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 > We can be adult everywhere but the workplace > Comments

We can be adult everywhere but the workplace : Comments

By Mark Christensen, published 13/7/2009

We're trusted to do our own deals on groceries, but not on wages and conditions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
The analogy of making choices in a grocery with making choices by the worker is faulty.

If we don't want to buy something in a grocery we don't have to. If we don't we don't suffer. We can buy something else or not buy anything at all.

However, a worker having a contract shoved at him often has the choice of accepting the conditions or being unemployed. A worker does not bargain with a corporation on equal terms. In fact the only bargaining under Work Choices is, "Take it or leave it."

It was a long hard slog for workers to organise into unions to represent them. Work Choices could restore pre-union conditions.
Posted by david f, Monday, 13 July 2009 10:32:43 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
Well said David F.
This is one of the most specious arguments i have heard for a long time.
The only parallel between grocery shopping and wages negotiation would be if the supermarket existed as the only source for groceries and it put a sign up at the door saying:
Accept our prices and conditions of entry. Take it or leave it. And you couldn't go anywhere else.
The history of Workchoices was example after example of employers exploiting employees.
I just wish these economic theorists would actually go out and experience the world as a lot of people live it.
This article is a joke!
Posted by shal, Monday, 13 July 2009 11:04:03 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
Ah,the parallel universe of economics ,where economic theory is true and not the result of ideological wishful thinking.
All economists should be required to get a real job on a regular basis in order to understand how industry actually functions.
Posted by mac, Monday, 13 July 2009 11:50:16 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
The only "flexibility" serf choices gave was the flexibility to sack workers and lower wages. Where was the flexibility to join in solidarity with your fellow man and get a better deal? Oh sorry thats right Johnny Coward thought unions were evil didnt he. For some unexplicable reason economists do too. I thought economics was value free? How can unions be bad when they are just another part of the market and the market will adjust as it always does.

Supermarkets compete for my custom. Employers dont compete for my labour. Instead I compete against others for the joy of being a slave for eight hours a day. Hardly the same is it.

What a blinkered right wing fool. Sorry economist. Same thing really. LOL
Posted by mikk, Monday, 13 July 2009 1:37:57 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
It seems previous posters to this article have one perspective on Workchoices.
I'm afraid that it wasn't mine.
Over here in WA we had a fair bit of labour market flexibility and it seemed to work pretty well. I knew of many people who directly benefitted from their employment contracts and none directly (admittedly a few anecdotally) who suffered. Indeed I knew of some who fought hard not to be returned to the post-workchoices fairness test as it would reduce their wages and conditions as they perceived them.
WA had leading growth indicators and is still doing pretty well relatively speaking. Maybe the rust-belt of the south-eastern corner of the country took advantage. Us dig-it-up states made hay while the sun shone. Perhaps the answer is that the labour market is simply too complex for a one-size-fits-all solution?
There was a time there where experienced and qualified mineral workers were just about setting their own wages. Trades and all manner of others were in a similar position. On the other hand, there have always been skills where demand has dried up.
Why is the labour market not just another market? Because most Australians simply will not let it be.
Posted by J S Mill, Monday, 13 July 2009 2:15:15 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
For those wanting to negotiate with their employer work conditions, AWAs had a place.

The big brother / one size fits all EBA does not suit everyone, and will have consequences to employment, but at least the unions are happy.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 13 July 2009 2:40:34 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
JS Mill,
WA was going through a boom at the time. That's why everyone was getting on the bandwaggon. Cooks were getting paid $100,000 plus p.a.
That's fine if you live in WA. But what if you live in Tasmania or regional Australia where, if the market ruled, your pay would be driven down by workchoices. The market is great in privileged areas in boom times. It's a disaster in difficult times because the market has no compassion. The market has no empathy. Employees are merely cogs in the system.
The problem with all these market forces theorists is that they appear to be totally lacking in the capacity to see the world from another perspective, a perspective which is not as privileged as the one they occupy.
Just as a side issue I bet those people you know in WA aren't as enamoured of workchoices now that the economy has slowed and minerals prices have slumped 40%.
Posted by shal, Monday, 13 July 2009 3:33:06 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 early comments here are typical of the blind emotional response usually exercised by those needing to protect their petty prejudices.

Go back and read the first few paragraphs. The article is about pragmatic policy – not the secondary issue of market power. As the Soviets found, while the bargaining between labour and capital is important, any perceived imbalance can't be a foundation for policy if we lack a practical mechanism to ensure fair outcomes.

The Government has said it’s counter-productive to attempt to nail down the right price for groceries and fuel. This principle is relevant for IR. But rather than argue on this basis – how is FWA going to juggle the conflicting claims of workers and employers in a dynamic, open economy? – it becomes about right-wing politics, economists and wishful thinking.

The only wishful thinking here comes from those willing to put their faith in legislation and bureaucracy to produce a better world.
Posted by intempore, Monday, 13 July 2009 4:31:17 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
I don't put my faith in "legislation and bureaucracy to produce a better world." I put my faith in solidarity and direct action. The same way our forefathers smashed the old day capitalists into giving us the semi humane rules of work we have now. Give us workers back the power over unions and sack the fatcat union leaders and let workers take their true place in the "market". Repeal the laws against strikes and boycotts and greenbans and then we might see a rebalancing of the power relationships and the disparity of income and effort that characterises modern day feudocapitalism.
Posted by mikk, Monday, 13 July 2009 5:04:51 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 put my faith in "legislation and bureaucracy to produce a beter world", in other words, the rule of law is essential to civilised life. Without collective action through unions and legislation most workers would be at the mercy of their predatory employers. A so called "free" labour market is a sinister, self serving lie.
Posted by mac, Monday, 13 July 2009 6:02:13 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
Shal, "I bet those people you know in WA aren't as enamoured of workchoices now that the economy has slowed and minerals prices have slumped 40%"

I've wondered about that but also wondered how many would have been happier if they had been able to negotiate with an employer pay packages which might have kept them employed but at lesser rates. This is not just the difference between workchoices and FWA, it also includes not having a job at all in an area where there are few jobs.

For some a reduction in pay during a downturn would be unworkable, for others it may mean keeping some earned income coming in. It may mean staying in the employment pool and keeping skills up until things improve vs having to relocate to seek work, having to move into a different field or be unemployed for a sustained period.

No one answer will ever fit everyone but I do strongly believe that in the end we should be allowed to make the choices which fit our own circumstances and needs. Those living in remote areas may not have the option of looking for other employment in the area, they may not have a market for a home they owe money on, they may not have access to skill retraining or the other stuff available to those of us with access to major centers have.

FWA, does not create compassion in the market for some in difficult times, it just limits the options available to reduce costs to get through the tough times.

If I was a worker in a remote area who liked the life I'd rather make my own decisions about what was fair pay than have Canberra make it for me.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 13 July 2009 6:53:51 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
<< If I was a worker in a remote area who liked the life I'd rather make my own decisions about what was fair pay than have Canberra make it for me. >>

To which I'd add, I rather make my own decisions regarding my employment conditions than have a profit motivated executive make it for me.

Before "Work Choices" individual employees always had the opportunity (depending on employer) to negotiate above award rates and other considerations. What W/C achieved was to remove a basic level of wage which had been set as reasonable for the type of work. At least with award rates there is a level beneath which an employer cannot go. Also an employer of huge numbers of people, simply does not have the time to negotiate individually with each and every employee. I recall a number of employers, during the Howard years, stating they preferred the award system, because they were provided with a standard from which they could add extras if they chose.

To encourage workers to remote areas, higher pay had always been on offer (irrespective of Work Choices), and many took advantage of this largesse, including landlords; rents for the most basic accommodation soared beyond reason in the outlying regions of W.A.. A good employer would negotiate with prospective employees, deals, including extras to cover or assist with the expenses of living in a remote area. The abolition of W/C doesn't change any of this.

I agree with other posters who have pointed out the inadequacies of comparing grocery buying to negotiating wages as a very poor analogy indeed. The employee will always be dependent on the good graces of an employer, whereas the grocery buyer can always go to another store (except in remote areas, I'd like to note).
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 14 July 2009 9:11:08 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
Fractelle, I'm not close enough to this to have a well informed opinion (and I suspect that most other posters are in the same boat).
My impression is that in the case of mines during a downturn "At least with award rates there is a level beneath which an employer cannot go" creates a situation where the only viable option is mine closure (or mothballing) for marginal mines. So instead of the employee having a choice between accepting lower conditions during a downturn or leaving to seek better conditions elsewhere they are left with just the latter.

On the other hand with an oversupply of workers in the sector during a downturn it's easy to imagine wages being forced down in profitable mines without any extra jobs being retained. There is a balance somewhere between "the market" and "regulation" and I doubt that that balance is ever going to be easy to maintain.

Work Choices would not have solved that dilema, my concern is more that the debate often seems to ignore the impacts of people not being allowed to make choices for themselves.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 14 July 2009 9:42:02 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
RObert,

There are stories in the paper every day about workforces taking pay cuts to ensure everyone stays employed. This is happening under the new system.
"If I was a worker in a remote area who liked the life I'd rather make my own decisions about what was fair pay than have Canberra make it for me."
This presumes that you are in the situation where you are the master of your own destiny. There are many people who don't have the resources (financial, education, capital) to make such decisions. If you live hand to mouth you don't have the luxury to be able to choose. This is what a managed labour market does. it ensures that people are not exploited because of their particular individual circumstances.
Just cast your mind back to the workchoices days. There were examples on a daily basis of employees being screwed by their employer, not because of the demands of the market but because the employer could get away with it.
In the theoretical world you advocate, everyone behaves ethically and the market acts like clockwork and people don't get exploited.
But this world is cloud-cuckoo land. Don't agree? Then how do you explain the Hardie Asbestos scandal?
The Hardie example is the real world. Given the choice between behaving ethically and increasing shareholder profits, they chose the latter.
"nuff said.
Posted by shal, Tuesday, 14 July 2009 12:04:06 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've worked through several recessions; I remember the 'strike torn seventies', and I remember that on tradesman's rates, the only time I could ever afford to buy a brand new car was 1973.
What struck me most forcibly in the hard times, was that the ones who really needed to go on strike, the real working poor, simply couldn't afford to do so.
All those famous strikes in the sixties and seventies were by the high paid miners and construction workers.
Yes, many of those strikes were frivolous and over the top, but at the same time, the benefits gained by the rich strikers flowed down to those workers who couldn't even afford to join a union or have a stop work meeting, much less lose a whole day's pay.
That's the real crime about enterprise bargaining. Miners are extremely well paid, but the flow on effect has become strictly local.
This is the real 'invisible hand'.It's not capitalism, or the free market that has increased the standard of living for the working class.
It was all down to the unions, and now they have been strangled -if not emasculated- by first the cruelest cut of all, Bob Hawke's Accord, and then Workchoices,
The gap between median and average wage is a direct reflection of the level of unionism.
Witness the school teachers.
Posted by Grim, Tuesday, 14 July 2009 3:35:47 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
"Does Gillard really believe society will be better off by attempting to force employers to do the right thing? Are Australian values, including our sacred sense of a fair go, so tenuous that we need FWA policing them night and day?"
I find it almost impossible to believe the author was serious in this remark.
Business has never been about 'a fair go'. It's always been about competitive advantage, and the easiest and simplest advantage is reducing wages, reducing employees, and getting existing employees to work harder for hopefully less money.
Is this author going to suggest all the noble Aussie companies which have moved offshore, did so because they felt this would be more of a'fair go' for Australian workers?
"...integrating philosophy with modern business and government practices."
Clearly a philosophy which can be expressed very simply:
I'm alright Jack.
Posted by Grim, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 9:51:46 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
Shal & Grim thanks for your responses to R0bert.

R0bert, do you really believe that the primary goal of a business is not profit? Are you so naive to think that all employers would not try to minimise wages? Why are you against minimum standards such as awards to ensure a liveable income?

Workers can and do arrange pay-cuts or reduced hours, when businesses are struggling, this occured prior to Work Choices and is happening now (as Shal has pointed out). But a job is more than just a wage, it is also about safe working conditions and the feeling of contribution; where employees feel they are valued and not just another resource to be exploited.

I wonder now that the mining boom has faltered, will the exorbitant rents be reduced as mining employees are laid off or have their earnings reduced?

""This problem, Slee said, first and foremost was regarding affordable accommodation, not just for mining workers, but for everyone in the community, especially the people who provide the services that communities require to function – teachers, doctors, service staff, hospitality staff and so on.

"People leave the area because it is unaffordable – and the people leaving because it is unaffordable are the check-out girls, the hospitality workers, the cleaners, all those people – and they are the social glue that hold a lot of things together and provide the services," he said.."

http://www.miningnewspremium.net/StoryView.asp?StoryID=100294

I can only assume from your comments that you are in a position where you can negotiate your wage or salary package. That is not the case for the majority of workers, like the check-out girls or hospitality workers or cleaners as mentioned above.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 12:13:34 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
This is actually true. Sometimes if we are trapped in a situation wherein we don't have any choice than to sign the contract than being unemployed, this usually happens.
Due to the large number of unemployed we are forced sometimes to accept job offers because it is needed. Even if we don't love the job, we still accept the offer.
To some this is a dilemma but to those in need it is a blessing. Someday, somehow you will learn to love your job.
Posted by Jane Aires, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 5:54:30 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
Fractelle, I've got no doubt that many businesses will normally act in their own interests regardless of the impact on employee's. I don't get to negotiate my own conditions.

A lot seem to be intepreting this as a choice between accepting poor pay and conditions and being guaranteed decent minimums, maybe I am misunderstanding them but I think that many are ignoring the bit that with marginal mines during a downturn it becomes a choice for the employer between paying decent pay and running at a loss or shutting down the mine. The employee gets little choice.

What I'm suggesting is that there is merrit in letting people choose for themselves if what is on offer works for them. They can still leave any time they want. I see the need for minimum pay but I also see that there are circumstances where it limit's peoples choices.

No easy answers, I take the view that there are circumstances where allowing people to accept or reject a pay deal that may not be generally appropriate might be better than being unemployed with a home they can't sell in an area with little prospect of other work.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 7:26:20 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
Let's compare the analogy, when you the consumer enter the grocery store do you have the power to bargain with the supermarket? do you have the power to say that bottle of Pepsi Max that is priced at $1.65 is too high I want to buy it for $1.55, of course not.
The store is the price setter, there is no market.
Our laws recognise this we have the ACCC and anti competive laws to protect the consumer. So great is the power of the supermarkets we even have laws to protect the suppliers. We have laws that enable groups of suppliers to strike collective agreements with the supermarkets. So if we need to protect the consumers that deal with supermarkets, if we need to protect the producers who deal with supermarkets why not their workers?
Posted by slasher, Monday, 20 July 2009 11:20:55 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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