To Yobbo.

The employers you are talking about are the ones whom Adam Smith, the father of the free-market talked about as the good and honest entrepreneurs who regarded their workmen
as valuable. These were also the employers who were reasonably happy in their lot and were somewhat surprised when even their workmen suggested the boss looked like getting somewhere and he was a good sort of fella to expand, as you have suggested, Yobbo. And certainly that fella would have been paying good wages, even around the year 1780, when Smith wrote his Wealth of Nations, which also contained the simple formula about better wages maketh better and willing workers.

Thinkers like Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill also warned that the greed that was so necessary for competition, would also include the old-style entrepreneur, who regarded the workers not much better than slaves.

That is what we have our arbitration laws for, apart from necessary unions. Moreover, as an oldie who is still a bit out of touch, could one ask our gallant assembly of Posters, will the new Liberal IR plan affect or even abolish the present Arbitration system? I bloody hope not!

George C, WA - Bushbred

"Prime Minister John Howard is a conservative, as is Industrial Relations Minister Kevin Andrews. They are against change for its own sake. They are, however, also politicians who want to remain in power and know that the key to doing so is"

That is as far as I can agree with the Author of the article.
I would complete the sentence with..................................

'to serve their masters, Corporate Australia, by increasing their bottom line profits.....'

boaz: Ever thought of joining the liberal party? As the minister for the aged you could have all us weak, sick old fools & sods (who probably paid for your "education") sweeping streets and mowing nature strips. Of course Christianity says absolutely nothing about showing love and compassion eh?
In the paper this morning: quote-"Workers who were unable to renegotiate employment contracts with their bosses could look for another job" YES! this from our very caring Workplace Minister Kevin Andrews. Ah yes Kevin but of course on their reference, if they got one at all, would be perhaps "trouble maker, would not sign a workplace agreement"
Where did this minister come from, of course from his cosy position as one of howards many compliant yes people. He will never have to work again, never have to front Centre Link, with his obscene super payout.
Another quote: "You won't find it anywhere in the thousands of words in yesterday's newspaper advertisements on industrial relations. But the government wants to increase further the gap in earnings between those on high and low incomes" This by 'Mike Steketee, of the Australian.
What a loving caring government - no wonder the first people howard spoke to about this new law was the bosses and CEOs, his special, close friends.
Howard in every election has as could be said paid voters for their vote so naturally he would despise them EH! Boy it shows now. numbat

I don't understand this article at all. Mr Nahan saying that John Howard is not capable of radical change because he is a conservative?
- Doctrine of pre-emption
- Detention without charge
- Shutting down the AIRC (a century old institution)
- Westminster principles of ministerial responsibility

Agree or not with the government's policies, this is not a conservative government in the contra-progressive meaning of the word.

I really don't like these Senate inquiries of 14 days and not letting the parliament see the legislation, so the opposition is forced to shadow box. Whatever the merits of the legislation, I am not going to agree with the government because of this advertising and neither should anyone else.

Well done Barnaby Joyce! Without his effort, I wouldn't have even known about the ACCC being stripped of its powers. The Senate is back, undertaking its constitutional job.

Hello everone,

Mike Nahan's article is full of contradictions. He berates the "protective tariff system", and then berates Labor for "pulling it down". He argues that the protective tariff walls that developed Australia is "one of the most restrictive workplace regulations in the world", yet tariff protection is about allowing a nation to build and develop in the face of foreign competitors, not workplace conditions.

The truth is, Howard is following in the footsteps of the Bush family and is becoming a globalist and that means he is representing multi-national and large domestic companies, whose sole purpose is to profit and make money with minimum cost, including the use of cheap labor.

The protective tarrif system that Nahan berates should be re-established, and the furphy "Free Trade Agreement" abolished....because under Howard's leadership, more than 50% of Australian companies and business are now not even owned by Australians, we have a $1.4 trillion debt situation (as of July 1st 2005), of which $549 billion is Net International Investment Liability (Foreign Debt and Net Equity Debt), and a $17 billion trade deficit.

How does this affect Industrial Relations? If Australian businesses and companies are not owned by Australians (and Aussies buy Aussie goods and services), and workplace (employee) conditions maintained, Australians jobs will be cut, and we will be forced to make our labor cheaper, and that means salary cuts. Howard's proposals will never benefit the [Australian] worker; good for employers (20% of the working population), crap for employees (80% of working polpulation).

Besides, Howard lies all the time, and he's using tens of millions (who knows the exact amount??)of OUR tax money to advertise his propaganda, which is against Section 56 of our commonwealth constitution. He doesn't appropriate money bills for political advertising in the House of Representatives, which is also against section 56 of the constitution, and that is corruption. You can't spend tax payers money until the bill has been okayed by the Governor General, and passed by the Senate.

Should have been voted out at the last election.

Teresa van Lieshout
http://onenationwa.tripod.com/

Howard's proposed IR reforms baffle me. I'm a uni student who has held a few casual jobs and is now having trouble finding work to support myself in a new town with a high youth unemployment rate. In the rare event that I am actually able to obtain a job interview, I don't see how I would be able to "negotiate" my working conditions with a prospective employer under the IR reforms. I imagine that the object of job interviews for low and semi-skilled jobs would be to find the employee who would work the longest, for the least amount of money, under the conditions which are most desirable for the employer (not the employee). Employing new staff will be based on who is willing to give up the most, not on who is the most skilled or experienced. You can imagine the potential effects that this would have on family lives and studying.

People with low bargaining power like me rely on the workplace protections that are curently in place. We want decent jobs with decent conditions. We want a reasonably level playing field. What we don't want is to have to compete with eachother for jobs (more than we already do) based on who will work for the least amount of money.

Just how much do we have to give up as individuals in order to acheive "economic growth" and "international competitiveness"? Is it really worth it? Why not encourage a highly skilled workforce instead of driving kids out of universities? What are we acheiving as a nation by forcing our workers to work longer and harder?