Soviets Running Australia Form “Workplace Gender Equality Agency”

The Australian reports-

FIRMS with more than 100 workers will face spot checks and mandatory reporting on the numbers of women they employ and their position under tough new measures aimed at boosting gender equality in the workplace. Minister for the Status of Women, Kate Ellis, said the government would strengthen equal opportunity laws to ensure they achieved “tangible” results in workplace equality.

An extra $11.2 million will be given to the newly-named Workplace Gender Equality Agency to collect more information on working conditions for women and provide assistance for firms lagging behind in their employment of women. Government contracts would only be directed towards those organisations that complied with the new rules, Ms Ellis said.

I often assert the NZ and Australia are communist countries, and people ridicule me for such claims, but here we have an example of how the average citizens in those countries commonly hold the concept of private property in utter contempt. Here we not only observe the spectacle of a jack booted soviet style apparatchik brazenly intruding upon the rights of shareholders to have their companies managed on merit, we also see these same arrogant collectivist scum forcing Australian taxpayers to pay more for contracted services by shortlisting companies who succumb to this dictatorial approach on government tender lists.

A disgusting abuse of government, and as a measure of how the left have destroyed our society, there will probably be at least 40% who agree with this abomination.


6 thoughts on “Soviets Running Australia Form “Workplace Gender Equality Agency”

  1. The only label that matters to me in stories like this is misanthropes. And the only aim they seek is our willing self-destruction (and destroying the hard-built meritocracy by inserting bodies based on meretricious criteria) while we victims battle with each other over the meanings of the other labels the misanthropes use to cover their goals.

    Get past it RB, and they’ll do more than ridicule you.


  2. Yeah, absolutely pathetic Red.
    I wonder if they’ll also be looking at professions where women vastly out number men (eg teaching, childcare centres and nursing) and apply the same standards?

    [That’s a rhetorical question by the way. We all know reverse sexism doesn’t exist]


  3. Ok…

    1. Businesses are there to make a profit for their owners, who have invested money into the project with a reasonable expcctation of gain. Employing people is a cost.
    2. Most businesses, therefore, want to employ as few people as possible consistent with doing the job or service that their firm delivers.
    3. There is gender inequity in plenty of jobs for various reasons: most women find lifting 30 kilos all day too demanding, many men find dealing with repetitive, basic queries very irritating… as an example, many male nurses work in psychiatry, where their size and leadership is valued, rather than the neonatal nursery where most nrwborn mothers want to talk to other mothers.
    4. If a business has to employ extra people to meet external grounds, someone, somewhere else will have a competitive advantage.

    So… if I was cynical, I would tell Julia Gillard “You go GRRL” as NZL does not have this level of stupidity (but we have a free trade agreement) and will be able to undercut the Aussies.

    However, I think it is better to tell Gillard that she is a misandrist. Since she is remarkably ignorant, I may have to use basic Anglo Saxon and state instead that she hates men and masculinity. It’s not what she says, it’s what her policies do.


  4. TD, this will only be a problem for the business owner; if they choose to hire someone less qualified or less suitable then they will get less benefit. Ergo, their competitor, who has more appropriate and less discriminatory hiring practices, receives greater benefit, which equals greater return to the owner or shareholders. That applies whether the business hires a male or a female.

    There is absolutely no need for the heavy hand of the state to become involved here.


Comments are closed.