The debate always seems to be about what people should receive if they are not as fit and able as others.

I see around me, people working full time jobs with disabilities while others are on a full disability pension.

They are quite capable of shifting to a job in their career path that avoids their “disability, better for all.
I have met in recent times, people who have the most distressing disabilities, and they try, and in some cases succeed to support themselves.

A “quad” with some use of one hand
Blind and fully employed.
Born with server disabilities, and makes a contribution.

Should they make a contribution for, to there standards, a pension for the fit and healthy?

If so, why
If not, then how do they not have to pay?

Then it begs the question with some people I know in the work place who suffer terribly, but continue working to support those “in need”

So are the proposed changes bad where it will mean relativity able bodied people have to work?

A disability pension should be for those that can’t make a contribution, not those than don’t wish to.

><(((º> Tomlinson, as usual, raises important questions about the welfare (yes that dirty word again) of ordinary Australians attempting to survive in a rapidly changing social and economic maelstrom.

><(((º> No doubt each of the questions he asks about the Howard governments reforms (and let’s not forget this in the context of the deathly silence of the 'opposition') will be played out over the next three years.

><(((º> People will suffer and unfortunately no recourse will be available.

><(((º> The 2007 federal election will be an election between two factional dogs fighting over one ideological bone. The new poor will be demonized and wedged.

><(((º> The rich will not only get richer they will ensure they remain richer. And unfortunately, John Tomlinson will be lauded as the prophet that no one wants to listen to, anymore.

Dunart, do you work in the public service, how come you are surrounded by people with disabilities that have jobs? That's great, where is it in Australia? Or is it in Telstra City, New Dehli. I've worked most of my life in plentiful cities and could always find work, but I'm office multi skilled and willing (and able) to travel.

This govt wants to get everyone off their butts and working (unless they're in labour - not labor!) so the next budget doesn't look like a bedsore (it won't be a pension next time around, it'll be a jar of vegemite per family) regardless of the fact they are moving jobs offshore, downgrading industrial relations etc. Where are the jobs these people, (especially disabled) are supposed to take up? Where are the employer incentives? Be very wary. Sounds like a great idea in theory. So did communism. But the communists mucked it up. Of course the capitalists wouldn't dream of doing their own nest. But hey, I'm just Molly the Pony! As long as I can buy my bows and ribbons - two legs good!

Rainer, what's with all the wavy things each post?

Hi di

I am not in the public service, but self employed.
I have met these people as a person that likes people and single these days. Friends or fiends of friends.

I used to employ people, but the system as costed them out of my reach, so have structured things to minimise the need for employing people.
It ends up they receive more than me, so what’s the point.
I work harder, and have the capital at risk.

The incentive I need to employee someone, is

• Profitable for the business
• No chance to be taken to court by a employee when I do it right
• Find an employee that will treat there job as though its there own business.
• Reduce labour requirements when have less need, without having to pay for the reduction

The disincentives we have are
• Unrealistic labour cost’s for the business income
• Huge regulation cost’s, they have to be payed for.
• I am guilty, even if the staff disobeyed a direct instruction, and caused an injury as a result.
• Can not reduce staff numbers when my business income takes a massive drop.

Australia is living well beyond its means, more than $1,000,000,000 (billion) per month now for over 25 years.

• That has to stop some time, then what?
• What’s wrong with a person in India, getting a job? (without un-employment benefits)

• Why should I, as an employer be required to subsidize employee wages?
• Who pays for the cost of regulations you talk about?(cant subsides your self)
• We have been creating a greater social wage for 50 years, creating a situation where,”richer get richer”, so lets continue doing this?

Maybe its time to rethink where we are going?

Maybe the urban productivity has to improve, instead of decline as it has. Yes I know the system tell us that productivity has improved, so why the higher prices for secondary products, and even bigger increase for tertiary products? (Relative to primary)

Let’s rethink instead.

Thanks for the post back Dunart, and establishing your position. There is a bit of a curates egg in being an employer and an employee. Both sides of the coin are Kings Head down. As an employer, I don't think I should pay for an employee where I've got nothing for him/her to do. It's throwing money away. And I won't even go into maternity leave payments (not discrimination - can't have your job back - mind you, just the fact that any employer, unless the father, should have to pay for anyone's pregnancy). But, if you employ me, your responsiblity should be that you have figured it out enough that there is enough for me to do 38 hours per week. And if you havent, I shouldn't have to scrub the toilet to make up the time (unless you have employed me as a cleaner). So, where do we go? casual where employers pay more and there is a disensentive toward loyalty? Not to mention security. I think the times are a changing, and as an ex union officer, the whole industrial relations has been on a mad pendulum for a long time. Employers freak out about unfair dismissals. If justified, it really is the easiest thing in the whole system to do. Every employer wants his/her employees to be honest, faithful and hardworing for their wage. But at the end of the day, don't forget, they don't reap the profits (if any). They just get paid a wage and if you want the flexibility on your end, (no business today, sans wage) the employees don't make the decision to close the doors on your business. It's hard to make a living out of a small business in this climate, let alone paying someone to stand there on your behalf and get paid. But as an employee, I'm still entitled to getting paid for you wanting me there.

Hi di,

You sure have established your position as

• I wont do any do any other work to help be productive while things are quite.
• You wish as an employee to share the profits the capital investor receives for his risk, but not the losses they are also libel for.
• You have entitlements, but seem to forget about the person who is offering you a job. What about his “equal” entitlements?
• In reality, it is employees that can make decisions to cause a business to close its doors, or need to reduce the staff numbers. They do this by demanding increased share of the gross, meaning it may not be worth the risk capital wise. Remember it could be your super fund that is making the investment
• Employees have huge buying power, and shifting their purchasing to another company means staff reduction needed.
• This could be because the employer is trying to do the right thing, meaning higher costs, but the employee’s are spending down the road.

If it’s so easy to make ends meet as an employer, why don’t you do it?

Would you like to talk about the billion $ plus a month loss this country overspends?
Would you like to talk about how you can subsidize yourself?

Now that would be interesting?

Regards

The arguments expressed here are interesting (particularly the spelling in Donart's!). There are a number of issues in the Howard government's "strategy" of getting people with disabilities and sole parents into work. One is that employers, when given the choice of employing a person with a disability or a person "without one", will take the person without a disability every time. Another is that many sole parents are young women, often from disadvantaged areas and backgrounds, who have never even applied for a job before, may have poor literacy/numeracy skills, and absolutely no knowledge of workplace behaviours. Centrelink will, however treat all these people, including those from remote areas, exactly the same, i.e. expect them to apply for jobs which are not there, or for which they have absolutely no chance of winning or maintaining. Next step - a breach, and a further step on the downward slide of living conditions. As for Donart's question of why an employer should be subsidizing employees' wages - if they are his/her employees, who else does he/she think should be doing that? It is time for a grip on reality here.

Dunart, I think you lost the plot when I mentioned the Union word. I don't think you quite got the gist of my posting. I don't want to have shares in your business as an employee, but I also am quite happy to Multi skill/task when things are quiet. That's why you take the risk to go into business, and take the risk to employ, and I take the risk, as an employee, that I will be treated fairly by you. However, I take a pluralist approach to industrial relations, rather than a unitary, or Marxist approach. Which as why I would be happy to earn a wage and support my employer's business with hard work and loyalty, but not when I am laid off with no pay/no excuse/no notice through no fault of my own. And, my days of cleaning toilets are well and rightfully over, unless the job I apply is for a cleaner. (Though quite happy to do the dishes, even outside hospitality). Industrial laws are there for a reason, not because we're out to send you broke. The sky ain't falling on employers, Henny Penny.

Excellent article!

The Government's kick in the guts to single mothers, and those with disabilities, is a disgrace. It will cause needless hardhship for the vast majority of those now on welfare when there simply aren't enough jobs out there anyway. Its effect will be to make it harder for those now in the workforce as greater numbers of more desperate job-seekers make it easier for ruthless employers to force thier workers to accept sub-standard pay and working conditions.

And let's not forget that many of the jobs on offer, besides being lowly paid and insecure, are not even socially productive. Last year when Labor promised to legislate to curb telemarketers, the reponsible minister objected that the livelihoods of 212,000 employed in the industry were at stake. (In fact I find the figure to be unbelievable. If it is true that so many are employed in such an 'industry' then our economy must be in even more dire straights than the harshest of the Government's critics would suggest.)

Personally, I would rather pay my taxes to keep people on welfare than drive them to earn their living by disrupting my life with unsolicited phone calls early in the evening when I am watching TV or eating dinner.

Of course it is within our Government's power to provide truly useful and satisfying employment to all people who wish to work, both able-bodied people and those with disabilities, but they refuse to do so, because they are willingly constrained by the hogwash dogma of 'small government' economic neo-liberalism.

Interesting posts the last 3

Attack personally the person you don’t agree with
Ridicule people that don’t agree with you
Offer no information with facts
Don’t answer any questions asked
Blame the govt for not “creating ‘any jobs.

Govt does not create jobs, they destroy them with regulation.
Above tactics is what is used when your argument is so weak there really is none.

So how about answer these simple questions
• How can we as a country, subsidies ourselves?
• Is not borrowing a $ billion a month as a country
Really a subsidy from the next generation who will have to pay the interest and capital.
• When are you 3 going to show us employers who supply you with a job, going to show us how to do it, as your criticism says employers have not able to met your demands?

• Why should I have to subsidize your wage from a world market income, based on, for instance, a 3rd world income myself?

Yes, there is a problem, but seems to get bigger every time we do something to help the less well off.
Time to re-think I say

Dunart, are you going down the tube as a businessperson to ask these kind of questions on this forum about how to fix your business? I don't know what business you are in but is an option that you could move your business off shore where you don't have to worry about Aust regulations in industrial relations (or the tatters they will soon be in), or could turn whatever your business may be into a New Delhi off shore marketing business and save yourself $14.75 per hour per employee? And rightfully sack them because no one rang for your business. Stay on shore baby, it's gonna happen!

If you are a small business employer, I'll bet the GST is stuffing you up re time, money and angst than how to deal with an unfair dismissal or "human resource problems". Unless of course, like a lot of small business operators, you're great with people, but only when they're coming to buy your product. How many people do you employ, and what are your problems in the HR department that you have had to deal with? Trust me, I am interested, as an employer, what are the problems you've had to deal with?

Still no answers to my questions, but with a first quarter trade deficit of $B15, I don’t blame you.

So when am I going to get an answer instead of personal attack type of debate.
That tactic is always related to no argument.

So where do you fund the subsidy’s you talk about that you give to your staff?
Charging your clients more is not you subsidizing their benefits, but passing on the costs to other people who are not able to pass them on.

Which is it then?

Dunart, so not making sense of what you are after. Is your business responsible for the deficit? What are your problems in your small business that you are facing? Some of it may well be IR laws, some of it may be taxes, but what is the gripe and lowdown about the areas that need fixing? I can see a lot of problems with running a business, and some internal, some external. But what are they? i don't have the answers, only the questions.

I don’t have a problem, bar that of trying to have a discussion and never having my answers answered.

My business in not responsible for the trade deficit.
The over sending in the Australian community is responsible.
You are arguing for more “over spending”, more wealth allocated by govt regulation to the poor and infirm.
That’s great, but for the last 50 years that policy has actually delivered a greater % of the nation’s wealth to the rich.
The only reason we have a shortage of jobs, is because of govt regulations that ship them off shore.
The GST is not a problem, bar the fact that it’s in the CPI, meaning the labour market got a pay rise to pay the GST. It’s a fact and discriminatory to the fixed income people that are the poorer section of the community.

Do you want to continue that? (Create a greater wealth gap)
When is the on-shore “boom” going to happen, and why?
Have you been to the ex-Marxists countries where the largest gap exists?
Should we continue to rack up debt, creating an interest bill for our children, and a repayment debt for our grand children?

4 questions, how many can/will you answer?

You are obviously are just having a big tanti here Dunart. I can't answer your questions Dunart because a)you are all over the place like a mad woman's breakfast and b)am so not interested after your last posting. Wish you all the very best in your enterprise however.

I fail to see the correlation between our national debt and the amount Australia pays for welfare services. The amount the Government intends to save on cutting benefits to the most needy in our society, I doubt, will put a dent in this national debt. From a purely economic viewpoint (as empathy and compassion appear to be meaningless to some)- how do you save money by cutting benefits to the disabled ? If one is truly disabled, giving one the option of finding work or getting cut off benefits - is not a choice. They will simply be cut off all income support. Then our society will have to pay for more security to stop homeless people who are currently at least eating - from stealing. We will have to build more prisons. Where is the saving in that ? We should not be aiming at a society where we have homeless people around mega shopping centres, like the USA and parts of Asia (etc) - which is what will happen if this country cannot or will not properly support those who cannot support themselves. There will always be in our society, those who, for whatever reason, need support either always or on occassion and who be never be able to give it back. Either we admit this as a fact - or we ask our government to be honest and just execute all those who need welfare and who cannot work and 'contribute to society' - rather than support such people less and less, thus wearing them down by more and more poverty. In the end, an early execution would be quicker, cheaper and less painful.