Crosbie Walsh says that to maintain the US trade concessions and prevent  future threats from overseas unions, not to mention criticism from many Fiji citizens and the international community, Bainimarama should accept the advice of the FTUC president Daniel Urai:

Remove the decrees that limit the rights of the workers and enable the decrees to be challenged in court. 

However, Walsh says that the unions have to ask themselves  two important questions of honour.  (1) Have they really explored all other means to resolve the problem? And, more importantly, (2) is what they are fighting for worth up to 15,000 other people losing their jobs?

But where does one draw the line when taking a stand against tyranny?  Should the unions stand their ground for the long term future of Fiji and ensure the workers and people of Fiji are consulted instead of being dictated to, or should the unions just cave-in because 15,000 jobs may be lost and allow bainimarama to proceed with Khaiyum's draconian decrees that limits the right of the workers and none of it can be challenged in court.  This means Khaiyum can do whatever he wants to workers to enrich his family and friends and no worker can do anything about it...... but what do you think??  

The Council for a Democratic Fiji released a statement saying that the lying dictator bainimarama appeared on TV last night in another attempt to "con" the  US Government by announcing that there would be an immediate review of  his junta's draconian labour decrees that contravene 34 International Labour Organisation conventions that Fiji has ratified. 
 
All this drama and spin, just 24 hours before the hearing commences in the United States against Fiji for breach of  labour rights and standards arising out of the rogue decrees of  Khaiyum - Bainimarama's insalubrious Attorney General.  The decrees threaten Fiji with the most serious employment crisis ever, that involves 39 companies losing 15,000 – 36,000 jobs. 

But what's the use of talking about a review especially when we all know that bainimarma is a born and bred liar.  What is key is that there are appropriate changes implemented to meet the (34) international standards.  Remember these are just Bainimarama's words and, like before it only implies carrying out a review of the decrees but it does not include making any changes to them.  

Bainimarama has a record of broken promises and more of his "bullshit" that include:
vowing to preserve the 1997 constitution and then trashing the Constitution
breaking a personal commitment to the Pacific Forum leaders to hold Elections in March 2009 
promising to be accountable and yet refuses to release the Auditor General’s report
publicly stating that as interim Prime Minister he will only collect his Commander’s salary, but secretly receives multiple salaries
reduce corruption but is privately paid through Nur Bano’s Accounting firm in Suva and refuses to disclose the details to the taxpayers of Fiji
vowing to increase transparency but he is no way transparent.

So should the US government trust this latest "drama queen" performance by bainimarma. Hell No!

Bainimarama is a dictator and together with Khaiyum they have been doing everything they can to avoid  scrutiny of on-going abuse of labor rights, human rights and the other fundamental rights of Fiji Citizens. Bainimarama is also a fugitive from the law!

Therefore, all decrees identified by the ILO and the ICFTU must immediately be rescinded.

From FijiToday blog.   Why Bainimarama can’t bear the 1997 Constitution, by navosavakadua

Bainimarama who has set himself up as the ultimate law giver has told us we cannot have the 1997 Constitution.

If he going to give himself the role of the ultimate judge of our constitution he needs to tell us exactly why the constitution is flawed and when he discovered this.

We can thank Yash Ghai for an account of Bainimarama’s past view of the 1997 Constitution. In a paper written jointly with Jill Cotrell for the United States Institute for Peace, entitled Between Coups Constitution Making in Fiji, Yash Ghai says that he met with the Commander and senior officers in October 2000. They discussed the 1997 constitution, which Bainimarama and his officers told Prof Ghai, they had just started to read. To their surprise “they found it an excellent constitution and a better one could not be imagined. But they had not known this when they more or less supported the coup!”

So let’s get this straight. In early 2000 Bainimarama thought the 1997 Constitution was was so bad he abgrogated it in a process which he and his officers described as “more or less supporting the Speight coup”. That’s right, he admitted that he had more or less supported the Speight coup. By October of that year, however, after reading the 1997 constitution, Bainimarama thought it was very good, so good that he and his officer corps said they could not imagine anything better.

Even after his coup in 2006 he was still swearing his loyalty to the constitution. The Charter of 2008 which Bainimarama gave us declared the 1997 Constitution was the basis of all things good. Then sometime after that he came to see it was “no good for Fiji”.

Bainimarama says it is ‘discriminatory’ and ‘no good for Fiji’ but he hasn’t told us is exactly what discriminatory bits he doesn’t like and when he discovered them.

Does he think we don’t understand what’s going on here? The problem with the 1997 constitution is that, if it is regarded as valid, he is guilty of treason. If we return to the 1997 constitution it means all of the Decrees passed since the Court of Appeal decision in 2009 are not only illegal, they are treasonous. His dishonesty about this does no-one any good.

We need genuine reconciliation, with honesty, openness and a readiness to start anew. The two obstacles standing in the way are Bainimarama and Khaiyum. Given a choice between these two and the 1997 Constitution, who apart from the two criminals themselves would not choose the 1997 Constitution?