Dear Des,

First, a philosophical question:

Even if individuals are willing to forego their rights (including sick pay, wages etc.), should we as a nation allow this to occur? We persue drug users although they are only harming themselves, so what about those who are willing to work under sweatshop conditions.

Secondly, my response to your article:

Do you honestly believe workers would be better off if the regressive conditions set by the Howard government would be furthered? Or are you simply not considering the workers?

'Unfair dismissal', by its very definition, should not be allowed. Also, if employees won't have their appeals met by employers, a strike may be necessary, although undesirable. With worker's rights eroding, this is one of the few means in which they can demonstrate their power. The alternative is to ignore their grievances, which is obviously bad for the emplyee, but for the employer would likely result in greater absenteeism and lower production. Although with unfair dismissal permitted, they could be easily replaced, the new employees would need to undergo training and initially have low productivity themselves, both of which costs the business money.

The Coalition's gun has indeed missed its target, but it should have been firing at the employers, who with the coalition's progressive reforms, have been eroding workers rights for the past ten years.

Thanking you,
Tim Carter.