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?