T.U.S
I went to the school of hard knocks. I worked at Real jobs and a lot of my employers were real arseholes that didn't appreciate a willing worker.I worked through the 50's recession at a job where the boss could pick and choose from a constant stream of unemployed who came to the work site asking for work. I was running all day doing the work of three men and still not appreciated. The job was not unionised. I soon learned of the value of a Union.
Apart from earning pocket money as a lad delivering papers, Ice , Milk and bread, mowing lawns and running messages for neighbours, my first job was with Caltex Oil Company as a Junior Clerk on 3pounds 6 shillings per week. It cost me 1 pound ten shillings to get to work and I gave my mother 1 pound 5 shillings 'board'.
I told the accountant to stick the job up his arse when he told me I had to come to work in a bloody suit !!
The rest of my work experience was try anything.
I have never been on the dole and I was not left a legacy from my parents other than a work ethic to work hard.
Until I found my niche I had more jobs than you probably had breakfasts.
I worked 35 years in my last job before I retired aged 69.
I am now a 'self funded retiree' I have to join a health fund because I am denied a 'Health Card'.
I am now quite cynical about actions of the Howard Government ever being of benefit to working people.
He represents his masters, Corporate Australia

The thing is, letting young people negotiate their wages will put massive downward pressure on EVERYONES wages. I remember being fifteen and doing work experience at Target (and this was not as long ago as I sometimes like to imagine!), and being THRILLED that I was being paid $5 a day. That was riches, when you consider I was being given $5 a week pocket money.

But if kids at fifteen and sixteen, who do not know any better, are happy to be paid five, ten, fifteen dollars for a day's work, WHY would anyone employ anyone else? And what person who did not have Mum and Dad paying for everything could live on such wages?

In low skilled jobs, having minimum pay and conditions is particuarly important, as the people doing these jobs do not have the skills to negotiate. I know my fifteen-year-old self was certainly not able to say no when called in with half an hour's notice, or asked to stay late, or negotiate for anything.

The argument of beggars can't be choosers is inhumane. We need to have standards so we cannot race to the bottom. The people close to the bottom are struggling enough without having to fight each other for even lower standards.

maraccas - Have a look around, it is the working people who have voted Howard in for the past four elections, traditional Labor people jumping ship to the Coalition. Why? because the majority of them are better off.

I can't see your problem, you worked all your life, obviously hard and saved enough and was smart enough to be a self-funded retiree. It looks like you are an example of someone who has become self-sufficient through hard work and taking whatever came along (except jobs where a suit was required - burn that corporate noose man)

Laurie - Minimum conditions are protected. They will be legislated for the first time, not part of an award. They will be law and the Fair Pay Commission will set minimum wage which cannot fall below that which it currently is.

And employing young people to work retail happens now. How many 40-year-olds do you see working at Maccas. None because it is cheaper to pay kids and it gives them a valuable experience and skills.

$5 an hour is gold for a fifteen year old, so why not let them earn it if they are willing to. Let people decide what wage they want to work for, as long as it doesn't fall below the minimum standard.

t.u.s.

Mike Nathan must never have been exploited by an employer, many including myself have, under the current legislation, there is not enough protection for vunerable employee's, let alone bring in new legislation, which lowers wages and conditions, and gives your boss the right to sack you, whenever he feels like it, without recourse. We are going back to the Master/Servant days of 100 years ago, with this Bill, John Howard has wanted this since he entered politics in the 70's, not on the eve of his retirement, and giant handshake, as he leaves, he fulfills a life's dream, to rub the workers nose into the s@#t. Any give his friends "big business" the break, they have dreamed of also. All of course at the expense of the employee, but "good for business" profit's will soar, employees, especially low income, single income employees will struggle to survive, what a legacy to leave behind for your nation, the "most hated prime minister in history"

Yobbo,

You don't have a clue about the low paid casualised labour market, or else you are pretending not to . I suggest you read Elisabeth Wynhausen's "Dirt Cheap":

"I learnt that casual employment at the Store had one thing going for it, only one : a casual rate of $19.06 an hour. Although about half of all casual employees believe they get a casual loading, the loading doesn't compensate for foregone benefits. Some casuals are employed for years at the lowest classification, while permanent employees move up the salary scale ... My gross pay was $624.55 les $80 in tax. ... So I pocketed $544.25, feeling almost rich until I remembered that my 32 and three quarters hours were spread over almost three weeks ... I had earned $200 a week, $33 less than the government benefit for a single unemployed person receiving the maximum rate of rent assistance." (p 176)

Yobbo wrote "Their labour simply isn't worth $12 an hour..."

And who are you to judge that the labour of millions of your fellow Australians is not even worth this miserable sub-subsistence pittance? Perhaps you think that they should be paid the same AU$200 per month paid to Malaysian workers who work 7 days per week and live within the factory?

And presumably you agree that the value of labour of lawyers, advertisers, real estate agents and financial advisers who produce no tangible useful wealth whatsoever is worth at least hundreds of dollars per hour?

No, it is not "an unarguable fact" that "millions of Australians would be better off" "if the minimium wage were halved tomorrow". We are disputing this supposed 'fact' on this very forum and the overwhelming majority of Australians don't accept it as a 'fact' either according to opinion polls.

"And who are you to judge that the labour of millions of your fellow Australians is not even worth this miserable sub-subsistence pittance?"

I'm not the one doing the judging. The fact that they are not employed with a minimum wage of $12 is all the proof you need.

"Perhaps you think that they should be paid the same AU$200 per month paid to Malaysian workers who work 7 days per week and live within the factory?"

A victory for hysterical emotional outbursts everywhere, this post is. $200 a month is quite good in Malaysia. There's this thing called "purchasing power" which you should probably look into before you shoot your mouth off again.

"And presumably you agree that the value of labour of lawyers, advertisers, real estate agents and financial advisers who produce no tangible useful wealth whatsoever is worth at least hundreds of dollars per hour?"

Your labour is worth whatever somebody will pay you for it. Any other explanation is just a rehash of Marx that was discredited a long, long time ago.

"We are disputing this supposed 'fact' on this very forum and the overwhelming majority of Australians don't accept it as a 'fact' either according to opinion polls."

Whether you believe it or not doesn't make it less true.