The IR changes are about maximising profits at the expense of workers. This is obvious. Howard asserts that the economy will be better off. And that the measure of any industrial relations system is its ability to improve the economy. Well, that cannot happen unless businesses make more profit. There is nothing wrong with increased profit per se, just how you go about getting it. Increased revenue? Reduction in costs? The IR changes are about the latter. It’s about moving benefits (which is a cost) from being mandatory to being negotiable. The overall effect from this is that businesses get to make more money. The current challenge we see Howard confronting is how to make it sound like it’ll be good for workers too. That’s where facts end and ideology begins. There is no evidence to suggest that the IR changes will boost wages, productivity or reduce unemployment. If there were such evidence, it would be rolled out pretty quickly. What he rolls out instead is what you see in those ads, which are just lies. If something is negotiable, then I’m sorry to say it’s not ‘protected by law’. Howard’s ideology goes something like this:

When a business makes more money, it grows. As it grows, it needs more workers so management hire more people.

This is theory. A company only hires more people when it cannot produce enough product or service to meet demand. It has nothing to do with profitability directly.

Another one is that as a company makes more money, they can afford to pay their employees more. Well, in a sense that’s true. Executive salaries have boomed in recent years. In the case of a corporation, capital is raised by shareholder investment. In order to attract and retain shareholders, it follows that shareholders must be looked after. As a CEO, try telling your shareholders at your next AGM that since the company’s profits are up by 15%, you’re giving every employee a raise instead of issuing a dividend. The fact is that companies pay employees as little as they can get away with.

There’s also the issue about removing unfair dismissal laws for businesses with less that 100 employees. This is important. The argument says that employers can confidently hire new staff without having to worry about getting stuck with them when the good times turn bad. Redundancy is already a mechanism to cater for that problem. There is no need to remove unfair dismissal laws. What this actually is designed to do is help to create a sense of job insecurity in the workplace. Creating a sense of job insecurity is an excellent way to push bargaining power further towards employers. Apart from the obvious problem with that scenario is the effect that will have on consumer spending. People tend not to spend as much if they think they might not have a job next week. If people don’t spend, companies don’t make enough money. How will companies respond? By cutting costs. Here we go again.

Re bargaining power, I read a good comment on a different forum by someone with the alias ‘bdm’ and I think he/she sums it up:

“For those that believe there will be plenty of negotiation at all workplaces, consider this - how often do you get to negotiate the terms and conditions of your banking, your mortgage, your mobile telephone, your internet access, your pay television and so forth? These are all market-driven services governed by non-negotiable contracts. Where's the evidence to suggest that every employer will offer a customised workplace contract with every employee? Far more likely is that many employers will use "standard" agreements with no negotiation possible, and the employee's only choice will be to sign it or work elsewhere.”

SHAN... I feel sorry for you.

Quote: "The IR changes are about maximising profits at the expense of workers. This is obvious"

Given the choice,
1/ A job..... which pays something.
2/ No job, and a poor country which cannot afford to pay the welfare level you would feel entitled to if point 1 applied to you..

Which would you choose ?

You began your tirade with an immediate reference to THEM/US "The evil employers and their lacky John Howard" and the "Poor victim/vulnerable workers, and their hero the Union Movement."

Have you been declared 'legally blind' due to your inability to notice the NUMEROUS factory closures and bank etc downsizings over 2005 due to OUTSOURCING to China, India, Phillipines etc etc of Vehicle parts, Call centres, and Back office functions of other corporations ?

Your portrayal of industrial relations changes in terms of some outmoded class warfare might suit your purposes, (which appear to be extremely short term and self interested and definitely not sustainable) but as a true characterization of where the rubber meets the road, it is innacurate, misguided, not representative and sounds like a rather shabby effort at simple propoganda.

To be fair, I guess I can see the 'potential' for employer abuse in some things, just as now, the unfair dismissal laws provide the potential for employee abuse.

Considering that it is the employers who actually provide the jobs, I'd rather they were the ones protected more. Abusive employers will get the message when no one wants to work for them... or.. do you not understand 2+2=4 ?

In the current global climate, the changes needed to our work ethic and lifestyle for our economic survival,are radical! I think the lack of response to this point I've rather labored is a sign of 'head in the sand/dont annoy me with reality' by those speaking from a polarized view of the situation.

Employers want 'some' profit or.. 'a' profit, and without many painful changes to our lifestyle we will not have any profit OR any jobs.

Hello BOAZ. You appear to agree more with Shan than you disagree, except on the point of a solution to our current (& future) problems with industrial employment.
I’m a manufacturing manager/engineer of the ‘progressive’ school (plastics & packaging), currently completely dismayed with what’s on offer for the Oz manufacturer. So much so that I’m changing career to the service industry. Here are my observations.
We will never compete with high vol/ labour intensive manufacturers in India/Asia while the predominantly US based multinationals are allowed to exploit the fragile Labour laws of these nations.
There is no point for Oz manufacturers to attempt to compete.
We still have our niches, & always will have. The above-mentioned cheaper mauf. Costs in Asia are balanced against transport & quality logistics & their cost. Food packaging will always be local, for example. High volume, low mass products will never be cheap to transport.
The Howard gov’t recognises the challenges Oz Manufacturers are facing. Screwing the worker is the only way it can see to keep the numbers good. The use of force, not brain is being advocated. Nearly all of the manufacturers I’ve worked for in Oz put no value in progressive planning such as R&D. We do not plan & spent for the future, unlike our competitors. ‘Self service’ & short-term planning are the attributes of local manufacturers. Face it, big boys. We need to work smarter & this will cost money. A good Oz government would be presently be attending to the employer, in all ways other than the reduction of labour costs.
The Gov’t claims that the changes forthcoming are to inprove productivity. The changes cannot affect ‘productivity’, it being a measure of worker output/hr. As a matter of fact’ countries that have been through Howards process report a fall in productivity (USA a fine example).
I find the ad at the top of this page highly annoying.
More later

Swilkie good observations ! and I fully understand your career move.
I invested in 6 acres of land at the bottom of the Dandenongs in 98 (a golf course on my back fence also)and have always had 'small scale tourist accomodation' in mind. as an alternative to small manufacturing.

The thing is, Shan does not seem to 'get' what you are saying, he still sees things as 'greedy employers' rather than global dynamics.

Sadly, your comments about lack of foresight/long term strategic planning may be right enough to make Shan also right to a degree.

If we could only humble ourselves enough to learn from the Chinese and set up 'special economic zones' my goodness, we could probably turn things around. Example. Darwin, which special guest worker status for unending supplies of Indonesian labor.

Who would fight against this ? why it would be UNIONS of course.. "We must not lower the pay and conditions of workers in Australia" bah ! what absolute unadulterated 'bs'. There is a simple choice- 'do it or die' Except for the cunning ones like you and perhaps me who have 'service' in the back or front of their long term planning.

We are also under the thumb of the Pastoralists who want to continue selling to China, and who are quite happy to sacrifice other industries to do so. - so politics also impacts here.

My company (employees 1... me :) is quite a niche effort. I can compete with the chinese made product on customer service and not too far behind on price when I put my mind to it, but man..one has to roll up ones sleeves and get right into it or fade into oblivion.
Even my chinese contacts in Singapore prefer what I make than what China offers.

I'm more concerned for the HUGE numbers of jobs IN... the support roles of major businesses.. even service industries, where everything but the hands on work here will be coming out of CyberJaya, Malaysia etc. Invoicing, Customer support, Sales.. etc

In time..social unrest... hmm lets beef up anti terror laws

May I pick up on the proposed Office of Workplace Services. I was watching one of the numerous advertisements last night (for each of the commercial stations, I estimate every second break included one of the adverts).

I was struck by the thought that the Office of Workplace Services is the government's replacement for the union. I believe the advert said it would support employees for negotiations and in unfair dismissal actions. There's a $4,000 grant available for legal action.

If this is the fundamental intention, that union's become redundant or in competition with a government institution, then this represents an expansion of government. Taxpayers will be funding services which are currently paid directly by workers and operated by workers. This is a reverse of the trend elsewhere to privatise. Here are private organisations now competing against new government services.

Has anyone worked out the overall ongoing cost to taxpayers of these reforms?

When the Liberals loose government (which must happen eventually), the opposition may respond to any deficiencies of support for employees by (a) increasing the number of standard protections, eg legislating for penalty rates on public holidays (b) expanding or empowering the Office of Workplace Services.

So I don't see this as a deregulation of industrial relations at all. My comments are speculative, but I would love to see some deeper analysis of what these reforms mean in the long-term from those with industrial relations expertise.