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 > WorkChoices - whose side are you on? > Comments

WorkChoices - whose side are you on? : Comments

By Nicholas Gruen, published 21/10/2005

Nicholas Gruen discusses the industrial relations reforms and the impact on low paid and unemployed people.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I remember as a child radio advertisements for laundry powder that shouted, "Brand X washes whiter". To which our large daft family always replied in unison, "whiter than what? Soot?".
Every time any government regales us with comparative adjectives unattached to objects for comparison they should receive an indignant phone call from each and every listener asking things like -
Fairer than what ? Please expand in intelligible English! Fairer how, for whom, in what way, with what exceptions, and what do you actually mean by "fair" ?
When the poor call centre jockeys inevitably stumble over the questions we should then repeatedly attempt to contact the cabinet ministers directly until we get a satisfactory answer. No ?
Posted by Henery, Friday, 21 October 2005 2:22:52 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
Nicholas: Only a mean spirited, uncaring mob like the liberals could think up such a policy.
It will be forced through Parliament in spite of yet another deceitful promise from 'honest?' john that he would not use his majority in an arrogant way.
Of course all the unthinkingly, cravenly obedient government members will vote for it. These grovellers could not and never have had an original thought in their lives.Parliament is just a job to most of them - so they do not want to rock the boat - so to speak. Whatever honest john commands is their will.
Now why is this being done is it
1. Purely a political ploy to destroy the backing of all other parties especially labour?
2.Is it just a liberal thing, that is it is in their political genes?
3.Perhaps little john wants a permanent low paid underclass that can be dominated totally. Just like in the country where john's great mate lives - yes America. Perhaps this has been ordered by bush, we know how obedient john is to the President - don't we?
4. Maybe by looking after the big end of town will boost liberal party funds and help members when they retire with a well paid job?
Who knows why this 'man?' of steal does what he does. numbat
Posted by numbat, Friday, 21 October 2005 3:47:31 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
All very fine, Nicholas, but no-one’s actually convinced me that these IR changes are necessary.

Already, low-paid jobs are casual, workers in industries with short-term projects (like the construction industry) are only engaged as contractors, and a company of any size can get rid of an unwanted employee by re-defining the position and declaring the incumbent redundant.

Employers are very skilled at finding profitable ways of working within the current IR arrangements, and with one industry group after another saying that they have been surprised by the extent of these changes, you have to ask, what needs to be fixed here?

You can rationalise the changes all you like – this is plainly and simply an attack on collective bargaining.
Posted by jpw2040, Saturday, 22 October 2005 8:34:28 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
We are asked to live in fairy land in relation to the proposed IR legislation. The Prime Minister says something like “trust me, my record is my word”. In the short term it might be a statement that satisfies some people: however, in the longer term Mr. Howard will not necessarily be Prime Minister. It could be Mr. Costello or another current Liberal Federal politician; Labor might even get its act together and form government after the next election.

Further factors which can have an impact on the economy are International factors such as increased fuel costs, further environmental disasters, and the saber rattling of USA towards Iran, North Korea and China. Cyclic down turns are a feature of the economic environment.

With a decline in the economy there will no doubt be a decline in what employees can
“negotiate” in their AWAs. After all, Mr. Howard is selling IR legislation on the basis of a very buoyant market.

A decline in the economy means that those unemployed are caught between employers offering outrageously low wages/salaries and Centrelink saying they must accept what the employer offers on the basis they lose their Centrelink entitlements otherwise.

I do not believe in the tooth fairy, nor do I believe in IR legislation. IR legislation is good for the big end of town and share holders, but not for workers.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 23 October 2005 10:36:26 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
"Many low paid workers are young and will be promoted into better jobs. Others have partners who are doing fine. Some are “doctor's wives” picking up some spare cash when it doesn’t conflict with tennis parties."

Many more low paid workers who are not "doctors' wives" are stuck in dead-end jobs with little or no prospect of bettering their circumstances.
I work in the agricultural industry as a labourer, as do most of my friends and acquaintances, and can see nothing in these proposals that will improve my position. Our employers are all members of the industry organisation while we have no way to bargain collectively. This means that workers who have gained improved wages and conditions are unwilling to risk their status by rocking the boat and that those who are at the bottom of the heap will face steadily declining conditions as those things "protected by law" are eroded.
The notion that workers will have real access to the legal protection guaranteed by Honest John, on the strength of his reputation as a rodent, is frankly laughable. I work in this environment and know my peers.
The quote heading this post indicates a disturbing lack of understanding about the real impact of these proposals on real people. Even more disturbing is the implicit notion that people are in poor circumstances through their own choice and the complacent belief that the middle class peers of Gruen and his ilk actually represent the reality of Australian society.
Posted by Col Gradolf, Sunday, 23 October 2005 1:22:30 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 think part of the problem is we do not as a society, treasure all workers.Col Gradolf talks about the notion of dead end jobs.All jobs are important and what we should not do,is define people by the job as they do in the US.These attitudes of pigeon holing all according to their job creates devisive social structures that are individually,socially and economically destructive.The strongest need [outside survival]within society is to feel acceptence,love and self worth.Money probably comes a close second.

While I agree that unfair dismissal must go,I don't think this Liberal Govt is producing fair and equitible IR reforms.It should be easier to rid ourselves of workers yet I fail to see the necessity of individual contracts that may young people can't or won't challenge or comprehend them.To continue in this present vein the Coalition wil see the rise of militant unions once again.Having a pool of working poor will only see crime and social unrest increase and we will all pay the price in other ways.

The imperative pushing this agenda is our growing Balance of Payments blow out.Not only is Australia losing jobs in the low skill labour areas,we are seeing highly technical and IT jobs being out sourced to India and China.

The pressure is really mounting and the agenda is to make us all work harder and cheaper; however with the growth of bigger business and world pressure on energy and resources ,will our standards of living improve or just decline to meet our competitors?

We cannot be isolationists and just put up tarrifs; however there needs to be balance in the equation when subsidised products are just dumped in our domestic markets destroying local jobs.

Too many people on this planet cheapens human endeavour and increases the prices of energy and resources.It will ultimately lower our living standards to that of developing nations.

It is time for our Govts to be honest and have a cold hard analysis of the facts and debate what the solutions and alternatives are.

What ever happened to the notion of the "Smart Country"?
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 23 October 2005 4:12:32 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
Casual employees currently struggle to make ends meet;If they meet at all! Now conditions for these workers will get a whole lot worse as small and big business collude and compete to cut there costs by avoiding wages and conditions. Accept anything that goes or starve to death is the choice given by Kevin Andrews!
Despicable is not the right word! But then does one have a choice?
Posted by aramis1, Sunday, 23 October 2005 6:58:49 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
Hi there Col, long time no see.

Regarding 'dead end jobs' Let me share a little personal anecdote from this weekend. I went on a mens retreat at Marysville, with guys from my fellowship.
One of them, is a very quite guy, overweight, not terribly smart, and has worked as a process worker, but not has kind of found his niche as a bus driver. Pretty good pay, and cannot be outsourced to Asia ... I would personally regard such a job as a 'dead end' job.
But he is quite happy, and it fits his personality/skill level.

Many people don't need more than this. But life becomes more meaningful when they can interact with all socio economic levels without being 'locked' into a social level due to their work. This is what Christ tought a lot about.

The only things I'd change in IR are

1/ Absolutely ZERO intimidation or 'not ticket no start' bully tactics. Hard Jail time for anyone intimidating employers/suppliers or causing damage or threatening (the Johnson tiles effort was a disgrace to humanity)

2/ Unfair dismissal to be modified to make it fair to both sides in balance. (which it is not at present)

I think people could already reason with their employers to be paid for untaken tea/lunch breaks or annual leave if they wanted to.

If the reforms are perceived as an attack on collective bargaining, it would only be due to the rampant corruption and standover tactics used by brutes in the union movement who care more about power and their own job security than workers living standards.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 23 October 2005 8:51:59 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
It is an interesting article, but with one flaw, the man who wrote it knows a lot about economics but little about surviving on the minmum wage. It is sad that all policy and the vast amount of analysis is done by those of us on good incomes and comfortable lives.
I wonder how a single working mother would respond if she had the time or energy to bother reading this article. I often think the people most effected in IR are those least consulted. I think Mr Gruen needs to really look at the true face of what reductions in incomes means. Belt tightening indeed!! How tight can a belt go?

It strikes me that this is little more then an arguement for a race to the bottom. Lets see who can get the poorest working class to do all the work. I feel like all the progress of 100 years is being washed away, slowly but surely the little benefits working people get, overtime and public holidays, are being degraded. There is no point claiming that they won`t go, because most minimum wage earners are in the baseline service industry who like to be open public holidays and weekends. Ofcourse it is covered in a very reasonable guise. The arguement is very netural on the surface and easy to read but still made the line for the changes that much more compellingly. I admire the writing and the logic but at the same time humanity is not about logic.Appling logic to human life will end in tears, for those least able to defend themself`ves.
However i am not convinced racing to the bottom is a true success strategy for Australia.
Posted by mattie, Sunday, 23 October 2005 10:37:42 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 is a very short fuse in operation here.

This country has done very well over the past fifty-odd years coming to terms with the world economy. With the progress being made in the countries to our north, this is a profile that is in the process of changing, with none of those changes to our advantage.

Compared to China, the Philippines, Malaysia etc. we are vastly overpaying our work force. It is no use complaining or asking for protection, because we rely as much on those countries for our apparent prosperity (i.e. our ability to buy cheap goods, and thereby stretch the household budget) as we hold them responsible for undermining our industrial base. Such as it is.

The point that most socialist idealists forget is that money has to be earned before it can be spent. Industries that cannot pay their way in the world cannot survive in an open economy, and it is the open economy that has given us such prosperity that we enjoy right now. The alternative to an open economy is a closed one, where we produce only for ourselves, and forego the risks and rewards of international trade. Which is utterly and completely impractical, and no government would contemplate it.

Sadly, our government hasn't the faintest inkling of what is needed and what it takes to run a business, and unfortunately they apply this same skills vacuum to the economy as a whole.

This present waste-of-space battle is typical, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The entire exercise is designed to give the impression of dynamic activity, when in reality it will have no more impact on our ability to do business with the rest of the world than a tuppeny bunger on cracker night.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 24 October 2005 12:52:44 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 irony of reading an article and posts about IR changes and having an advertising banner that stinks of Liberal Corporatism beam from above - Workchoices!

John Howard lost touch with this voter so long ago and I have only been on the electorate for 10 years - my whole voting life thus far has been marred by a Mr Sheen look-a-like. He might be doing the cleaning but he is just not getting out the stains.

Passing bills through parliament with haste is completely irresponsible and how would the "little boys club" respond if the shoe was on the other foot?!

My helplessness is overwhelming!
Posted by Natsu, Monday, 24 October 2005 5:31:42 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 see David Boaz is still preaching the gospel, however he is an employer, and knows nothing of the stress employees face when confronted with an AWA, yes I think the average employee would love to work for less money, or sell their conditions at the rate the employer wants to pay for them, that way the intimidation starts at the interview, not the next day at work. How does David think employees feel about hard won conditions being sacrificed for a pittance, and what happens to our "family time" when employeers tell us to work on Saturday and Sunday? To be fair David may not be an unscrupulous employer, however there are plenty who are, I have worked for a few of them, and if it were not for belonging to a Union one of my employer's would have gotten away with underpaying me by $750.00 which at the time was a lot of money. Is it true that it is harder for a rich man to get into the kingdom of God, than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, because there will be a lot of employer's getting rich from this law, of course as we get poorer
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 24 October 2005 10:47:52 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
Based on personal experience, I trust unions and employers to roughly the same degree. Neither of them are the least bit concerned about those who do not have jobs.
Posted by Ian, Tuesday, 25 October 2005 2:24:20 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
Ian, you are quite right, the unions can't help you until you have a job, only the employers can give you a job. However most businesses I have worked for are understaffed, and should hire more people, but take the easy option and work their workers into an early grave, with the workload they expect one person to do. These same people are supposed to be reasonable well adjusted human beings when you sit down with them to sign their AWA. I have news for you mate these laws make it even easier for the employeer to exploit the unemployed.So if you want to be exploited, work for a pittance, sacrifice all the conditions the A.C.T.U has won for the workforce over the last 100 years,and remain unemployed, I'd suggest you vote for Howard again, honest John {bonsai} Howard, bonsai is a little Bush
Posted by SHONGA, Tuesday, 25 October 2005 1:50:15 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
Shonga,

The ACTU is only 78 years old.

Regards,
Terje.
Posted by Terje, Wednesday, 26 October 2005 6:21:06 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
Terje, do you have an arguement, or are you just nitpicking, if you find my arguement difficult to understand, just replace 100 with 78 and that should do it for you, good luck, by your comment, you may need it. If you have something constructive to add to the debate, I would certainly like to hear it.
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 26 October 2005 1:13:16 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
Gruen has a limited perspective on what it means to be relegated to low paid jobs, or no job at all. If you don't fit the 'profile' of what employers demand as potential employees - if you are over 50 or have minor disabilities which exclude you from performing previous skills, then you are denied access to the paid workforce in anything like equitable conditions. Thus we become permanent liabilities on the State.

His "better ways" of managing unemployment evade the reality that no person chooses their parents, and therefore no one chooses to be less capable, less active, less intelligent, less charismatic, or less able to embellish their desirable attributes than others. Governments should be required to ensure everyone who is capable of useful work has the means of acquiring work within their capacities.

The answer is to make the people who have power to affect other peoples' employment prospects feel the affects of their decisions.
If wealthy individuals and corporations were required to pay a surtax based on a specified level of poverty within a community, then they would be less inclined to sack employees to increase shot term profit, and consider long term interests by taking on apprentices and other less skilled personel.
But of course this wont happen while governments represent the wealthy people and companies who pay for their election, rather than representing the people who are forced to vote for them.
Posted by Nous, Wednesday, 26 October 2005 1:34:30 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 latest situation is that an unemployed person has no choice but to accept a position, regardless of whether they offer only an individual contract or not. This makes a mockery of the suggestion that if the person does not lie the offer they may refuse to take the position. Or is possible that any unemployed school leaver is capable of reaching a fair contractual agreement with an employer, with no possibility of being able to refuse the offer of any position.

This tends to suggest that not only is the contract unfair, but with the potential for losing Centrelink support being the result of exercising the employee's only bargaining chip, these contracts would be demonstrably unconscionable. No contract is binding if one side of the agreement may coerce the other into agreement, however in this instance, that is exactly what can, and invariably will occur.

Additionally, there is no way the proposed small-business exemption from either redundancy pay or unfair dismissal will be held to be a valid use of the corporations power. This is because not all business' employing 0-15/0-20 or 0-100 employees are incorporated. The High Court has held that it is not 'sufficient to identify corporations in order to affect others (Re Dingjan; Ex parte McNally).
Posted by Aaron, Thursday, 27 October 2005 5:30:46 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
These changes will do the following things

Shift more wealth away from middle and low income Australians to the high end of town. This will eventually create a two class system instead of three, therefore making the ladder harder to climb.

Have people working more hours to the neglect of family, having a major impact on relationships and increase family law court hearings.

Increase crime due to more people living on the poverty line (in line with what happened in the US)

Further increase exploitation of the young and people of none English speaking background.

People will resort to stealing other employees payslips to see how much they are on. This will create must angst and unrest in the workplace. How many times do you hear on the news of a shooting in the workplace in the US?

Howard knows he has people against the wall with the population currently in debt more than ever thereby rendering them unable to fight these laws. You can be fined for going on strike while corporate greed is on the increase. These laws are immoral, unjust and would have many people who fought in 2 world wars for this country turning in there graves. Australia used to be unique and gave everyone a fair go and that’s what made this country special. We need to be innovative like some of the smaller European countries and not try to compete with low paid countries.
Posted by MechEngineer, Friday, 28 October 2005 9:26:11 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
Gruen says that the most reliable statistics say that full time employment is one third of previous levels. The only workers protected by the proposed IR legislation are full-time employees. Casual employees will be exposed to the arbitary conditions imposed by AWA's.

AWA's, for those of you who haven't already had the pleasure are secretive and offer no protection to the employee from abuse.

Another disturbing aspect of the new legislation is that hiring employees will become more complex for small employers.

Already small employers are supposed to offer their employees a choice of super fund, but if you have looked at the required paperwork you will realise that its beyond the capacity of most accountants.

Most small businesses will be daunted by the prospect of reaching individual agreements with each employee and will either cease to hire or engage a labour hire company like ADDECO to hire workers on their behalf for the length of the contract.

Well done Mr Howard for supporting multinational big business yet again.
Posted by sand between my toes, Friday, 28 October 2005 10:02:39 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
As MechEngineer stated a fair go is now not available.
Fairgo,RIP.
Posted by ant, Saturday, 29 October 2005 2:30:09 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
Apart from Greens, Democrats and Family First are there any other Political Parties in Opposition?

We used to have a Labor Party, it must have been completely snuffed out at the last election? Otherwise, the only other conclusion is that Labor is totally in accord wih the Coalition Government.

One would have thought that IR is an issue Labor would be arguing hard and fast about.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 30 October 2005 11:08:06 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
Can anyone truely think the ALP is runing dead on this issue?
Then its time to come out of the cave,just read all threads on this issue and see its split the country.
Really? just wait and see how very much it has split us in 2 years.
Howards place in history is asured he miss used his present from Latham the senate control to harm our country not help it.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 4:41:44 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