I am sorry Faustino,

I actually believe that the recession we had to have was a John Howard (Treasurer - Fraser Parliament) inspired and caused issue. Paul keating did instigate the micro-reforms under Bob Hawke, however only in response to the problems inherited from the inflationary pressures caused by Mr Howards mismanagement of treasury during the late 1970's.

So you look forward to a Australian Fair Pay Commission, stacked with former ACTU (etc.) leaders? I presume from your statement that our 'recession proof' economy could deal effectively with their version of how wages should be increased & when (believe me, from personal experience I am well aware of the ALP's capacity for stacking).

Please do not mistake my prsonal perspective on these reforms, however I believe that it is instructive for some of the more intransigent proponents of these changes to contemplate their capacity to cause long-term harm. i personally think that we are due for massive 'inflation' (actually inflatiion really is the increase in cash or substitutes - see record levels of personal indebtedness - credit is a cash substitute, therefore what is commonly referred to as inflation is really the symptom of what has already occurred).

Therefore to suggest that our economy is inflation proof - is a bizarre misstatement of economic reality - we will experience inflation, with the corresponding rise in interest rates - insolvency rates will increase, and property prices fall through fire sales. THIS IS A SYMPTOM OF THE INCREASE IN CASH SUBSTITUTES, AND CANNOT BE AVOIDED, merely delayed.

In response to Lyall and others, it seems to me that some of us live in a different mental galaxy to a lot of people. Globalisation is having the effect of equalising living standards around the world. This is something that I would have thought many people on the left would applaud. However what they don't seem able to realise is that equalisation means that the living standard here must be lowered towards that pertaining in China and Bangladesh, etc. Most people on the left seem to harbour the fanciful idea that equality can be achieved by raising the living standard in these countries up to near the Australian level. This is physically impossible, as the resources, particularly oil, simply do not exist to support this. Most of the increase in the oil price this year has been caused by burgeoning Chinese demand, and it won't be long before they run into a brick wall of resource limitations. Maintaining minimum wages here at the current level will simply result in more unemployment, as employers remain unable to afford to employ people at that wage. Meanwhile we continue to run a balance of payments deficit of 7% of GDP, which means that our foreign debt continues to soar. When this is eventually called in, we will really be for it. Remember that whatever else governments can do, they can't print foreign exchange.

Thanks for taking up the important point pierdsus that globalisation may well bring living standards down in Australia to enable competition with cheaper labour elsewhere. Even if labour costs in other countries rise, to the benefit of workers there, they are coming from a very low base and would have to come a very long way up to meet even lowered Australian labour costs.
Surely one of the first steps towards resolution of the problem is to lower the wages of those who can very well afford it, such as those on $60,000 A WEEK. Will the proposed Fair Pay commision do anything about the obscene levels of pay at the top end before considering reductions at the bottom end? It is Gilbertian at least to take from those who can least afford to lose anything rather than the abundantly rich.
What of social costs when mass deprivation leads to crime and social upheaval? We are all children of culture and most of the ills of the world can be associated with negative acculturation and poverty. As Martin Luther King said, "The lynch mob is never led by a happy man."
Getting the barons of industry to believe that they can get by on a mere $100,000 or so a year is a large part of the problem, but with suitable childhood conditioning and the endorsement and support of a society that respects merit rather than money, they can rejoice in a sense of self worth that is achieved without conspicuous consumption to the detriment of others.

‘… designed to protect individuals with little or no bargaining power. As the AIRC explained … “Bargaining is not a practical possibility for employees who have no bargaining power”.’

This repeated reference to some abstract mythical ‘bargaining power’ really gets me. What on earth does in mean??
If we’re talking about a job seeker’s / job offeror’s market like we talk about a buyers or sellers market then I can understand that. Sometimes there will be many applicants for one job and thus the market price of the job’s salary will be low, and alternately sometimes certain tradespeople will be in short supply and thus the salary market price will be high.

However I suspect this ‘bargaining power’ concept is different. Apparently the story goes:
When you have the humble cloth capped worker sitting alone in his overalls in the plush oak-panelled boardroom across the table from the cigar-chomping corpulent corporate leader together with his legions of industrial lawyers and negotiators, somehow our humble Alf from the assembly line doesn’t possess this magical glowing power (May the Force be with you) that is being used against him from across the table.
But what is this force?
Unless Alf is a complete numbskull, all he has to do before the meeting is check out the help wanted ads and/or employment agencies, confer with his workmates, and otherwise suss out the employment situation for his trade or any other trade he might be prepared to venture into. From all of this he will decide his bottom line.

There is no complex boardroom negotiation. If the boss says they don’t do overtime then Alf gets out his calculator and adjusts his bottom line or declares no weekend work.

Most employment contracts for the lower skilled are not for a fixed term and those that are would probably have a cooling off period anyway, so if per chance Alf gets down to the pub after signing and is told by his mates that he got screwed, he simply goes back next day to get paid more or to resign.

The lefties will have had a big surprise if they read James McConvill's article in yesterday's "The Australian".

t.u.s You are an interesting character, in your first post you say the employee should work for what they think they are worth, and in the second post, it changes to what the employer thinks the employee is worth? Is this double-dutch for, the employer will pay the employee whatever he feels like paying? It never ceases to amaze me how the lousy minimum wage is such a threat to overheads, however at the same time C.E.O's millions are not, sheer hypocrisy. Don't you think ordinary employees can see this, if you don't you are wrong, as usual. The reason only half a million people protested, on the 15th, is that others in the workforce may be subservient to the employer, however it was the largest protest in Australia's industrial history, and this does not mean that the employees that were unable to attend were not concerned with the potential loss of pay, conditions, and subsequent living standards. They may not have been able to join us in protest, but be in no doubt they will join us in the ballot box in 2007, so don't get too comfortable in the ivory tower, as you may find your advantage is a very short lived one, and the exorbident C.E.O salaries may be reigned in after the next election to return Australia to a fair and just society.