Post your current Ctrl+V 6

[abunaidesu]

Hi! I'm a proud mother of two from Germany. Talk to me if you need help with anything.

[Houndoom_Lover]

filthy protestants

[Heald]

viva la vida

[shazza]

and furthermore, do they

[abunaidesu]

33mandoo

[Blademaster]

The original, authentic, 100% YGO and not-abridged-at-all dramatic Blue-Eyes build-up music mixed with the semi-abridged-but-still-totally-Kaiba answer: "But this is what destiny told me...!"
"FUCK destiny! I am Seto Kaiba!"
I had to change my underwear four times after that part.

[abunaidesu]

i'm wearing sunglasses at night
you know who does that?
no talent douchebags

[shazza]

sleep paralysis

[The_Missing_Link]

Neopets 10th Birthday Bottle of Sand

[shazza]

–

[abunaidesu]

星のカービィスーパーデラックス グルメレース ピアノ演奏

[shazza]

duh my name's duh

[Drago]

shazza is my favorite favourite

[shazza]

The history of industrial relations in Australia has been one of almost non stop conflict not only between the different players in the system, but also between those of differing ideological backgrounds who have attempted to shape the system itself. Industrial relations has been at the forefront of the political battleground between the two sides of Australian democracy and has served as one of the big differentiating factors between the two parties. This was none more evident than at the 2007 Federal Election where the Australian Labor Party defeated the Liberal – National Coalition in a landslide. The 2007 election can be viewed as one of the definitive moments in Australian Industrial Relations history, where the Australian people rejected the market-focused position put forward by the Howard government in favour of a system that promised fairness above anything else. This essay will examine the changes made by the Rudd Labor government, contrasting them with the previous Coalition policy and finally attempt to explain the ideological reasons for each policy. It will also examine criticism of the previous government’s policy and the validity of claims from both sides in terms of fairness and economic responsibility.
When observing the shift in industrial relations policy since 2007, there must first be an acknowledgement of what legislation came before the ALP policy and more importantly why there was the sudden movement for change. In 2005 the Howard government introduced probably the most significant change to industrial relations legislation for a century. Under the name ‘Work Choices’ the legislation sought to promote workplace flexibility through a loosening of regulation in regard to minimum working conditions and promotion of individual workplace agreements (AWA’s) between employees and firms. It cut to five the minimum conditions that had to be inserted into AWA’s. Those conditions included a thirty eight hour week (averaged over 12 months), four weeks annual leave, unpaid parental leave of 52 weeks, ten days personal leave and a minimum wage set by the newly established Fair Pay Commission. The legislation also abolished protection from unfair dismissal for employees employed in a firm of 100 or less people, with those employees in larger firms only covered if their dismissal was not the result of major restructuring of the organisation.
The Work Choices legislation went further than to merely limit the amount of protection for workers. It also endeavoured to restructure the governmental arm of employment relations in Australia. The government stripped the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) of its powers to set the minimum wage, preferring instead to create the Fair Pay Commission to investigate economic reasons for any minimum wage increase. The brief of the Fair Pay Commission was to investigate what effect any rise in the minimum wage would have on the chances of an unemployed person looking for a job. This was different to the previous system which tended to focus solely upon those people who were already employed.
The Howard government also placed restrictions upon union entry into workplaces and upon industrial action taken by any union. Unions could only enter a workplace if they were permitted to do so by an employer if they were investigating any breach of AWA. Union officials were forbidden from talking to those employees that were not on collective agreements or awards. Unions were also only allowed to take industrial action while bargaining for a collective agreement, with a compulsory secret ballot.
While all of these changes were major in the sense of practical relations between employer and employee, probably the biggest change legally was the shift towards a more federal industrial relations system. Before Work Choices, industrial relations was covered by a mixture of State and Federal laws depending on where the business was situated as per the separation of powers under the Federal Constitution. The Howard government, however used the corporations power in the constitution to govern for all incorporated businesses in Australia. This meant that up to 85% (Australian Labour Law Reporter 2009) of the workforce was to be affected by the new federal system of industrial relations.
This new federal system of industrial relations was, it is probably fair to say a polarising force in Australian politics. The Australian Labor Party and the union movement were immediately against such a radical change in direction away from the collective agreements of the previous system. Right wing think tanks like the HR Nicholls Society were heavily in favour of the changes and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry helped fund pro Work Choices election material (ABC 2007). This divisive sentiment turned industrial relations into the issue of the 2007 election. After almost two years of constant union advertising and protests the ALP was elected for the first time in nearly twelve years and presented with a large mandate for change – especially in the area of industrial relations.
The newly elected Labor government wasted little time in drafting their initial changes to industrial relations. The transitional arrangements became law on the 28th of March 2008, outlawing new AWA’s and allowing existing individual agreements to run their course. New Individual Transitional Employment Agreements (ITEAs) have been allowed to continue an individualist approach until the end of 2009. ITEAs must meet the requirements of a ‘no disadvantage test’ which makes it illegal to offer working conditions that make any employee worse off than the relevant award or collective agreement. Individual agreements will still be permitted in the form of common law contracts. These contracts are seen by Labor to be the best way for high income employees to bargain individually and retain the flexibility that they desire.
While 2008 saw the transitional act passed to ban AWAs, it was not until 2009 when the parliament passed the bulk of the Labor reforms. The Labor government has changed many of the more controversial aspects of Work Choices, for example unfair dismissal protection has been reinstated to employees of most small businesses (over 15 full time equivalent employees until 2011 when ‘small business’ becomes 15 employees as a straight head count)(Australian Labour Law Reporter 2009). Most of the new industrial relations system however is very closely related to Work Choices, with the heavy regulation of industrial action retained to require secret ballots before any strikes and centralised decision making on the minimum wage.
The Rudd government’s industrial relations policy has also adopted – and in some cases extended - many of the structural themes of Work Choices. The new system will maintain the federal nature of the Coalition policy and will not restore the powers once held by the AIRC, instead preferring to create a new government body to examine agreements, set the minimum wage and act as the initial stop for dispute resolution. Named Fair Work Australia, this body has been referred to as a ‘one stop shop’ (Gillard 2008) by the government. This furthers the effort that was initiated under Howard to create a centralised industrial relations system.
The similarities between the Rudd government’s industrial relations agenda and that of the Howard government have but have been welcomed overall from the union movement (ACTU 2009), even though many opposed the same changes when they were introduced under Howard. There has been criticism from right wing think tanks like the Institute for Public Affairs, who have accused the Rudd government of favouring Unions in its industrial relations agenda and even of supporting ‘class warfare’ (Phillips 2008). The fact remains, however that Unions now have, if anything a slightly more diminished role than their previous pre-Work Choices incarnations. The Fair Work Bill has attempted to limit Union interference in the economy, while ensuring their relevance in negotiations as advocate for the disadvantaged. This is in contrast to the Howard approach attempting to cut the Union movement out of the bargaining process altogether through individual agreements.
This brings the question of what effect these reforms will have on workplaces, the economy and society as a whole. Howard’s Work Choices was based upon the same ideology as the Institute of Public Affairs and the HR Nicholls society. Both of these groups espouse ideas that place the market and the individual as their highest priorities and dislike intervention from collectivist forces, be they government or trade union. In pursuing their extreme ideology, both Howard and Costello failed to address the needs of both the system and the Australian community for fairness. As it turned out, the Coalition, in implementing Work Choices became their own worst enemy electorally, misusing their powers in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to pass legislation without the proper scrutiny. Conversely, the Rudd government have had the advantage of both Senate imposed moderation and an electoral mandate that ensures their legislation remains credible.
In conclusion, the new industrial relations system introduced by the Rudd government is a compromise between the historical social contract of the first century after federation and the extreme ideological reforms of the Howard era. Its provisions limit the role of unions to negotiations for workers interests, rather than disruption in the form of informal industrial action. It sets forth collective bargaining as the major form of workplace negotiation rather than individual contracts, which in the cases of low paid and disadvantaged workers places disproportionate power in the hands of the employer. The move towards centralisation of the majority of industrial relations bureaucracy and regulation under the federal system can also be seen as positive, leading to increased certainty and a more streamlined process. On the question of whether these changes will produce better workplaces, the answer is uncertain. No amount of regulation will stop unscrupulous employers, however the provisions included in the safety net and the no disadvantage test, coupled with the opportunity for those workers with more skills to bargain individually should make this system fairer without penalising those towards the top of the employment ladder. The concerns of flexibility overriding fairness that were held with the previous system have been therefore addressed, while rewarding the liberal ideals of hard work and enterprise. While Work Choices will be long be remembered, as The Age’s Shaun Carney (2009) put it: ‘the longest suicide note in Australian political history’, large elements of it still live on in the Labor policy, proving that while there are many differences politically between the two policies, in a practical sense not much has changed. Therefore, probably the best aspect of this reform is that at least it was implemented with a mandate from the Australian people, rather than a mandate from the conservative stream of academia.

[Jeff]

irc.bitsjointirc.net

[abunaidesu]

<style type="text/css">
b{height:1px; color:EFD3A3; font-familyerdana; font-size:6.5pt;}
a, aisited{color:EFD3A3;FONT-FAMILYerdana;font-size:6.5pt;}
a:hover{color:EFD3A3;FONT-FAMILYerdana;font-size:6.5pt;}
body,td,p{font-size:8pt;font-family:tahoma;color:EFD3A3;}
table,td{background:transparent;}
.hdr {display:none;}
#tbg, #m, #mb, #n { visibility:hidden;}
#ban_spacer, #n, #nst, #m, #mb, #ol, #ban, .hdr, .tt{display: none;}
center table{width: 400px;background:transparent;}
.tableop, p table {width:350; }
hr {width: 0px;}
td, table {background:transparent; text-align:center}
</style>

[shazza]

☺

[abunaidesu]

Categories for Meine Plüschiesammelung ·View All Items
·Blaue Plüschies ·Gelbe Plüschies ·Grüne Plüschies
·Lieblinge ·Rosa Plüschies ·Rote Plüschies
·Spezielle Plüschies ·Violette Plüschies

[VirtualPlay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaRe1bD-O6Q

[Lady Vulpix]

- 7 days to go

[abunaidesu]

^o^

[shazza]

herapoah burvdeigh

[abunaidesu]

Your item has been successfully listed on eBay. It may take some time for the item to appear on eBay search results. Here are the listing details:

[shazza]

next to the dude

[abunaidesu]

>Subject: Fwd: This is hilarious!
>Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:47:34 -02-30
>
>Here ya go. =)
>
>
>
>>THIS IS SO HILARIOUS ABOUT THE GUYS COMMENTS AFTER ALL THE NUMBER 11
>>THINGY'S.
>>READ ON AND HAVE A GOOD LAUGH ABOUT IT!!!! HEE HEE!!:-)
>>
>>If you read the email going around about the number "11"
>>for the past few weeks, you will love David's response
>>to it.
>>
>>Make sure you read beyond the Original Letter!
>>
>>Original Letter:
>>The date of the attack: 9/11 - 9 + 1 + 1 = 11
>>September 11th is the 254th day of the year: 2 + 5 + 4 = 11
>>After September 11th there are 111 days left to the end of the year.
>>119 is the area code to Iraq/Iran. 1 + 1 + 9 = 11
>>Twin Towers - standing side by side, looks like the number 11
>>The first plane to hit the towers was Flight 11
>>I Have More.......
>>State of New York - The 11th State added to the Union
>>New York City - 11 Letters
>>Afghanistan - 11 Letters
>>The Pentagon - 11 Letters
>>Ramzi Yousef - 11 Letters (convicted or orchestrating the
>>attack at the WTC in 1993)
>>Flight 11 - 92 on board - 9 + 2 = 11
>>Flight 77 - 65 on board - 6 + 5 = 11
>>
>>DAVE'S RESPONSE;
>>
>>Oh my God! How worried should I be? There are 11 letters in the name
>>"David Pawson!" I'm going into hiding NOW. See you in a few weeks.
>>Wait a sec ... just realized "YOU CAN'T HIDE" also has 11
>>letters! What am I gonna do? Help me!!! The terrorists are
>>after me! ME! I can't believe it!
>>
>>Oh crap, there must be someplace on the planet Earth I could
>>hide! But no ..."PLANET EARTH" has 11 letters, too!
>>Maybe Nostradamus can help me. But dare I trust him? There
>>are 11 letters in "NOSTRADAMUS."
>>I know, the Red Cross can help. No they can't... 11 letters
>>in "THE RED CROSS," can't trust them.
>>
>>I would rely on self defense, but "SELF DEFENSE" has 11
>>letters in it, too! Can someone help?
>>
>>Anyone? If so, send me email. No, don't... "SEND ME EMAIL"
>>has 11 letters....
>>Will this never end? I'm going insane! "GOING INSANE???" Eleven letters!!
>>Nooooooooooo!!!!!! I guess I'll die alone, even though "I'LL
>>DIE ALONE" has 11 letters.....
>>Oh my God, I just realized that America is doomed! Our
>>Independence Day is July 4th ... 7/4 ... 7+4=11!
>>
>> ~ Dave
>>PS. "IT'S BULLSHIT" has 11 letters also.
>>
>
>
>*Mwa*, dahling.
>purr • april • nerd
>nerd@ or april@e-vangelist.tv
>http://e-vangelist.tv

[mr_pikachu]

Lots of numbers

Some "numerologists" have attempted to show, after the fact, that the Bible predicted prominent modern-day events (such as the death of Princess Diana of Wales). Basically, the numerologists used various text-wrapping tools, set a certain number of letters per column, and looked at what information was contained in the rows.

As a response, informal studies have been conducted using various other texts. Through the same techniques, similar (correct) predictions were also made... although most people think it's unlikely that Homer would have written a secret message detailing the fall of the World Trade Center.

Ctrl-V:
Cancer
Newton's laws say that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, proving he knew nothing about women.

[shazza]

Why does Graeme Davison consider that Australia was the ‘first suburban nation’? Read the diaries of RE Johns and William Farrell. Can you detect in these journals evidence of a suburban way of life and culture? Or do these diaries, and your secondary reading, suggest that Davison might have over-estimated the extent to which the suburban dream was realisable by urban dwellers in late nineteenth century Australia.

[Gavin Luper]

On lui a donné un cadeau.

[shazza]

Fandom

[abunaidesu]

fellatio

[shazza]

From my brief observ

[Jeff]

So we get a new spam forum and Angel Blossom leaves

[shazza]

derogatory

[Clark]

You've all really pushed me over the edge this time... ^^;; No wonder I feel like killing myself all the time.

I don't understand why I was banned for flaming WHEN EVERYBODY IN THIS THREAD IS FLAMING ME. You're all a bunch of fucking jerks. I would never have done or said any of the things I said if none of you attacked me simply because you thought I was an easy target.

Clark, you're so cute. Just over a month ago you were sending me PMs and showering me with your love and affection. In fact, you even gave me your phone number "begging" for me to call you. If you know what's good for, I would strongly recommend that you stop harassing me before I post it for people to phone spam you. Funny how the one guy who I thought I could trust with my life turned out to be the biggest fucking asshole in the world. I hope you fucking die.

I'm not coming back after this post, so for your viewing pleasure, I present to you... Clark's penis!

[insert fake average sized peen picture here]

[shazza]

Police Magistrate

[Blademaster]

You've all really pushed me over the edge this time... ^^;; No wonder I feel like killing myself all the time.

DO IT BITCH

[shazza]

>blow up my pool

[Heald]

We Share Our Mother's Health

[VirtualPlay]

(subway)

[shazza]

okay! you live near my aunty, and i go jogging near there when i'm home on summer holidas. ^_^