As far as IR policy is concerned, the coalition has been waiting for FWA's chickens to hatch.

With the union thuggery at Grocon with the FWA impotent to act, the FWA's incompetent action on the HSU and Thomson, and the record spike in work days lost to strike action, it is becoming clear to all that the Labor government has serious IR issues.

To sell changes in policy to the public, a clear reason to do so is a big help. As the reasons become apparent, Labor's argument for maintaining the status quo start to look more ideological than in Australia's interest.

People can't have it both ways.

On the one hand, labor keeps telling us how clever they are and, how low our unemployment is.

So, what's there to worry about with ind agreements?

Let's face it, with so many jobs out there for the taking, (there must be as unemployment is s-ooo low), any GOOD WORKER would simply tell a dodgy boss to go FYS, should he/ she be offered anything but a fair wage.

So, what is it, are we in great shape, as Mr Swan and CO continue to tell us, or, is this simply another lie.

BTW, if a not so good worker wants a fair days pay, for a poor days work, then how does that work.

remember, they can't have it both ways.

What nonsense to equate free individual agreements with the interests of big business!

Laws that forbid individuals to enter agreements as they please are an insult and hurt the so-called "employee" at least as much as they hurt the so-called "employer". What we are having is two individuals in agreement, and the government intruding into their personal relations. That is unacceptable!

As for big business, true, both Labor and Liberals support them, at the expense of ordinary people, tax-payers and small businesses - and that has to stop (but not at the expense of forbidding individuals to make whatever agreements between them as they see fit).

I think we need a new version of Godwin's Law (which says that the first person to liken someone to a Nazi loses the argument) to embrace discussion on industrial relations. The first person to introduce the term "Union thuggery" and/or "Craig Thompson" loses the game! Ooops! That probably coumts me out!

Yuyutsu, while I agree that governments from both sides favor big business over small, the reality is that the PEOPLE have the power to stop big business, we, myself included, simply choose not to. And thats a shame, but they have simply become too convenient by half.

We've always had common law agreements, which allowed employers to offer individual agreements that stood the no disadvantage test.
We could even trade away, so called unfair dismissals, for far higher, if limited, unemployment benefits?
Albeit, those benefits could impose an entirely inflexible learn or earn responsibility on the able, where the taxpaying community was able to realize some tangible return for their largesse?
My preferred model, would include work for the dole schemes that obliged the able-bodied, to give one months labour in return for two months worth of "average wage" support.
This would get them into the habit or rising early and arriving at the designated location at the predetermined time, ready and dressed for work! It would also include time to apply for available jobs or consider/opt for relocation?
Work for the dole, could include grubbing out and burning noxious weeds, planting trees, or hand placed rock work, designed to remediate erosion, or repair roads, etc/etc.
If they wanted to avoid that drudgery, they could attend courses and pass meaningful exams, that would re-skill/accredit them for real jobs.
Such schemes would self terminate at the end of say, six/twelve months. But could be large enough to encourage employers not to be too choosy or "discriminatory", by limiting the then available workforce or labour pool.
The ability to dismiss any genuinely unsatisfactory worker, without penalty, would encourage employers to take on and give more partly qualified useful productive workers a go; and finish training them, honing their new skills, on the job.
[Repealing payroll tax would also assist in that outcome!]
Some of those jobs could also fit in with obligatory work for the dole schemes, for mature age/adult workers?
I agree, Abbott needs to get on the front foot and flesh out his workplace policies ASAP, if only to hose down work choices flummery?
This scheme would all but pay for itself, with more people added to the tax paying pool and increased discretionary spending demographic, that would surely follow!
Rhrosty.

Any government, Labour or Liberal could end unemployment caused by discrimination
against the aged tomorrow. All they have to do is divide 30% of full- time government jobs
up into part-time jobs shared by those over 50 or 60years. They don’t do that do they,
Why? Because they, like every other private employer are just as reluctant to employee the
aged.

Campbell Newman is busy cutting 20,000 government jobs in Queensland. He has included
Nurses in the job losses. Just looking at some of the nurses protesting on TV the other night
I noticed quite a few aged nurses, I bet they are the ones in Campbell Newman’s firing line,
not the young ones. It is the way of nature to abandon the old and the sick, the human species
Is no different.

The Liberal Party only ever has two policies over all the decades I have observed them in power. That is, cut services like Doctors and every other service they possibly can in the guise of balancing the budget , and the second policy is always to try to shift as much income from the workers back to the employers. Hence work choices.

The Labour Party always wants to save the rest of the world with their Utopian Hippy ideological crap that they learn at University and gladly hand out billions to people in other countries whilst not caring two hoots about people suffering in Australia. The labour party however, is still a better friend to the Australian Working people than the Liberals will ever be.

There is one reality - the Fair Work Act and Fair Work Australia are nothing short of a joke, a ridiculous, flawed, inept joke, and yet Labor is sticking to these like flies on rotten cheese. The Coalition had a workable (though imperfect) system in Work Choices, and when and if they regain government they will at least have the guts to make the necessary, and pressing, required changes to our IR system.

Whether some observers like it or not, an effective business environment means more and better jobs, lower unemployment, greater security of employment, and a better quality of life for the whole of our society. Bight business, and you shoot yourself in the foot. And, business means investment, and investment requires a return to remain viable. Workplace Relations then means conciliation, compromise and fairness in the interests of all concerned. FWA is however biased, as well as fundamentally inept, and as long as it remains all will suffer the consequences.

Abbott may play his cards close to his chest, but before the next election he and the Coalition may be relied upon to put their proposals for IR reform to the electorate, and it will then be up to the electorate to either give them the mandate, or to choose to suffer more IR debacle and job losses from the Union-driven Labor mismanagers.

The only ones who are deeply opposed to a work choices style of IR are poor workers, or, those busy bodies who can't stay out of another's business.

Cause let's face it, when there are plenty of jobs on offer, as there were pre FWA, a good worker did not work for peanuts.

Now we all felt that the GFC was goimg to surface, yet, despite the warnings, labor still took an axe to IR leading into this period of uncertainty, something that simply should not have happened, as uncertain times call for more flexibility in IR, rather than less.

Then, once the main hit from the GFC was over, labor decided it was time to reward all those workers, who had endured tough times, with pay rises.

Forget about the many bosses who either increased borrowing, sold assetts, or both, simply to stay afloat.

No, these workers had suffered enough they said.

Then came the loss in confidence, again, the warnings were ignored.

You see people will only spend money liberally, when they know they can replace it.

Job security is ome such example, and now, thanks to labor, that's gone, as even the wheels of mining sector are starting to wobble, something that was unheard of three years ago.

Well done labor, you got your wish, so now what.

The downturn is a comeback to reality. It's a long stick to blame Labor for what goes on in China. Abbott wants a return to the Golden Years as he calls it, and work choices are very much part of that.

......and work choices are very much part of that.

And the country boomed!

The country boomed for all the wrong reasons,
Mr Abbott has woman issues going back years, and won't admit it.
Religious overtones, and suppressive agenda. Mr Abbott would not govern; for all people.
CN in QLD is an example of a suppressant, says one thing before an election and does something different after. It's all to do with power.
Keep the people under powered, and you can do what you like.
The noalition have one spokesperson, sounds familiar doesn't it.

Rehctub-<the country boomed under the Liberals>.
The Liberals presided for years over the shonky Banking System that collapsed and sent the world into GFC meltdown about 3months after Labour gained office.

The Capitalist banking system then required a Socialist bail out by the Taxpayers of Australia.
We live in a Democracy. Which means Government for Demos- the people as a whole.
This means the government does not just pander to the Capitalists or the Socialists but keeps a reasoned control on both for the good of the nation as a whole. They failed to keep this reign
On the Capitalist bankers and put the whole economic future of the people of Australia at risk.

It was the Labour party who gave us Medicare, which successive Liberal governments not only scrapped once, but tried to scrap again as an election platform, but it was too popular by then for them to do it. The Liberals also opposed Superannuation, this again was another Labour Party Innovation. What community beneficial policies can you think of that the Liberals have ever bought in except maybe the GST and Work Choices. The benefits of which a both dubious.

579....says one thing before an election and does something different after

I guess something along the limes of the carbon tax is what you are saying hey.

Unfortunately, CN has no choice other than to rid the public service of lots of dead wood. Unfortunately, some good people will be caught up in the clean out.

At the end of the day he is trying to unwind the mess created by labor's twenty odd years of reckless governing.

If he succeeds, he will be a hero, if he fails, we will still win as many of this dead wood he would have sacked is protected under labor's IR laws.

CHERFUL
What the libs provide is confidence and it is confidence that drives the nation, not borrowing in an attempt to keep the wheels turning.

I also recall they had a pretty workable boat people policy.

Although work choices didn't effect me, it went too far, according to the masses but so to has FWA, what we need is middle ground.

As for the GFC, few can deny what a task it was for labor, especially given their lack of experience, however, it was looming well before labor took an axe to IR.

As I have said before, uncertain times are not the times for change and, not only did they change IR, but they also changed our boarder protection policy, and the results speak for themselves.

Individual workplace agreements by whatever name are a technique to undermine collective agreements and union influence. Negotiation between and individual employee and a corporate employer is not a fair one - the power really resides with the employer.

If you want good performing teams you need reward teams not individual workers. You want a championship team not a team of champions.

In my last job there were individual workplace agreements but they had to be all the same!

However I was keen to have my own agreement to reduce my unpaid work. I worked a lot of excess hours and I could by giving up a 1 week of annual leave for an extra weeks pay. This meant that I could be paid for the extra work without losing any time off (just substituted extra hours for accepted flexible hours then took days off which compensated for the loss of annual leave). Even though this was a win-win for me it was frowned upon by the union.

My choice was to enter an individual agreement (which had to be the same for each level) or stick with an enterprise agreement (negotiated by the union) which didnt allow much optional flexibility. Neither the the union nor the employers were operating in the spirit of the WRA and consequently very little addressed the matter of productivity of the enterprise.

I am not in favour of individual agreements I favour flexible enterprise agreements.

The problem with collective agreements are that they are a one size fits all approach, whereas AWAs have the potential to be abused.

The combination of both is where conditions between employer and employee can be negotiated to the benefit of both, with the fall back to the EBA if no agreement can be reached.

We used exactly this scheme very effectively, and when the AWAs were prohibited under FWA, the workers were the most annoyed.

If you want proof of how bad the FWA system has worked, just look at the sackings, (non gov) the union interference and the number of under employed.

People must be able to work under conditions that suit them, not the unions.

Remember that under the previous regime if you have any problem with such agreements, "you can always bring your mum in to negotiate for you".

"On the one hand, labor keeps telling us how clever they are and, how low our unemployment is.

So, what's there to worry about with ind agreements?
(On the other hand, why even bother with agreements - same argument?)

Let's face it, with so many jobs out there for the taking, (there must be as unemployment is s-ooo low), any GOOD WORKER would simply tell a dodgy boss to go FYS, should he/ she be offered anything but a fair wage.
(Not so. Pay rates are determined by the LOWEST rate being offered, not the highest - that's how competition really works. You have to match your competitor's costs to stay in business, especially wages).

The real outcome of the last arrangement spoke for itself, as seen in the post-Workchoices election. To repeat it and expect a different result is just crazy.

Rache,

AWAs were in place long before work choices, and unemployment was lower under the coalition.