WorkChoices: your employer 0wnz you!

Today’s Sydney Morning Herald there is an article which makes the following claim:

(excerpted)

The Government believes Labor's plan to allow workers to opt out of a
contract if they are unhappy with its conditions would be unconstitutional.
The *Herald* understands the Government has legal advice that allowing
a worker to withdraw from a legally binding workplace contract would breach
constitutional protections on the acquisition of property rights.
If Labor was elected and changed the law to allow workers to opt out of
existing AWAs, the law would be open to a High Court challenge. "If there's
a contract in place, the Government can't make a law that unpicks a
contract without it being challenged," a source said.

To my mind, the implication – that the Howard Government has legalised slavery (workers as property of an employer!) – is outrageous.

Who would willingly vote for such a concept? Not I!

I’m more than happy to have a flexible work relationship, but fairness to both employee and employer as well as goodwill between all affected parties is vital. I do not see WorkChoices (sorry, because the ACTU’s campaign against it has been so effective the Government isn’t calling it that any more) as being fair in any way, shape or form. I’m not automatically on the side of a union, incidentally. There have been letters to the Sydney Morning Herald from employers who have talked about how they approach employment contracts – with fairness and consideration on both sides. That is what we should be aiming for, not the brutalising regime that WorkChoices is forcing on us.