fallacious reasoning?

By all means, let’s have some more intellectual rigour in this debate.

I do not propose to get into a slanging match with Mr Muthy on this matter.

Suffice to say his, this posting of his does not rebut any of the assertions I put about the basic falsehoods in his initial article.

I also point out that unlike Mr Muthy, who chose to indulge in a personal and petty attack upon myself, I did not mention Mr Muthy by name in my posting, or reflect upon him personally.

It seems to be all to common among those of the far - supposedly compassionate and caring - left, to personally attack any who dare to disagree with them.

So much for freedom of speech.

No further correspondence will be entered into.

Brad.

It’s a shame you’ve taken this all so personally Brad, but it’s naive of you to think that you can accuse someone of “scaremongering” and “misinformation” and not get a fairly frosty response.

I’m afraid you do seem to have got it wrong again though…

First, contrary to what you write in your latest posting, my comments weren’t a personal attack on you, but on what you wrote and on the fact that many of your comments were not informed by any real understanding or experience of this particular case;

Second, nowhere have I suggested that you have no right to comment (but I do note that while you claim to be a defender of the right free speech you seem to have taken exception to me exercising mine);

Third, like it or not, my comments DO rebut assertions you made about the supposed ‘falsehoods’ in my initial article (for example, your suggestion that allegations regarding entitlements etcetera were “untested” is simply false; and for example, while you say it’s not possible to force workers to sign AWAs, the workers at the State Cinema maintain that they WERE forced to sign AWAs); and

Fourth, you make a further baseless suggestion about my supposed political leanings. It’s difficult to see how you reach the conclusion that I have ‘far left’ political leanings given that you have never met me or spoken to me about my political philosophy. And it is not clear how you distill them from my postings - unless you are suggesting that anyone that seeks to defend workers rights or that opposes a Howard government policy is “far left”...