This rationale may have had a paramount place when we were no more than a raggedy assed collection of penal colonies and as always, just treating human beings as little more than numbers in a "labour market." Rather than the living breathing mums, dads, sons and daughters. All with aspirations, hopes and dreams that are part of the dehumanized paradigm that treats people with no more affection, goodwill or kindness than this or that piece of office hardware!

Simply put, good employees are the very lifeblood of any successful business, but are not always treated thus. And in a climate where labour costs, at around 16%, less than the power bill.

We hear all this talk about reduced taxation for corporations, when None paid more than 17% (actual) of the gross last financial year and where reportedly, one in three paid no company tax to anyone?

Some paying wages that would have had to been higher if their employees were wholly supported, owned slaves!

These are not numbers David seen from a very lofty privileged position but normal human beings, apparently capable of displaying more genuine human empathy in a little finger than you've ever genuinely felt at any time, in the whole of your, quite grossly, over rewarded privileged position/lifetime.

That said, I'm not completely unsympathetic to the central tenet of this article and will have more to say, with regard to your position.
Alan B.

As usual, David is half correct. It's the other half that is the worry!

Awards are reasonable when viewed as a whole. They fail on the micro level.

David highlighted one aspect of their failure, as supporting “slackers”. That view masks his less than disguised, disdain of workers.

Paying more to an individual worker, can be simply enough achieved, by paying an agreed PA salary. A Salary has a minimum requirement to pay at or above award wages and conditions.

A worker has little to no negotiation power outside a union award.
The problem is, award rates for skilled workers are abysmally low.
Workers are USED as a tool to control inflation.

The shame is, pity there is no acknowledgement of the damage that “one- eyed” view is having, on not only the skill level in our industries, but the damaged morale as a consequence.

Add to this, the abuse of 457 visas, assisting in the damage by flooding the workplace with under skilled and dodgy compliance certifications, of these workers, to the local mix; wages are stagnating.

A skilled worker on $26 an hour, will be struggling to support a family and pay exaggerated rents from a manipulated housing market, designed to bleed the workers for profit of landlords.
Of which, too many are from our pampered political class, such as David!

Workplace laws only ever necessary, when we view the worker through the lense of this or that piece of equipment needing to be incentivized to perform.

A couple of centuries ago, it could have been the cat-o-nine- tails and floggings that continued long past unconsciousness. The cat-o-nine-tails may well be a thing of the past, just not the master servant attitude that made any of this dehumanized behaviour acceptable?

Instead of obsessing like some worry wart bean counter over the cost of labour? Why can't folk like you, envisage a workplace paradigm where neither laws or union have ny practical place

. And that workplace is a Co-op, the only free enterprise, free market business model to survive the great depression largely intact. And hated by the ruling class, because it sidelines/expels the indolent drone investor/born to rule privilege!

Co-ops that are wholly owned by the employees, will work for reduced wages when and as essential and share in any greater rewards they've helped create. None of which are created by the indolent parasite investor, looking for a predatory investment position, where he/she reaps the rewards of someone else's endeavour or enterprise.

If you want the best possible of all industrial worlds, then make your employees your profit sharing junior partners to eliminate the unions and render workplace laws redundant.

And where they as share holding co-owners, or owners, share both risk and reward; and indeed, automatically expose and excise the drones in the organisation.

Such organisations will be as streamlined, efficient and productive as is possible. And without workplace laws, which apart from health and safety, are made completely redundant in the partnership model.

All we really need is genuine tax reform, that make say, a 15% flat tax completely unavoidable, and coupled to a sane energy policy that turbocharges a rationalized economy.

And therefore, where the workforce is a union free, self starter model that needs few workplace laws to get the most productive model working in complete harmony with the employer's objectives!

But particularly those, never ever afraid to rollup the sleeves and pitch in!
Alan B.

The problem with the article is its attempt to justify moral concerns using economic arguments.

Labelling the relationships between two individuals as "industrial" and using that label to prevent them from making whatever arrangements between them as they please, is immoral. It may or may not be economically desirable, but it is wrong and no further arguments are needed.

"Industrial relations laws have the power to determine whether this century will be one of prosperity or stagnation for Australia."
No they don't. The bad IR practices that sapped productivity were phased out in the last two decades of the twentieth century, and have never returned. Any further changes are just tinkering around the edges.

The real power to determine whether this century will be one of prosperity or stagnation for Australia is macroeconomic policy. Investing in our future will produce prosperity; sabotaging our future to meet short term budgetary objectives will produce stagnation. Unfortunately you seem to prefer stagnation.

The only SLACKER around here is Leyonhjelm, he jagged his Senate seat the First time round,ditto the 2nd because the quota was halved, who with a bit of luck wont be 3rd time lucky