Graeme really does live in a fantasy world He's has constructed it to justify in his own mind that screwing people over is okay. He may believe in this fantasy world he has created so much that he doesn't realise what he has done, after all it is a simular world view that many would be lords and masters, I mean business people have. Unions have won and maintain the basic working conditions that Australians enjoy, Unions are responsible for the current level of wealth distribution in this country. It wasn't the employers that got the kids out of mines. It wasn't them that create the basic wage, it wasn't them that created the 40 hour week. It will be them that force down wages when the economy turn down it will be them pushing for a $4 hr basic wage, and who will be there to try to stop them. Not the likes of Graeme, not the Government but the Unions.

Graham there is no mass confusion out there concerning No Choices. Did u not see the polls Graham?
U and your ilk have been rumbled.
Should we have an investigation into Liberal funding?
I long for a time when capitalist dogs like yourself found your heads missing.
$55 mill has been spent trying to sell this pup.
The diversions have been coming thick and fast-Uranium-Federal control of all economy-flog some more refugees etc etc.
Graham the workers no thier rights at work are worth fighting for.
I would love for all you bosses to keep urging your puppett pollies to keep trying to promote No Choices. You are rumbled labour hire (modern day slave trader) man

Graham Haycroft's essay is basically about assigning (self-interested) motives to the ALP and the union movement in wanting changes to IR laws. He makes no mention of the (self-interested) motives of the Coalition parties in introducing them. No mention of (self-interested) motives of business interests in supporting them. No mention of his own (self-interested) motives in writing the piece.

From that position he proposes "some research [to] quantify Beazley's arguments, in terms of exactly what dollars are coming from what unions, and related to what businesses or industries?"

I'll take his proposal seriously when he suggests some research and quantification into what dallars are coming to the Coalition parties from what businesses and related to what industries. Of course, I'm mindful of the fact that the Coalition has just legislated to make that research more difficult.

Mr Haycroft plunges to the depths of cynicism when he berates the Employment Advocate for revealing to the Senate that a random sample of AWAs showed a majority of them removed most workers' entitlements. "The government should not be encouraging him to publicly report on things he clearly doesn't understand," says Haycroft. Which is code for: "The government should stop the Employment Advocate making politically-awkward public statements."

Spot on Frankgol.
There was no self intrest in the Libs doing thier masters beckoning, by ripping up 100 years of workers rights. It was all done for ulturistic reasons.

Graham the composition of workers' wages DOES matter.

On paper, an extra $1000 looks great - until you realise that it means you lose three weeks of your annual leave. And let's be honest, they're not the kind of "good news" stories we're hearing about the implementation of this system.

The award system, for all of its faults, at least went some way to advising workers and employers of best practice for issues that aren't wage related.

AWAs mean that you are almost completely dependent on your boss to do the right thing: as so many workers have pointed out, they don't have a degree in industrial relations nor a certificate in workplace negotiation, nor even the experience or confidence to do so.

You misrepresent the Senate proceedings to suggest that Peter McIlwain offered a random sample of AWAs to that Committee: it wasn't a "random" sample it was the first 250 lodged with the Employment Advocate. Not "random", but "every"...a big difference there.

For people with families, for people with caring responsibilities for elderly parents, frankly for those who want to have a kick of the footy with their mates occasionally, signing away those other conditions IS a big deal.

It's not all about the wage - it's about conditions too and you can't divorce them from one another.

The removal of the "no disadvantage test" is the reason for a lot of the current anger at the current IR laws.

No matter how you argue the point it means that wages can be reduced at the whim of employers. No arguement fact.

I note Grahams union (The Small Business Union) states "Our role is to develop the strategy, train the management, supervise the implementation of the changes necessary to reduce unit labour costs and then register the documents with the appropriate Government authorities. This process will put real dollars on the Bottom Line."

His whole reason for being is to make money for business at the expense of workers (real people with families not units).

Mr AWA and his Labour Hire Australia are the big winners. He is now looking after his own interests as the largest producer of AWAs on the eastern seaboard. In other words all the shoddy AWAs (that are not mining related) are coming from this guy, it is his business. Producing nothing but slave labour.

Find youself another nipple to feed on