The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The ACTU (still) knows better > Comments

The ACTU (still) knows better : Comments

By Joel Butler, published 15/1/2007

The ACTU and the ALP seem to be advocating an archaic paternalism in their approach to industrial relations.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
No comments as yet. No bloody wonder. This article would have to go
down as the most naive commentary to date concerning Workchoices.Mum works extra, dad just pops home blah blah blah. Get out in the real world Mr Butler. Mum works extra, dad might just be told to work extra as well. Of course choice and flexibilty are there as well. Mum,Dad or both might refuse to work overtime and the employer might choose to sack them with impunity.
Posted by hedgehog, Monday, 15 January 2007 10:20:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the point regarding the ACTU's (and unions generally) paternalistic approach as to what is best for its members is well made. However the statement is also true of the current Federal Government. The WorkChoices legislation is excessively prescriptive and significantly restricts the options of both employers and employees compared to the previous system. There is a need for policy makers to recognise the need to establish fair and workable legislation which provides basic levels of protections to maintain decent employment conditions while allowing the parties to sort out what is best for them. While there will always be winners and losers in any system, increasing the amount of regulation benefits nobody.
Posted by Mossy, Monday, 15 January 2007 10:54:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Hedgehog. In this example WorkChoices is really NoChoices for most workers. If they refuse an employers "request" to work "reasonable" overtime because it is not reasonable for them ie they have other commitments/obligations then the employer has the whiphand - dimissal with no comeback. And the idea that an employee will be happy to just work the extra hours to pick up money to supplement the family holiday is just nonsense for most working families.
Posted by rossco, Monday, 15 January 2007 11:56:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joel Butler writes from the premise that the current laws enacted by the Howard Government are good laws. That is it's major flaw.
He does not acknowledge that the Melbourne Club and Howards think tanks who relentlessly strive on behalf of Corporations to wring the most benefit from their work forces for the least reward constitute a working class conspiracy.

Why would a worker choose to cash up his/her annual leave which they have acrued for the purpose of family recreation if indeed their remuneration was not grossly inadequate for their families wellbeing.

Why would a family man choose to work extended hours and deprive himself and family from quality existence.

The author may consider the proposals archaic, but workers have fought for quality and safety in their work places and their collective representatives in Unions ,the ACTU and the political party which emerged from Union struggle and the desire to participate in Governance will continue to resist Corporate embezzlement of their quality of life.

A decent standard of living is not solely for the grossly overpaid Corporate CEO's and charge-what-the-traffic-will-bear lawyers.
Posted by maracas, Monday, 15 January 2007 12:36:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joel is currently a law student at Bond Uni. I wonder what experience he has working in the real world for wages, raising a family, paying a mortgage and trying to save for the future.
Posted by rossco, Monday, 15 January 2007 12:49:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marracus has hit the nail on the head.Holidays are there to provide a break. When we begin to cash them out the far right 'framers' begin to create a workforce where holidays are an abberation rather than the norm. That of course is the clear objective. Mr Butler is iether a HR Nichol's accolyte, or not the brightest student in his class.
Posted by hedgehog, Monday, 15 January 2007 12:52:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What that has supprised me is that the ACTU and Labor have now backflipped on The IR laws and this was in an article dated 10th of january, but one must also taking into account for the actu to have replied on that.

So ACTU and playing the happy parent well playing the happy dictator as with all those extra union members as labor and the ACTU Have said time and time again to get rid of howards IR laws.

So there parental actions are to scr#w the people rather than help.
Posted by tapp, Monday, 15 January 2007 2:04:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am always struck on the rhetoric that surrounds the debates o nthese issues. there never seems to be any middle ground. According to the comments so far (and thank you all for taking the time to comment) 'bosses' are portrayed as grossly overpaid CEO's and charge-what-the-traffic-will-bear lawyers' they take any opportunity to sack employees (and seem to take glee in doing so). The Howard government's legislation is (of course) anti-worker pro-greedy-boss and is part of a conspiracy to oppress everyone.

No doubt there are greddy bosses and no doubt there are some out there who would take a malicious glee in sacking some workers. Most of them, however, are just workers themselves - working hours just as long (if not longer) than those working for them, and with kids and families of their own. Most, too, despite what some would have us believe are compassionate human beings who do their best to balance the (legitimate) needs of a business with the needs of their workers.

And perhaps the Howard government's laws will result in a rough period for a few, but it will also present a lot with an opportunity - to earn a little more, to advance a little further, to have a little more flexibility (perhaps, shock and horror, to spend with their kids!)

Finally, Rossco, and perhaps this is an example of where having a balanced view is better rather than making assumptions, I am a teacher here at Bond, have been working (full-time) since my teens, and am also working to pay off that mortgage (and I could also do with a pay rise!)
Posted by jbutler, Monday, 15 January 2007 3:11:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fairdinkum, one day Andrew Ferguson and Co; they march with Hezbollah in protest against Israel; and flying the flag of the enemy; Then the very next week stand out side a Returned servicemen’s Retirement village protesting against is closure.

Sound awfully like a whole lot of people just got sucked in by Proletariat propaganda.

I bet you they are not doing it tough; and maybe some one should actually find out exactly what companies/ Businesses the Unions own; then check the safety record. I think that you just might find some very nasty supprises. And No Closure for dead workers families.
OOOOw,State Labor hay. On your side hay?
Posted by All-, Monday, 15 January 2007 4:27:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The employee should have the right to refuse any and all overtime. Otherwise, the employee is a conscript. There should be no test of reasonableness. It is a pity that the middle class has been convinced to through its lot in with the wealthy instead of with the working class. That is one reason for the decline of unions and the increase in the power of the employer, which is what the IR law is all about.

The ACTU is being weak in seeking only 10 items. There used to be 18, I believe. I suppose things will have to get much worse before the working people of Australia decide they need to do something about it.
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 15 January 2007 6:50:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree ChrisC

this is due to labors backflip on IR laws and the unions as well.

It was hoped that you would contact me as well about education, but obvious that you are entreched with someone else.

Labor and the unions have not told the people about their backflip and this seems to be so they aquire as many union members now under the banner of a lie.

So there we have it labor and the unions looking after themselves and not the people.
I can back my words and also sent in this article to OLO, just waiting for it to be posted hopefully.

email: swulrich@bigpond.net.au
Posted by tapp, Monday, 15 January 2007 7:36:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I always wonder when I see articles like this if the writer is deliberately disingenuous or just unworldly and naieve. This fantasy that employers and employees can get together, hold hands, sing songs (Kum-by-ah perhaps) and come to mutually acceptable agreements is infuriating. For sure and for certain there are plenty of businesses that know full well the value of their workforce and will treat them right. But disappointingly there are far too many that don't. Even within organisations where senior management is fair minded there are plenty of nasty middle managers who can now (courtesy of Howard) finally get stuck in to their workforce with impunity. Even if these people are eventually sorted out they can still do plenty of damage until they're brought to heel.

It is this freedom to mistreat the workforce that is having the most impact out there in the community. Never mind the cheerleaders in the media. People who are seeing their wages and conditions slowly being whittled away are telling their stories to friends and families and the polls are reflecting this.
Posted by STAUNCH, Monday, 15 January 2007 7:42:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There has been an increase in the proportion of the workforce employed casually, teachers, child care, factory, shop and nurses. The current minimum standards of AWA'a don't address the needs of these workers like minimum call out time, extra payments for certification. The ATO doesn't allow these workers to claim travel allowances.

Permanent employees in large companies find they have to work longer hours for the same pay and many professional jobs that were done in Australia have been outsourced overseas.

It appears that some people on work for the dole schemes may have worked on Christmas Day for no pay - just to keep their $180 per week welfare payment.

The ALP (wrongly in my opinion) wants to allow self employed contractors to negotiate their own conditions. There are a few self employed professionals who have enough clout to negotiate their own conditions but many so-called contractors are employed by Coles as cleaners, Virgin Airlines as cabin crew and they are in a take it or leave situation being paid very low rates.

So the low paid and powerless need to have their voices heard and be represented at the bargaining table - the ACTU is the only entity that appears to be doing that.

Is this a good time to mention the General Discussion on Record Low Unemployment at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=363
Posted by billie, Tuesday, 16 January 2007 8:39:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't help wondering what the world would be like if we had very clear cut rules. Like more then three hours overtime is too much. Without vague, open to opinion, guidelines lawyers would not be able to stretch cases out, would have little grounds for argument. Lawyers love ambiguity to them that means cash. So it’s no surprise that they don’t like it. As to the matter of work place I seem to recall it was unions that fought for a good conditions for the workers, I don't seem to recall reading about how all the coal mine owners got together and said lets get the kids out and move to a 8 hour day. I work for a US company we charge our Australian customers market average for work around $150 an hour. However we also offer our clients the option to use third world resources in India and China. Then we only charge $50 an hour. This government has made it possible for us to bring over third world engineer for three months at $7 an hour,. I’m sure they have Australia’s best interest at heart.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 16 January 2007 8:53:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tapp,

I gave you my ideas on education on a previous thread, which you acknowledged. You say that I am “entrenched”. That's not how I would put it, but I work in my own way, so I won't be joining your political party.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 16 January 2007 12:22:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems that many posters are confusing the ALP'S recently announced position on the Independant Contracter Bill,with a softening of its stance against the Workchoices Legislation. They are seperate matters. However i accept the press reported it all in a misleading way. It suits them to muddy the waters. As for Mr Butlers latest contribution, i advise him that getting exploited is an emotive matter.You should expect strong responses against your support for these unfair laws. As one poster mentioned you are iether naive or oughtright mischevious in your article. If (as you claim) you are a teacher at Bond University i certainly would not be valueing any degree that came from that institution.
Posted by hedgehog, Tuesday, 16 January 2007 1:09:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris C
When i said entrenched it was a saying that you are engrossed, firmly planted
Also i didnt ask you to join i asked you to email me as i wanted to know more.

If anyone wants to join this party that is not my choice, all i have done is give you an option for change, nothing else.
Posted by tapp, Tuesday, 16 January 2007 2:18:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 1
During the first actions to "simplify" awards, allowed clauses were reduced to twenty (20) and relentlessly the Government has reduced those allowable to a mere five.
The reaction to this attack on "Workers" conditions depends upon whose shoes you're standing in.

Due to retirements and redundancies, there are not very many currently in the workforce who can recall the struggles that were waged to secure the conditions which were deleted.
Reduced annual leave; non-compulsory Unionism; re-classification; multi skilling;12 hour shifts; Loss of penalty rates; Denial of the right to stop work ;Reduction in allowed Union meetings; Imposition of fines on workers under the Trade Practices Act are just some of the issues which have benefited Employers at the expense of Workers Rights.

The Howard Government’s conspiracy with Patrick Stevedoring to encourage the training of scab labour in Dubai in order to smash the MUA remains testament to anti-union policies of his Government which purports to work for the benefit of Australian Workers.

Union Membership has declined as some workers elected to accept benefits secured by Union action without contributing to the costs and the importation of foreign labour which is quite prepared to work for reduced pay has not helped.
The resultant Union strategy to amalgamate has not proved in practice to increase Union effectiveness. In many cases, services have declined and become less personal.
Posted by maracas, Tuesday, 16 January 2007 2:25:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 11

Unions are only as strong as their weakest link and Unionism only functions effectively when members make the decisions assisted by capable and dedicated leadership .

The ACTU’s effectiveness is determined by the resolve of it’s affiliated Unions and where there is reluctance to take industrial action for fear of the imposition of monetary fines, that effectiveness is diminished.
Workers Representatives are fighting with their hands tied so it is incumbent on the ACTU and UNIONS to demand of the ALP to revoke the Howard Government restrictions on workers ability to negotiate working conditions on even terms.

This is not to say that the UNIONS, the ACTU or the ALP are not in need of modification; indeed if the situation prevailing for wage earners in this country are to advance, the three entities have an obligation to settle into a summit and make appropriate changes to become Servants of their constituents and not Masters
Posted by maracas, Tuesday, 16 January 2007 2:26:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Maracas.
Posted by hedgehog, Tuesday, 16 January 2007 2:56:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its good to see that labor and the unions are going to take away a persons rights to IR

This is by prohibiting individual contracts and bringing in colective bargening.

so once again the mini howard ensures that workers are still put in their place
Posted by tapp, Wednesday, 17 January 2007 9:48:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tapp not sure wy you believe that Labor and unions are going to take a persons right to negotiate a contract away.

As Beazley said before Chistmas, and no body has contradicted him, that if you want to sign an individual contract it will be protected by common law, same as those contracts have been since forever in Australia.

However the current IR regime makes employees sign AWAs or contracts that are really stripped down awards. When I have signed AWAs I have not been able to negotiate pay rate or hours. When I apply for contracts I have to state my pay rate and then the employer selects those candidates who tender the lowest rates or whatever.

How can the lowest paid contractors eg Virgin airlines cabin crew, [and probably Jetstar] and Coles cleaners earning $500 per week for 12 hour night shifts 7 days per week afford to challenge their pay and conditions through the court system. Remember that if employees compare pay scales they can be fined $33,000 and when they involve a union thats a $100,000+ fine.

The current laws are grossly unfair and tilted in favour of unscrupulous employers.

The money that one company in the public spotlight in March has saved in wages has been spent on refurbishing the Jewish ambulance headquarters and proudly gaining sponsorship rights over the building.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 17 January 2007 11:33:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tapp not sure wy you believe that Labor and unions are going to take a persons right to negotiate a contract away.

As Beazley said before Chistmas, and no body has contradicted him, that if you want to sign an individual contract it will be protected by common law, same as those contracts have been since forever in Australia.

Well they have been saying it is out there.
Maybe similar to the NSW IR laws but with changes

I am not going to search for it but found some really good stuff, that i fumbled over so to find the reference will not be easy.
If you want it you may find it but for those who say it is bull then you should really think again.

You dont have to believe me i did download that document though.

Its just like you cant get your heads around what i am doing and why it would be so democratic but to find that out you would have to email me then wouldnt you.

So you all can take my comment as you wish,deny it agree that it could be possible but dont discount it.

But that is your choice.
Posted by tapp, Wednesday, 17 January 2007 3:04:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Much of the time the ACTU does know better. 'Flexibility' can work both ways only when the legislation and the power is more equal which it is not under this Liberal Government. No surprises.

Casing out of annual leave is wrong because morally one should use the accrued time for recreation with family, helping the poor,sport ,and religious devotions such as Mass and Novenas and Eucharistic Adoration. Life is short and eternity is long; very long.

The ACTU and the ALP should realise that to give the balance of power back towards workers, they need to re regulate the fiannce sector, banking and protect manufacturing industries and grow these industries. The ongoing capitulation of our culture, and sovereignity to immoral U.N. treaties that conflict with traditional Catholic social teaching will lead us to loss of identity morally and economically.
We need an NCC/DLP appraoch in morals, economics, unions and everything.
Rudd and Howard's leaving everything to evil liberal party policies and their tipping of the hat to liberal/conservative(read money/establishment) rather than to real religion , that is to say reform of the reform traditional Catholic Faith, will continue to lead to the destruction of the middle class and to the further impoverishment of the working class.
Posted by Michael Southern Cross, Wednesday, 17 January 2007 10:06:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“There is simply no reason at all to impose a prescriptive formula of “thou shalt nots” where a flexible approach will deliver what is best for an individual worker according to their own circumstances.”

Employers employ Employee’s to produce. As every employer knows, you get better performance from an employee who has a sense of participation than one who feels he or she is merely a cog in an uncaring machine.

These days of jobs-a-plenty, regardless of age, anyone can find something which pays, provided they are "flexible".

The role of unions is redundant. A contract of employment has always been between an employee and employer. It does not need two arbiters to participate in its structuring.

Two arbiters?

Arbiter 1 is government. Defining and passing statutes which go back over 200 years and regulate employment conditions and can be said to be, since it relies on public support to get elected, independent and above any sectorial interest.

Arbiter 2 a union. These agents seek to oversee and intervene in the engineering of employment contracts for whose benefit? The employees; or their own?

Why have these minimums?

We are not slaves. If the deal does not suite us then resign. If the employer is not being “fair”, do not give him the benefit of your effort, resign.

Australia lives in a global economy. Setting inappropriate and inflexible work regulations benefits only our competitors. Whilst Australia has a workforce specific technological and attitudinal attributes, hindering those attributes with a bunch of paternalistic dictates from trades hall, which merely force to average cost per hour up, without direct benefit to the individual worker, works against the interest of employees.

ChrisC “The employee should have the right to refuse any and all overtime.”

If you don’t like your deal, resign. That works for me, always has done.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 18 January 2007 9:42:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Resign, live on thin air. Your a joke Col, and every contribution you make on this topic is absolute fantasy land stuff.History shows us that presciptive minimums need to be in place.In its absence exploitation and a race to the bottom occurs. Those who dont learn from history are destined to repeat it. I for one have no sympathy for any worker who swallows this Federal Govt's. guff about choice, so enthusiasticly peddalled by Col.Employers choice, thats all there is. Only the dishonest or very foolish continue to argue that its about our economy or enhancing workers lifes.
Posted by hedgehog, Thursday, 18 January 2007 9:59:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Response to Michael Southern Cross:

The NCC/DLP successfully imposed a Liberal Party Government on this Country through the Menzies era until it's collapse. The DLP divided workers not united them.Their 'morals' were merely an extension of Catholic Dogma through it's architect, B.A.Santamaria, a passionate anti-communist... Family First is a renewed attempt to turn Australia away from secular Government and separation of religion & State. The last thing we need is a return to the bad old days when the Red Bogey was used to frighten people. Now we have Terrorism, anti-Islam rhetoric and fear of Asylum Seeker Refugees in place of that strategy.
The Union Movement embraces Workers of ALL Religious beliefs and for it to successfully act on behalf of ALL WOrkers it does not need to be restricted by sectarian dogma.
The DLP has made a return to the political arena in Australia in a recent state election and no doubt it will continue to peddle its old cold war rhetoric in the new, anti-terrotism climate created by the Howard Government. Historically, it's presence merely served to perpetuate the Liberal National Party coalition agenda, Not the advancement of Australian Workers COnditions.
Posted by maracas, Thursday, 18 January 2007 10:04:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Love your work Maracas, so cogent, so succinct.
Posted by hedgehog, Thursday, 18 January 2007 10:09:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For Col Rouge:

With the neo conservative spin you employ you could expect an offer from G.W.Bush to replace David Frum as his speech writer.
Posted by maracas, Thursday, 18 January 2007 11:34:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maracas,

There is not now and never has been such a creature as the NCC/DLP. There was and still is an NCC. There was a separate organization, the DLP, which contained both pro- and anti-NCC members and which voted to disband in 1978. There is a new DLP, which was formed by those members of the original DLP who could not accept the decision to disband and which I gather shares the philosophy of the original DLP. This new DLP has one MLC in Victoria.

The DLP was the Democratic Labor Party and it took the Labor part of its name seriously. It was founded by members of the ALP expelled in 1955 when Doctor Evatt launched an attack on the anti-communist members of the Victorian branch. This was at time when hundreds of millions of people throughout the world were enslaved by communist tyranny. It did not “impose' a Liberal government on Australia. It recommended that its voters give their second preferences to the Liberals as a strategy of forcing the ALP to reform, which it eventually did.

The DLP stood for the family, unionism, welfare, the environment, support for asylum seekers and a whole host of causes that today would be regarded as left-wing.

The new DLP did a preference deal with the ALP under which DLP preferences went to the number 4 ALP candidate in Western Metropolitan, the number 3 ALP candidate in Northern Metropolitan and to the ALP in South-East Metropolitan while ALP preferences helped elect the one DLP MLC. This was a deliberate conscious and partly successful strategy by the ALP, which is not stuck in 1955, to prevent its being dependent on the Greens in the Legislative Council. In the only vote held so far, the DLP voted with the ALP. I expect that both Labor parties will vote together 70 per cent of the time.

DLP senators would have voted against both the current IR laws and the first set brought in with Democrat support 10 years ago. They would have been fiercely opposed to the anti-family agenda of the Howard government.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 18 January 2007 11:51:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm in the Col Rouge camp here. As a manager, my attitude was that staff were people first, employees second, and that to get the best from them I both had to help them enjoy their employment and feel it was worthwhile, and to feel that they were enhancing their future employment opportunities by working with me (increasing skills etc). I knew that they had alternatives, and while seeking to make working with me attractive, I also encouraged young staff to take other opportunities when it would help their career.

As an employee in the Queensland Public Service, with an ALP government, I found management appalling, eventually decided that with management's attitude my work-related (and other) health problems would deteriorate further unless I resigned, and haven't been able to work since. So I place no faith in the ALP on these issues.

In most places and most industries, demand favours employees, as Col says there are generally alternatives and ACTU-style prescription is harmful to individuals and the overall economy.

In a very different era, my grandfather was a founder of a trade union, most current unions are unhelpful.
Posted by Faustino, Thursday, 18 January 2007 4:23:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course a worker can leave a job they don't like and get another job in times of low unemployment or if there is great demand for their skill set.

Yes there are heaps of unskilled part time jobs available in Manly but can you afford to commute into these low paid jobs or get cheap accommodation near Manly?

The reality is that the unemployment rate is a lot higher than the published statistics suggest. The Treasurer is morally bankrupt to say that Australia has a lower unemployment rate than Germany when Australians are defined as being "employed" if they work for 30 minutes in a week, even as a volunteer. In Germany people who work less than 15 hours a week are considered "unemployed".

There are many Australians who find that their skill sets are not in high demand because the work they trained to do has been sent off-shore or because they are the wrong age, over 40 or recent graduates who find the workforce is choked with baby boomers waiting for their superannuation to kick in. I am not saying that those waiting for retirement are lazy or not competent.

More and more Australians are being forced to work for themselves as subcontractors or in their own businesses where the revenues are less than their previous wages.

Now I have no problem with small businesses being unable to offer permanant employment but when government departments outsource their work to private contractors the employees affected face uncertain employment and the government customers have to deal with untrained, incompetent and unsafe service.

The setting up of all these microbusinesses will lead to loss of productivity and loss of quality of life for most Australians.
Posted by billie, Thursday, 18 January 2007 6:06:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hedgehog “Resign, live on thin air. Your a joke Col, and every contribution you make on this topic is absolute fantasy land stuff.”

Live on thin air?
No, because I have4 separate income streams.

Unions do not secure employment, economic factors do.

“Flexibility” is
one of the most significant economic factors.
the antithesis to the “collective bargaining”, which unions demand.

“Collective bargaining”
which insist everyone is paid the same regardless.
which takes the circumstances of one industry and demand parity in a totally different industry which might well be in an entirely different part of an economic cycle.

Fantasy land?

My contribution is based on what I do, not on how I think others should behave.

Fact Land, I resigned from a $200k pa. contract recently because I disagreed with a change in policy.

“Employers choice, thats all there is. Only the dishonest or very foolish continue to argue that its about our economy or enhancing workers lifes.”

Employers are not forced to employ anyone. Rates of Pay are negotiated. Off pay-packet terms, holiday pay, LSL, sick leave, superannuation, maternity leave, bereavement leave, penalty rates, overtime rates etc merely widen the gap between what it “costs” an employer and what the employee receives in a pay-packet.

What it “costs an employer” is what will determine the viability of any business undertaking.

Anyone who thinks that it has ever been any other way is living with the pixies.

Anyone who has worked for a company which has gone belly-up and lost all their “entitlements” would agree that they would have been better off with the cash than the LSL or any other lost / unpaid benefit.

I’m a Joke? I don’t rely on the opinion of the likes of you, pixie!

Maracas, GWB could possibly not afford me. That might be another income stream though, I do write for some select magazines, for free, it helps promote some of my businesses.

Thanks Faustino.

Billie, the unskilled have only themselves to blame, we all left school “unskilled” except, some of us put in and got “skills”.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 18 January 2007 7:58:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The entire notion of a worker being free to choose to cash out leave is built on a fundamental fiction.

It presupposes that employer and employee are on equal bargaining terms.

The ACTU's intent is not to prevent anyone from cashing out leave (though this may be the effect). It is to prevent those in the middle and lower reaches of the labour market from being FORCED to cash out their leave unwillingly.

Around 20% of the working population (2 million workers) are unskilled or low skilled. Their labour is never really in short supply and they are easily replaced. Can you imagine a cleaner or janitor being presented with an AWA requiring that 2 weeks annual leave be cashed out saying "No way! Give me my four weeks leave or just try to find yourself another janitor."

These changes will slowly spread through the labour market, their effect being sharpest at the bottom end. Note the situation in the U.S. where a janitor can earn as much as Aust $8 an hour. The level of true poverty.

No one is truly free to choose to cash out leave unless they are also free to choose NOT to cash out their leave. If your kind of labour is in ready supply, it would be laughable to suggest that you can negotiate one-on-one with an employer, you will eventually be forced to accept what is offerd.

Those in the high income brackets are not in need of such protection, and as such I don't see a problem with them being exempt.

For a wealth of veiws on these kind of issues, check ou the your rights at work community forum.
Posted by Fozz, Thursday, 18 January 2007 8:10:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fozz
you may find that labors legislation for leave is

A minimum of 4 weeks of paid annual leave for each 12 months of service and an additional week for regular shift workers, with no cashing out of leave.

now you can take this which ever way you like but this is what they have, so i can see nowhere this is to regards of forced leave.

So if you have leave you will take it and not be able to cash it out, this is their plan.Which this is their minimum standard.
Posted by tapp, Thursday, 18 January 2007 8:33:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am sure all of the part employed science, computer science, engineering, geology, commerce, nursing and teaching graduates feel miffed by you saying that the "unskilled" deserve what they get.

When organisations and governments respond to the market, they are reacting, they are no longer setting the agenda, thus they will always be behind. When a country sings a mantra of "respond to market forces" there in lies the recipe to fall behind those countries that invest in the future and plan for future requirements.

I am not sure what the lead time is to set yourself up as a mortgage broker but it takes 15 to 20 years to train up enough personnel to become a world leader in telecomms, or biochemistry.

If we just respond to market forces we will always be behind, we can't possibly ever be the clever country again.
Posted by billie, Thursday, 18 January 2007 8:45:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Billie, you say that "The setting up of all these microbusinesses will lead to loss of productivity and loss of quality of life for most Australians." In fact, the labour market (and other) changes have been accompanied by higher productivity, higher employment, higher wages and faster economic growth, and many surveys show higher levels of satisfaction among those who are self-employed or have more control over their hours, e.g. my wife with two quite different part-time jobs reflecting two different interests, with hours of work she generally chooses herself (i.e., more often knocking back work than not being offered enough). Sounds good to me. Yes, there will always be less advantaged people, but the whole system shouldn't be regulated just because certain regulation might serve the interests of certain people.

In fact, I don't think that the interests of the unemployed/low-paid are served by laws and regulations which make employing them less profitable or unprofitable, on the contrary. The best position from which to get a job is in a job, however humble.
Posted by Faustino, Thursday, 18 January 2007 9:29:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tapp,

what has been lost is the RIGHT to four weeks annual leave. If he wants four, how much he will actually get is now dependent upon what the employer is willing to give.

Given that he is among the 20% easily replacable, if he fails several interveiws,and in each one he was asked "would you be willing to cash out two weeks annual leave?" and given that he is starting to get desperate for a job, next time he is asked that question, he is much more likely to accept losing half of his previously entitled leave, in exchange for a small amount of money.

He did not want to cash it out, but with an ever shrinking number of employers being prepared to grant four weeks, he was forced to accept reduced conditions. That is not choice.

Most labourers would rather not exchange half their leave for a small lump sum, and I am one of them.

To sum up, a large minority of workers are not in a position to refuse reduced conditions. Employers on the other hand, know that if one labourer won't take the job at reduced renumeration, they won't have much difficulty finding one who will, slowly dragging down standards overall.
Posted by Fozz, Thursday, 18 January 2007 9:39:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The ACTU's intent is not to prevent anyone from cashing out leave (though this may be the effect). It is to prevent those in the middle and lower reaches of the labour market from being FORCED to cash out their leave unwillingly.

Now fozz this is what i was refering too.

Also seems labor believes that the lower classes are incapable of doing anything for themselves, follow us and we will look after you.

It is about choice you are going from one dictatorship to another by them telling you what to do.

Do you know how to think for yourself, not like Col Rouge who is liberal through and through so any bad comments about the coalition will be one sided.

There is choice in IR but neither labor or the coalition will give it, it is either our way or the highway.

I keep saying this but what would i know, oh then again what would you know about me, with regards to IR, unions,conditions,everyday people, but nobody is interested why or what my past has to offer and why i did this so really its all BLAH BLAH BLAH here to winge at each other no chance of real change.

And Col politics is a dictatorship and the coalition is the head of this.

So Col your ability to accept what others say is get St3ffed what would you know , you col are just a sheep following the coalition spin, do you care about anything else but yourself i dont think so why should you, your talk is cheap just like the coalition and labor.

Just look at labor now knows privitisation means job losses do they care no, why they are still selling of the states for their own benifit and not for the worker or the people and the coalition big business, oh Col well done on AWB, the directors get a smack the government lies through their a## and accepts no responsibility but dont you worry lets give them a bonus.

You dont have much time left Col, look at the future
Posted by tapp, Friday, 19 January 2007 9:04:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fozz “The entire notion of a worker being free to choose to cash out leave is built on a fundamental fiction.”

So you presume to know better than someone else how their employment contract should be structured.

I have a life long suspicion of those who would restrict people being “free to choose”. Such words so often drip from the lips of dictators and despots as well.

low-skilled / unskilled. There is nothing to stop anyone, at any age, acquiring a new skill. I did it at aged 50+. What makes the difference is the attitude of “what I am doing is not working, necessity demands I do something else”.

Billie “I am sure all of the part employed etc”

Simple, work several roles. If someone has a parttime job, there is nothing stopping them doing a second job.

Oh before you go on about that’s all too hard, that is exactly what I do.

Faustino, I agree with what you have said. Who is Billie to presume to dictate / restrict other people’s type of employment terms?

Your quote of Billie “"The setting up of all these microbusinesses will lead to loss of productivity and loss of quality of life for most Australians."”

I ask Billie to explain how
greater flexibility will lead to lower productivity.
And how people exercising greater control over their circumstances by being self employed can ever represent a “loss of quality of life”.

“Quality of life” for most people is about getting the government, unions, employers and officialdom off their backs and being allowed to do exactly what they want without kowtowing to anyone, whilst still earning a living.

Fozz “RIGHT to four weeks” see my previous post, “what it costs the employer”. Same applies. Holiday pay is an employment overhead. How is the employer on the notion of unpaid leave?

TAPP people being “FORCED” is why we have legislation in place.

No employer is going to abuse a productive employee to save a dollar, the employer knows it will cost his business $5 or more for every $1 he saves in wages.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 19 January 2007 10:01:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Billie, you said "When organisations and governments respond to the market, they are reacting, they are no longer setting the agenda, thus they will always be behind."

It's fallacy to think that the government could ever efficiently 'set the agenda', because consumers wishes will never be able to be truly foretold and secondguessed by the government. Your comment suggests that the government can somehow know what the future wishes of the people are, and that it can make the required decisions now to make that a reality.

This is wrong, because firms themselves are much more efficient at doing this, rather than governments with their bureaucratical red tape and tax payer funded exercises. Not to mention the fact that it's unfair to just tax people and give the money to other people to make an industry out of something that people don't necessarily desire.

In truth, businesses never only respond to the market, they have to innovate and try to match consumer preferences. The ones that are able to do this well, prosper. Why do you think Coca-Cola introduced vanilla coke? Why did McDonalds introduce the salads menu? Because they knew that they couldn't just rest on their laurels, they would not be successful if they didn't continually try new things.

Not only this, but your comment about "15/20 years" to train up the personnel is also not really correct. People can be brought in from overseas, or trained in a few years, if that were truly what the people wanted. If this isn't happening, well then guess what? The people don't want that particular service. It's no biggie.
Posted by volition, Friday, 19 January 2007 10:23:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, keep pedalling. It is so pleasing to see that you are always in the minority in these posts. It gives hope for a decent Australian Society yet. Looked at all the latest Morgan polls yesterday. It appears that all the punters are on the ball. Stanley Bruce all over again. Col, you can fool some people some time but you cant ....... you know the rest.
Posted by hedgehog, Friday, 19 January 2007 10:34:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joel Butler, are you still in the Knights of the Southern Cross?
ANd the Liberal Party?

As a Catholic, and you are too, how can you support legislation in the building industry that sets huge fines for workers who wish to defend wages, conditions and occupational health and safety?
Sute there is a history of abuses and excuses in that industry however this Federal Government has gone too far.
Simiarly, in the office workers environment, most are at the mercy of the boss with slitled and false quality and productivity measures that times everything many workers do, especially call centre and customer service work. Many enterprise agreements are done without a trade union and 'delegates meetings' in many workplaces are not union ones; they are boss inspired, driven and controlled.
Now whilst I agree that the socialist left is unreasonable in industrial relations if we remember as kids in the 1970s ( my vintage showing)how strikes were a dime a dozen and wage rises were big and inflation was high; today we have bosses making huge increases and the millionarires factories in finance sector controlling and getting excessive bonuses .
Joel your version of social doctrine is different to that of Catholic Tradition from the 1950s ( the true way).'conservative' Joel does NOT equate to TRADITION.
From Michael Webb, former KSC member.
Posted by Michael Southern Cross, Friday, 19 January 2007 7:58:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hedgehog “Col, keep pedalling. It is so pleasing to see that you are always in the minority in these posts.”

Oh I will “pedal” as much as it suits me.

Being in a minority is nothing unusual for me.

Whilst a democracy works on majorities, qualities of leadership, originality, inventiveness and many other virtues are scarce and found only in minorities.
(not that I claim any virtue in myself, such a promotion would cut across me sense of humility).

Doubtless you are happier in the majority, as they say, one shepherd, 1000 sheep.

As for “It gives hope for a decent Australian Society yet.”

Really? What would you know about decency?
Not that luddite socialist rubbish of equality for all.

Margaret Thatcher had something to say about that.

She said

“Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so.”

She knew how the real world works, how the best is achieved, by those who can perform and being rewarded based on their performance.

You seem more interested in ensuring everyone is equally impoverished.

Oh I do not need to fool anyone, the foolish will fool themselves, as we see from your posts.

I have lived long enough and faced enough of the small minded ranters to know how to deal with you and that is to let you rant and vent, you do yourself more discredit that way.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 19 January 2007 8:20:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tapp,

you argument that being "forced to accept" four weeks annual leave, as well as presumably, penalty rates, shift allowances, predictable hours, protection from unfair dismissal etc is hampering a workers freedom to choose a job lacking these things is foreign to me.

Being, as I said, a labourer myself, I have not spoken to anyone in my position who would willingly give these things up or exchange them for a few dollars more.

I know from firsthand experience that in the lower half of the labour market, the terms and conditions of employment are dictated by the employer, not negotiated bi-laterally. Unions help equalize this lopsided power equation.

And tapp, yes I am interested in your past, please tell me more.
Posted by Fozz, Friday, 19 January 2007 9:16:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the 1990s New Zealand deregulated is labour force and their productivity rate fell whilst Australia's rose.

Time taken to build a new industry is quite considerable, it takes at least 6 years to build a new model car from initial design, through focus groups, prototypes, more focus groups, testing, tooling up then production.

If you need to build new capital plant the planning takes place 10 years ahead, my consulting engineer friends have a crystal ball on Australia's performance a decade out.

Now when we talk about social capital, skilling people up for a new industry that can easily take 15 to 20 years to train up the trainers, train up practitioners and then build up enough practitioners to have enough bodies to do the work, EG computers have been operating in Australia since 1959 but the first Programmer In Training courses were set up in 1969, by 1980 university courses in computer science had become standardised and by 1990 large companies wouldn't hire new people who did not have relevant formal qualifications.

I repeat that its not in Australia's interests to import skilled workers from overseas whilst not providing training facilities and environment to train up Australians. Over the years the unions have demanded that large employers employ a certain proportion of apprentices in their workforce.

And for those of you who enjoy seeing the stately old buildings of the 1880s in Melbourne and Sydney you owe a thankyou to the Builders Labourers Federation who stood up to developers and state governments to preserve those buildings in the mid 1970s.
Posted by billie, Friday, 19 January 2007 10:35:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
col rouge,

Good on you for learning a new skill. We unskilled should all get off our backsides and book ourselves in for one of the vast array of skilled training opportunities that the Howard government has so wisely provided.

Of course, with us all in the skilled market, the general maintainence and basic production that society needs to function will have to fall to someone else. Perhaps we could import millions of cheap workers from the third world, to live and work as second class citizens. But then, having them living here might cause the same sort of problem we saw in France some time ago.

Maybe we could drastically raise the amount of visa 457,s on offer, but we'll call it unskilled visa 458 because as we all know, 457 holders are never used for unskilled work.

Any ideas?

And as for award condtitons costing employers money, tell me: where does one go to find a cost free business? Employers are aware of the cost of employing people, they still employ them.

As for you delusional conviction that you have actually grown taller than joe average, I would say that the cream rises to the top....... but scum floats as well.
Posted by Fozz, Friday, 19 January 2007 10:42:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fozz you have very good points there it is disapointing that others cannot see what is really happening.

for those who wish change

email:swulrich@bigpond.net.au

This way you can make your own mind no catches
Posted by tapp, Saturday, 20 January 2007 9:45:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fozz why should government to organize a training programme for you?
Do you expect a public servant to wipe your arse too?

I went through specific processes to acquire the different skills I utilize in earning multiple incomes. Some came from books, some from being mentored. None came from government or were funded by taxes

As for general maintenance, if everyone went off and trained, the available pool of people wishing to do those roles would diminish and likely inducements (hourly rate) increase, it is called “supply and demand”, maybe you should do a course in “Economics for Dummy’s” (Or even “Dummies for Economists), you sound as if you still suck your thumb).

I have a client, he earns around $130,000 pa from general maintenance contracts. Maybe you should ask me nicely for his phone number and he caould give you some tips.

Why are we importing unskilled workers to do jobs? Obviously the “locals” are earning more elsewhere, a labour shortage read (supply and demand above).

A contract of employment involves an employer paying an employee for their services. I might be obtuse but your question seems to be a nonsense,

The Margaret Thatcher quote re growing taller, was not me saying what I have done but identifying what serves everyone the best.

Why should people be held back to some luddite notion of what they are allowed to achieve?

We applaud excellence in sport, why do you think business is any different?

Business is as competitive as the AFL
It is as risky too.
A lot of people applaud the sportsmen who play sport at a professional level and get paid mega-bucks for it.

Would you suggest the captain of whatever team you support is overpaid?

So why whine and expect CEO’s and leaders of industry to be treated differently?

Finally, I am sure you are very familiar with the properties of “scum”, so I will defer to what is, obviously, your greater knowledge and experience of the substance.

Have a nice day, we must do this again sometime (yawn)

Tapp, trawling for email penpals I see!
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 20 January 2007 12:50:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rogue,

"Why should government organise a training programme for you?". Presumably, you are applying that argument to everyone else as well.

For the glaringly obvious reason that the market alone cannot do it. As billie posted, unions have traditionally ensured that big firms employ a percentage of apprentices by pressuring governments to legislate for it.

A long running policy of allowing the market to "find it's natural checks and balances, free of the intrusive hand of government" hasn't exactly been a roaring sucess here, has it?
"What? A skill shortage crisis? Impossible!! We've deliberatly neglected funding training programmes and enforcing legislation, it was supposed to be able to run itself in it's own best interests."
Well, clearly that hasn't worked and it's time to try a diffent approach.

But you do have a point about supply and demand. This country has opened the floodgates to allow large numbers of both skilled and unskilled workers in, in order to increase supply, therefore reducing demand so that employers can pay them less. How this is benefiting the country, by removing the incentive to train is a mystery to me.

You say it is risky being in business. I don't doubt it. But workers have always faced risk in the business of selling their labour. Removal of unfair dismissal and a drastic lowering of the legally enforcable minimum standard has made their business much riskier.

"tapp that is why we have regulations-to prevent people from being forced". Specifically, which regulations were you refering to?
The award system and unfair dismissal?.....To prevent people from being forced to accept miserable pay and condtions because the employer can sack them for any reason or none at all if they refuse?

Or do you need the government to wipe your arse by regulating to protect you against unfair competition from bigger and stronger firms? So it's ok for business to want protection through trade practices but not ok for workers to want protection through awards?

I yawn right back at ya.
Posted by Fozz, Sunday, 21 January 2007 4:24:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"tapp that is why we have regulations-to prevent people from being forced". Specifically, which regulations were you refering to?
The award system and unfair dismissal?.....To prevent people from being forced to accept miserable pay and condtions because the employer can sack them for any reason or none at all if they refuse?

hey fozz
i was refering to the inability to cash in leave this will be enforced by labor and the unions.
you are right the people are being scr#wed but as you have noticed col is a coalition lackey so any comment from him should be taken with a grain -no not even that.

This is very easy to fix but labor will be adding to the IR laws their own piece.

Fozz i have nothing against the workers and well the unions are not what they used to be about, now adays its about power and business.

Like i said email swulrich@bigpond.net.au.

Those who are really interested do email and those who dont well they end up like col.
Posted by tapp, Sunday, 21 January 2007 4:42:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fozz, I think that before you claim "A long running policy of allowing the market to "find it's natural checks and balances, free of the intrusive hand of government"" has failed, there needs to have actually been a policy of labour markets free from intervention (awards, legislation, govt spending on the area in general), when this isn't true. It's been a gradual process for Australia.

As for the perceived skills shortage, I'm not convinced. To me, it looks like a 'mythical shortage', a non problem that is seemingly being solved by a non solution. If there is truly a shortage, the wages of the people with these specializations would go up, thereby drawing more people into the profession.

It's conceptually very similar to the myth of the 'science shortage' in America, where the US national science board, "expressing concern that few native-born citizens are entering scientific careers, called for an intensified national effort to expand domestic production. Meanwhile, unemployment rates for scientists are going up; according to the American Chemical Society, they have doubled among chemists over the past 2 years." - quoted from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5661/1105
Posted by volition, Monday, 22 January 2007 5:58:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tapp,

sorry mate, I should have put "qouting col rogue" beside that comment, I was referring to his not yours.

I have been mulling over your party's constitution, looks pretty fair and balanced to me so far, I'll talk about it some more to you later.

cheers
Posted by Fozz, Monday, 22 January 2007 6:10:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Volition's para quoted below is proof of the absolute ignorance of australian history

"Fozz, I think that before you claim "A long running policy of allowing the market to "find it's natural checks and balances, free of the intrusive hand of government"" has failed, there needs to have actually been a policy of labour markets free from intervention (awards, legislation, govt spending on the area in general), when this isn't true. It's been a gradual process for Australia."

Volition proior to the rise of the union movement - in 1860's for masons, noticeably spread to shearers and miners in the 1890s and the landmark Sunshine Harvester case of 1906 the labour market was free of regulation and bosses could cut wages, did not have to worry about paying a living wage, did not have to concern themselves with worker safety .

In 400 years time people will probably view communal action as the greatest achievement of the 20 century, from setting up of kibbutzses, hippy and fabian communes, union activity, universal health and education, farmer co-ops, community co-ops, rise and fall of Soviet Union and Mao's China.

That said, unions are the only thing standing between the workers and the bullying tactics of large employers who want to cut wages, cut working conditions, make work places unsafe and increase their profit.

Tapp what is your frenzy about workers cashing in their leave entitlements? Sounds like a sandgroper button pusher but really doesn't wash with a community that has seen their recreation time eroded by 7 day a week trading and casualising the workforce. Doesn't make your party sound at all attractive.
Posted by billie, Monday, 22 January 2007 7:17:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No frenzy

workers should have choice and this choice will be taken away by labor so people will not be able to cash out leave

I am also disgusted by the liberal party policy but there are those that have managed to get good outcome from this.

For frenzy it should be why labor and the unions didnt take the nation out on strike before these laws came into place,
maybe it was so they had something to fight with,
they probably thought those who would lose their jobs would only be colatoral damage so if labor and the unions were serious they would have stood back then and done what was required for the people and not themselves.

this can also be seen with the water problem the states and federal are too busy fighting with liberal and labor party politics that we the people have to suffer.

Times are changing and the people want choice and accountability.
Posted by tapp, Monday, 22 January 2007 7:26:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, you really are a goose.
Posted by hedgehog, Monday, 22 January 2007 8:27:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
volition,

The free, unfettered market that government does not interfere in is a neo-conservative idealogue.

Is cutting spending on training programmes and simply sitting back waiting for the market to train an adequete number of people for you not the same thing?

The purpose of government is to govern. If not, then why are we, as their employer, paying them aquater to a third of a mil per year (not including perks). If the market does not need them to do anything, should this not reduce the demand for them, thus bringing the price of them down? Oh thats right, they don't have to negotiate their own wage, a comission sets it for them.

As for the skill shortage, why should this lead to all skilled people being payed more? If the law alows you to import workers from the vast pool of second and third world labour, then there is no shortage and the price of their labour does not have to go up.

In fact, these workers, being used to poverty, will accept much less than an Aussie, thus lowering the standard overall.

The law of supply and demand is a usefull guideline, but it can be innacurate for a good reason: we are talking about people, not commdities for sale. Plasma screen t.v.'s don't care how you treat them, you can do whatever you like with them. People are more complicated.
Posted by Fozz, Tuesday, 23 January 2007 6:21:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fozz Re training for you “that the market alone cannot do it.”

Really, the “Market” is going to supply the jobs, not the government. Training is going to need to respond to those market based jobs. I work in a loose arrangement with one Industry Association, they take the “training” for their industry very seriously. They are not a government department.

You quote

“find it's natural checks and balances, free of the intrusive hand of government”

And

"What? A skill shortage crisis? Impossible!! We've deliberatly neglected funding training programmes and enforcing legislation, it was supposed to be able to run itself in it's own best interests."

Where did they come from? Not from the article or the content of any previous post on this thread.

You must be making up things simply to justify your argument. Hardly honest but honesty seems not to figure on your posting content.

As for “Removal of unfair dismissal and a drastic lowering of the legally enforcable minimum standard has made their business much riskier.”

Wrong. The risk of unemployment reduce as the cost to the employer reduces. Competitive pressure (and unemployment risk) increases with the service price.

Oh I don’t need anyone to wipe any part of me, nor do up my shoe laces or tuck me in at night. I am happier with smaller government, especially when government performance expectations, let alone achievements, are so mediocre.

Better to leave business to those who understand it than pretend some fat-cat bureaucrat or election conscious politician has a clue.

Training is an operational task not a regulatory process.
Governments exist to regulate, not to operate.

Obviously, from the content of your posts, even a completely disinterested fat-cat bureaucrat would have a better clue than you.

Oh yawning back, how hackneyed and passé.

Hedgehog “Col, you really are a goose.”

And you are a Turkey.

Maybe I do not soar like an eagle but at least geese can fly.
You, in comparison, cannot stay off the ground for half a minute and are better known for making a lot of pointless noise.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 23 January 2007 9:27:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A goose that doesnt make any money. Only a goose trys to impress by mentioning his income.Only a goose keeps arguing black is white. Only a goose responds to a post calling them a goose.
Posted by hedgehog, Tuesday, 23 January 2007 11:06:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Billie, I was actually talking more about labour markets recently but I'll concede that you're right, we did have a freer labour market way back then. Did you know that Australia actually had the highest per capita income in the world in the 1880's?

But I still have to disagree with your view of communal action being best and this is because markets are more efficient at getting things out to people. I think that free trade in markets will bring everyone better quality of life over time, rather than union activity. To me, union activity just serves to make more people unemployed, which is worse. I think cutting wages isn't necessarily an 'unfair' thing if the employer doesn't need that particular employee as much anymore, it's like being made to pay for something you don't want. It's all about efficiently apportioning workers and resources where they are needed most. If you are desired by a business, it will be motivated enough to offer you an attractive job.

Fozz, you said "As for the skill shortage, why should this lead to all skilled people being payed more?"- I meant that their wages go up while there still is a decreased supply of them. Once you've brought more people in, the wage will move to its efficient rate.

"In fact, these workers, being used to poverty, will accept much less than an Aussie, thus lowering the standard overall." - So you're really saying, that EVEN though they're better off, we shouldn't do it because it lowers the standard overall? Everyone should have the right to pursue his own interest as he deems best. If you want to go and offer your services for a lower wage than somebody else, there's no problem there! To do anything otherwise is to be for a nanny state that tells you what you can and can't do.

"we are talking about people, not commdities for sale" - what point are you trying to make here? The law of supply and demand has not been disproven by your efforts.
Posted by volition, Tuesday, 23 January 2007 11:32:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Billie “That said, unions are the only thing standing between the workers and the bullying tactics of large employers who want to cut wages, cut working conditions, make work places unsafe and increase their profit.”

Is that a quote from the unionist propaganda handbook, 1917?

Firstly

Unions are not the arbiters of employment conditions, government is, through employment laws.

Most employers understand that to keep good people, they need to do more than just the minimum or the good will go to the competition (another reason for encouraging flexible employment terms, like being able to take your superannuation with you, instead of having it as a golden handcuff to the present employer).

Employers pay insurance and their premiums sky-rocket with a poor safety record, to say nothing of the natural compassion of people and the fact that when an employee is not working, the employer does not have the benefit of the employees effort.

“In 400 years time people will probably view communal action as the greatest achievement of the 20 century,.”

Communal Living will be, like most other failures with no one to champion them, largely forgotten, particularly communism, unless someone keeps it alive as a warning about absolute power as happens with the Inquisition.

I doubt you can recall much “social organization” of the 16th Century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century

Highlights were

commencement of the commercial revolution, basically the exploration and colonization by Europeans, particularly of the “New World”.

Martin Luther and Henry VIII ticked off the Pope.

Russia descended into anarchy (some things never seem to change)

Union of Utrecht established Holland.

French ended their religious wars with the edict of Nantes.

In 400 years this century will be remembered for the first manned flight, first space flight, first atomic bomb / nuclear energy and development of the computer.

On the social level if anything will be remembered it will be the breakdown of the rigid social structures of class which dominated peoples life choices in previous centuries.

Hedgehog , proves my observation,” turkey . . . making a lot of pointless noise.”

Do something creative, practice to become roadkill.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 24 January 2007 9:21:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy