If the system will act as you suggest, won't it benefit the unemployed and pensioners? Anything that cuts penalty rates and keeps inflation down is good for retirees. From time to time retirees have to take a cut in living standards when interest rates are reduced, so why is it unacceptable for the workers to take a cut sometimes? It is obvious to any thinking person that due to the end of the age of cheap oil, living standards for workers must decline over the next few years. This new system should achieve this necessary decline without the angst that would be inevitable under the present system.

And I love the ads on TV at the moment that we're paying for, telling us what rights we still have.

Oh cool, we still have that right! That's cool of them. Oh, we still have that one too? Great, thanks for letting us know! Isn't it great how the government is spending our money in order to let us know that we still have some rights left? What a great country!

To me these ads are the exceptions that test the rule. If they have to explicitely mention these rights, it suggests there are other ones they are not mentioning. Otherwise, they would just say: 'You still have all the rights you previously did!' But they obviously can't do that. Instead they say: 'You still have this right and that right!' Well, clearly it's all fine then! I'm sure that brochure you're offering out is completely unbiased, too.

And isn't it great that in a corporate world so reliant on advertising and marketing, that the biggest spender on advertisements in the country is our government. Can anyone else think of a better way to spend our tax dollars? I didn't think so. Everythings fine the way it is. Except for whatever change they're advertising of course.

What is so bloody sacred about Sundays - try working as a journalist - you actually have to work Sundays and there is only a 20 per cent penalty - not double time.

The same with public holidays. But it is a trade off for other things.

There are lots of jobs where weekend work is required. We live in a secular society you know (separation of Church and State) so the sabbath is no longer sacred. Very few people use it for going to church.

Why should a small business owner have to pay double time on Sundays to a student who can only work on Sundays because of studies. Surely 100 bucks a day is better than nothing. Or better yet, the business can hire two people rather than pay double time.

There is nothing wrong with negotiating - I have worked four ten hour days before rather than five 8 hour days because it meant I got an extra day with the kids. some people might want to spread there work over six days.

These reforms are not the end of the world.

t.u.s.

See Comment #3 in "Not Radical Change" by Mike Nahan (above).

True there is nothing wrong with working Sundays - provided you get some other day off when your kids are home from school so you actually get to see them.
I think that's what people are scared of with these new reforms - that the ones with all the power (employers, high-end employees such as CEOs, MDs etc) in order to ensure their own family life continues uninterrupted, can dictate to others when they work without giving them the same consideration. And honestly tell me that the business owner is going to work a Sunday so his cashier can have the weekend off?

Even given the cost of filling a position, P, if you can then force more work for less pay after the initial outlay I can't see the problems for employers really?
Even the same productivity without meal allowance, shoe allowance, leave loading, or whatever is protected in the current award which won't necessarily be included (almost certainly WON'T be included as the employer is likely to write an AWA which suits them....then just force you to 'take it or leave it') in the new system, is a cost saver long term.
I wouldn't be so sure that the ones who elect to 'leave it' won't be replaced in a heartbeat by scab labour who WILL work for a bowl of rice and a rotten fish.

I can't see any other option - why pay more than you have to? That would be foolish fiscal policy and you'd have some 'splainin to do to the shareholders as to why they could only afford ONE Mercedes this year and no yacht!

The assumption all the scaremongering is based on is human greed - I think it's a pretty safe assumption!
Ever heard the old saying "...and that's how they stay rich!" ? Never more true.

Newsroo, if you seriously think small business owners or CEOs and managers are working just 38 hours a week, you have no idea and it is probably not worth trying to debate.

Your average small business owner spends at least 60 hours a week running their business - this included doing the books at night when the shop is not open and working weekends in many cases. and that doesn't include the time it takes to recruit new staff, as Perseus alluded to.

As for high level executives - it is not all golf and luncheons, they work very hard. You would probably consider my father a high level executive but he works damn hard. at least 10 hours monday to friday, plus work from home on the weekends and he still finds time to serve on P and C associations and be president of a football club and look after his four kids.

Even working in middle management roles there is work you do at home which is not even paid for, let alone given penalties.

Greed works for both employers and employees - the minimum wage is adequate to live off with shelter and food and clothing, its the extras people want such as the DVDs and TVs which makes it harder to budget.
At least small business people have put up the capital and taken a risk to feed their greed in addition to the mammoth hours they put in.
And young people, as unfortunate as it is, have only got their labour to offer - how can you expect to demand high wages and terrific conditions when you have no skills, no experience and no qualifications. They may start on the minimum but hard work will earn them trust, give them experience and let them prove themselves in the long run.

You have to start somewhere - very few people walk straight into there dream job on $100,000 straight out of high school. The new changes are incentive to work hard and not to waste opportunities such as education and training.

t.u.s.

The usual suspect. Cheerio to your dad. What sort of decent society wants to go backwards. Australia used to believe in a fair share of its wealth to its workers. GDP up by how many BILLION? Check it out before you bore us with tales of your Pop. Congrats to the Lead articles author, sharp succint and chillingly accurate. Will we see workers resort to industrial terrorism? How tragic after 100 years of cooperation. However when someone is backed into a corner with no where else to go ............

Well I could be worse, like having to migrate to China to find employment for let’s say $2.50 a day, hmmm, and when money in the land of Milk and Honey grows on trees, then we all can be happy, It’s not the end of the world, after all In China Getting Fired means Getting fired. Employers are talking about productivity,”Competitiveness”
It would help people if the State Government would reform Taxation and Workers compensation rip off, and Federal Government over hall the Tax System, and Income tax system to something more palatable. Not just the work place needing reform, Government overhang and Control are a great burden. Remember what you earn is a small portion of what the Government takes from you and do not forget your employer, the Tax nightmare is unbearable.

From a retired old cockie, who has never worked for a boss in his adult life, except for a bush bank manager, but who has acquired a post-grad in history, politics, and macro-economics in his retirement. Favourite politician - Black Jack McEwen - Australian Country Party.

Now this particular article does not directly concern our present IR problems in Australia, but does appear to give an insight into a certain doctrine that has caused France and Germany to vote against the Anglo-American neo-liberal model in regard to the Maastricht Treaty and its industrial relations. From a political philosophical point of view, according to the lecturer-writer, John M Legge, although the neo-liberal model has proved to achieve very low unemployment, it does so through low comparative wages, lousy working conditions, poor public services and in the case of the USA, appalling public health care. But the most interesting point is, that even with all the extra employment, America cannot match the productivity of France and Germany which is attained with higher wages, and though undoubtedly more unemployment and the necessary social welfare, apparently the bond between employer and worker is much healthier netting the higher production.

Where wages are high, accordingly we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious than when they are low. Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations.
.
The article by John M Legge is in the academic-based magazine “Dissent” recommended by the Murdoch School of Humanities, Murdoch - Western Australia.

"But the most interesting point is, that even with all the extra employment, America cannot match the productivity of France and Germany which is attained with higher wages, and though undoubtedly more unemployment and the necessary social welfare, apparently the bond between employer and worker is much healthier netting the higher production."

Can you point to this study which indicates that productivity in France and Germany is higher than in the US, or did you simply (as we all suspected) pull it out of your arse?

For those who actually like to look at facts, here is the ranking of productivity for OECD countries. Germany doesn't even make the top 10.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_ove_pro_ppp∫=-1&id=OECD

And for the real measure of how well off people in all the countries are, this is the stat that matters: Purchasing Power Parity per capita.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_ppp_cap&int=-1&id=OECD

Once again, United States wins (discounting Luxembourg which is a tax haven with extremely small population), and Australia is stuck in the mid-teens with bushbred's favourites France and Germany. Presumably that's where he'd like us to stay?

Great, Online Opinion's html processor stripped the URLs. I guess you'll have to go to NationMaster and look it up yourselves:

http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

Part One:
T.U.S, I have to concede some points to you – I do agree that people are living beyond their means in a desperate attempt to keep up with (what the media informs us is…) the Jones’ … the problem is – isn’t that what the Government, the Nation and Big Business wants? To have a consumer mad population armpit-deep in debt? What if people suddenly came to their senses tomorrow and stopped consuming – what then? Would Big Business have to raise the price of goods to cover less consumption? Would they ‘streamline’ their staff?

Both of these are likely outcomes and don’t help the working man any more than the proposed changes.
Note that the profit margin would be the last thing to suffer.

I don’t know what your experiences are, but my personal observation is that the golf and luncheon type of management is much more common than the other type – maybe you’re thinking of very small family run businesses, that is, the ones that are left after the implementation of GST…. But I digress – they made a choice to own a business – how hard they work directly impacts their own hip pocket. Employees have no such motivation to work for the company except wages and conditions – the very things we are watching slip away. Or should everyone be making a united effort to make business owners rich out of the goodness of their hearts?

These changes are out of the HR NIcholls Society book of human resource management - penalty rates and most loadings a really put in place to inflate the basic wage of the low paid - because the basic wage is not, as one poster glibly adds, enough to live on.

And yes it is true the relevance of weekend work and public holidays has diminished but not nearly as much as some might think; We remain a weekend-centric society still.

I am still waiting for the proof to support the assertions Howard and Andrews are sprouting.Better boys and girls than me have refuted with some authority what they speak is littel more than propaganda - but hey why worry about the facts when you can shift power to your mates?

How many family men will cash out annual leave without consulting their family? And for how long will be sunning ourselves in a "sellers market" with workers apparently having the whip hand - the take it or leave it option is just around the corner when it comes to employment and rates of pay.

And please spare me the crap about how hard Managers and CEOs work; epidemiological studies tell the higher up the food chain you are the healthier you are - the rewards are enormous, financially physically and mentally; part of the reason is you have choice, you can engage in discretionary activites whether it entail hard work or not, you work with minimal supervision - it aint as hard as most people think; certainly no harder than some one working on the shop floor with limited control over when they start work, how fast they have to work or having to put up with some dog monitoring your every move - Ive been a senior manager and ceo over a decade - so dont piss down my back and tell me its raining.

These changes are aimed at profit taking - since old Barnaby Joyce has shown some nuits over the recent Senate Bill on competition I might write him a letter -

Part Two:
And I do realise that’s what the unfair dismissal thing concerns – small businesses – but as Mahatmaduck mentions (either in this thread or the neighbouring one on the same topic) what’s to stop large companies from dividing into several subsidiaries, only employing less than a hundred employees each? Nothing – and seeing as some companies already do this for other reasons (tax etc) I can’t see why they wouldn’t ‘protect’ themselves from having to be fair about dismissal.

Besides anything – you are basing the ‘hard work = success’ idea on a level playing field which you know it is not (not just formal education either – it makes a huge difference to your management of money how your parents dealt with the same…) and also the presumption that we could function as a society without SOMEONE to do that hard, dirty, lowly paid work (and be grateful for it! Why do you need decent conditions?! Work harder!!).
There will always be a need for people at the bottom far more than people at the top – no matter HOW hard you work, or for how long.

Honestly – I can’t see the ones at the top sending their kids to start on $5.15 an hour because that’s what people with no skills should be happy with.
That’s only for POOR people with no skills….ahhhh…..now we’re on the same page.
I can see some creative replacement going on at Daddy’s work when Jnr finishes school…..then the person Jnr replaced can go work for $5.15 an hour, regardless of skill level – for without any ‘connections’ that will be the lot of the average worker.
Merit is really not rewarded as frequently as you seem to think. And blood is WAY thicker than Workers….pardon the pun.

So in all - what you’re saying is that we shouldn’t strive for a better standard of living for all – just a better standard of living for the rich.
Or in other words “Let them eat cake!”….

No Newsroo, what you are saying is that just because some people are poor, no-one can strive to be rich.

And just because some people who work hard don't become successful doesn't mean no-one should be successful. Hard work doesn't always equal success but success is hard to come by without hard work.

Of course there is no such thing as a level playing field, but you don't begrudge people who make the most of what they have got. The best businesses can do is provide jobs for people so they can provide for their family.

Who cares if a father gives his son a job - you would do it for your family wouldn't you. In fact your sole job as parent is to make sure your kids get the best possible start to life.

Golf and luncheon types are common heh. not among the small business people I know, they barely get time to watch the golf or eat a sanga on the run.

And even if they did have the time - they would need to have very good trustworthy staff to look after the business while they were out. Wouldn't want to sack those people on a whim would you.

And don't talk to me about dirty, low paid jobs. I used to get up at 3.30 in the morning to go clean supermarkets for less than 10 bucks an hour. It was better than no job though and I'm glad that the somebody who did it was me. (I even bought some uni textbooks with my wage because that evil Government wouldn't give me everything on a platter and the student union had stolen $400 from me.)

PS: Don't drop chewing gum on a supermarket floor - it is a pain in the arse to scrape off

t.u.s.

Plerdsus, where did you learn your downward envy? Is it not equally possible for employers to reduce profits and employ more? Do you think it may be possible for a Federal Govt. sitting on a $13Billion surplus to boost pensions? This notion that the working poor are keeping the unemployed out of work by recieving subsistence level minimum wages is drivel.This whole IR strategy is about boosting profit at the expense of the great unwashed. If you support that strategy i support your right to say so. Please be honest about it and dont pretend its for the benefit of societys unfortunates.

Surveys of both employers and employees have consistently shown that money was not their primary motivation. Each "side" consistently assumes that the other is primarily motivated by greed but neither proves to be the case. Over more than 15 years of recruiting and headhunting at all levels from GM to gofer, the key motivations have rarely been money. Yet, during that time I never placed a single person on an award wage. Every one of them was paid more than the award.

Most employers will start out in the hope that they can recruit an over qualified person who will work for peanuts but the closer they get to making a decision, the closer they get to reconciling their needs with the needs and aspirations of the candidates. And when faced with the choice between a brilliant performer with eyes on the prize, and a solid contributor who will still be there in three years time, they will usually opt for the safe and sure. They also soon learn the folley of trying to get silk purses out of sows ears.

Business is all about risk and return. Excessive greed attracts excessive risk and both employers and employees really seek value for money. These people who seek to understand this reform by placing it in an overarching context of rampant greed are merely broadcasting the extent of their lack of engagement with the real world. Get a job.

Perseus--Recruiting eh! The vital middle man. I suggest you get a job. Preferably in a hot Foundry at 10 bucks an hour.

A slur on middlemen, Hedghog? No-one ever accepted a job from me unless they were certain that they knew more about the job than any other job on offer and they were satisfied that it was the best opportunity available. No employer ever hired a candidate from me unless they were certain that they understood more about that candidate than any other candidate available and they were satisfied that my candidate would provide the best mix of skills, abilities and productivity.

I only ever got paid when the best candidate was matched to the best job oppotunity. Often the best person wasn't even looking and the best job wasn't even advertised. Some started in under-paid jobs and went on to become Partners. I was paid a small portion of the value added to both parties over the length of their relationship. I was paid well. I retired (to a manual job of my choosing) at age 45.

Perseus, Oppotunity? Quit whilst your behind,slave trader.

I have been watching the arm wrestling over the Governments new IR changes with great amusement and with some serious study, as I am interested generally in the health of the Australian work place (being part of it!). Little discussion has been had about the concepts of the open job market, driven by the market forces of supply and demand. Surely skill shortage is a product of previous low wages and conditions which resulted in few entrants to the teaching and learning of that skill. The shortage provides a competitive job market for that skill and up goes wages and conditions in an attempt to capture that skill more effectively. OK that’s the perfect world for sure, and I would agree other factor come into play (like emerging and vanishing job types), but what will happen now, when the Howard Government allows skilled over-seas workers to be fast tracked through our immigration system and released into the Australian industrial landscape? Is that not counter to the Liberal mantra of free and open market competition? Now when we have a high demand for our skills, we will have no corresponding swing of the salaries and conditions pendulum.

Some posters are so remote from reality it hurts,like the comment that says fixed income and pensioners will be better of if workers take a wage hit?
Surely that is quite wrong and far from the obvious its author claims.
Today John Howard a man never to proud to lie , in the house said Paris riots proved the need for IR reform in Australia!
It in fact pionts to our future after a large pool of cheap labour/ unemployed has been created by this bill.
We once thought world trade would reduce povity in the third world, some now wish to import it to Australia and say we will be better of for it.
We are each able to have a view ,few however have the dignety to remember the times they got it wrong Howard will remind some far to often in the next few years.