The Prime Minister claims that he rules for everyone. He stated that people do not need to fear the Coalition Government taking control over the Senate. Today several thousand people demonstrated throughout Australia, the Prime Minister cannot claim he is governing for these people. He is reported as saying that these demonstrations were meaniningless.
In yesterdays Sydney Morning Herald it was stated that "the Workplace Minister, Kevin Andrews, has urged employers not to bow to unions' demands for pay deals before the Government's industrial relations changes become law." The article went on to say that any construction companies making contracts with workers prior to the new government Industrial Relations legislation are likely to not be given contracts from the Federal Government.
This is the coercise style of government we have come to expect when the Coalition Government deals with the States.
At best it can be termed unethical for the Prime Minister to claim that he is working on everybodies behalf and then to use coercion on private construction companies.

Malcolm Fraser a former Liberal Prime Minister is no fan of Mr Howard as indicated by crikey on 28.6.'05 ..."its not often that former Liberal prime ministers turn up on talkback radio sledging government policy. But that's exactly what happened when Malcolm Fraser jumped on the phone this morning to call ABC local radio in Melbourne to attack Australia's draconian anti-terrorism laws."

Also "...according to Fraser, the fear campaign has been so successful that the Labor party is “too scared” to debate the draconian rules and it was “all the more of a disgrace” that the legislation had bilateral support." While these comments are in relation to the strawmen terrorists in Australia, they further illustrate the coercive nature of some of the key leaders within the Government.

The Howard Government's trustability was torn assunder when the electorate was lied to in relation to Sievx, weapons of mass destruction, interest rates and medicare. Who in their right mind believes that the Howard government is working on their behalf as far as Industrial Relations are concerned.

Howard and his ilk are out of touch with real life...just talk to the checkout chick at your local supermarket; the service station employee; the truck driver; the meat worker- tell me, what power do they have when their employer, say Woolies, or Lindsay Fox says, no more penalty rates, work more hours, forget sick pay, etc ? The growth in jobs is for casual and contract jobs - not full time secure jobs. And as far supplementing your income with social security - get real, when every dollar earned reduces benefits. We will have an army of the working poor, who work hard or at a number of jobs at poor conditions and pay for years, just to make ends meet and never get ahead. Their children will inherit their parent's endless drudgery as they will not attain or afford a proper education. Just look at the US - check out any major city and see the army of poor in trailer parks, on the streets - Is this all our country can aspire to ? Is this what our Government has reduced us to ?

The new Industrial Relations legislation will catapult us back to the 1880s. Already current regulations are not adequately protecting workers; anybody who thinks otherwise is in a fools paradise. The challenge is for proponents of the new Industrial Relations to show where deregulation of a market has been of benefit.

Mr Howard is not governing on behalf of a significant proportion of the electorate despite his claims. Those with high mortgages must be very concerned about what is occuring at present in relation to individual work place contracts. Apart from poorer pay that these contracts represent; benefits such as sick leave, long service leave, and other entitlements will be lost. Already workers have been forced into signing contracts where they virtually become sub contractors but are treated like PAYE workers. This is not academic, it has started. Mr Howard's latest tax benefits were miserable for the lowest paid workers.

Why don't people realise that when we run a balance of payments deficit of over 7% of GDP it means that the general standard of living in Australia has to be reduced significantly?

Ant said: "This is the coercise style of government we have come to expect when the Coalition Government deals with the States".

There are no non-coersive governments. All governments are coersive by definition. I only pay my taxes because they will lock me up otherwise. If threatening to lock people up isn't coersive I don't know what is

QUOTE: just talk to the checkout chick at your local supermarket; the service station employee; the truck driver; the meat worker- tell me, what power do they have when their employer, say Woolies, or Lindsay Fox says, no more penalty rates, work more hours, forget sick pay, etc?

Lindsay Fox and Woolies are big employers. However there are plenty of other employers in the market place.

Taking Woolies as an example. When consumers (who individually are small and diffuse) negotiate with Woolies then get a good deal on groceries. Otherwise they would trade cash for groceries somewhere else. We long ago got over the notion that grocery prices need to be regulated due to the "excessive" market power of Woolies.

Its the same on the employment side of the equation. Workers (who individually are small and diffuse) negotiate with Woolies and get a good deal on wages. Otherwise they would trade effort for cash somewhere else. We should have long ago gotten over the notion that wage prices need to be regulated due to the "excessive" market power of Woolies

terje, its a bit naive to assumne that every casual worker has the luxury of choise when it comes to who they work for, particuarly those on the lowest wages

None of the arguments above address the fair market value of a persons labour. In a fair maket open economy, a person would be paid what he is worth as evidenced by his/her contribution to the progress of the organization. And by the same token those that are not contributing would be encouraged to find a different job where they may be more able to find their niche.

Those that don't want to contribute have the existing welfare system to fall back on - rather than expecting employers to carry them through.
Additionaly, that 10% or so of stellar employees who are contributing the most to the growth or forward momentum of the organization will have the ability to earn a higher market wage truly representing their value.

There will always be some minority of businesses that are unbearable to work for to due cromagnon work practices; they will have trouble finding good employees and probably are not going to be in business too much longer anyway.

These proposed workplace changes reflect the evolving world economy. It is an economy where business needs to quickly respond to market forces. Those businesses that are able to work closely with their employees to address changing market places will grow and prosper. Those business that want to follow the old economic models will die.

As one of our forum subscribers mentions to Jim McDonald - Howard is shifting industrial relations back to the 1890s. Indeed, the Libs have gone back further, well into the post-Darwinian period in the 1860s, when, the aspirational go-getters up-ended Darwin's "Survival of the Species" thesis to manufacture right-wing Darwinian socialism, which some researchers say energised modern Fascism as well as even Nazism. Graball corporatism, of course, had been well on the way with the East India Company. Social Darwinism also gave an uplift to British colonialism, as well as the United States Monroe Doctrine, a bogus-style brand of economic imperialism. yet grabbing former Spanish possessions in the name of freedom and protection, as the US is doing now in the atttempt to possess or "call the tune" for the whole globe.

We could well wonder whether most of our Libs really know where they are headed, following John Howard, as he tags after America like a lap-dog. It is believed that Labour and the workers should be right into warning our dumbed-down public about it. Let them know that our egged-on passion for the free-market or the revival of Adam Smith's Laissez-faire, went along with a warning from Adam Smith himself that the greed inspired by the urge to "go out and get" for the good of production and competition, also had its evil side. The feeling of power brought on by the greed of competition and profit, thereon, could cause employers to want to share even less with their employees, just like Dicken's Uncle Scrooge.

Later, John Stuart Mill, in his great thesis, "On Liberty", expanded Adam Smith's warning about the natural greed of man, and apart from Adam Smith's warning, was the first of the British philosophe's or intellects to recommend the need for the worker's protective organisations our John Howard is trying to destroy now.
George C (Bushbred) - WA

The simple response to the des moore's of this world is why is it that there are in existence organisations like the accc to protect some enterprises from the actions of others. It is because the business community recognises within its own sector some business have the capacity to control/distort the market and they need to be regulated. if these businesses are so powerful that the business community wants them regulated how can an individual bargain on equal footing for their wages and conditions.

if the academic economic community was fair dinkum they would fail students advancing the arguments of des moore, instead they award them with degrees.

Terje - Big corporations are regulated in 'setting' prices (at least a bit) - its called the Trade Practices Act which prohibits, amongst other things, collusive and anti competitive behaviour. And "woolies' does abuse its power so as to ensure its power to fix prices. An example of this currently under scutiny, is how Woolies bleeds a small liquor retailer dry with legal costs when its opens in a new town or tries to stop a new liquor retailer opening up near one of their outlets. Once they are the only retailer in the area, watch what happens to the prices. Many 'competitors' are also owned by Woolies. Now, continuing with this example, if large companies are capable of screwing even the smallest business into oblivion in their chasing the last dollar of profit - what hope do their employees have ? As to taking your labour elsewhere - most rural and outer city suburbs still have unemployment rates of 15% plus. Where do these employees go ? How can any thinking person possibly equate the power of one single employee with that of woolies or any large or middle sized business ?

Business is left with no option but to cut the throat of its workers since this is one of very few cost controls they have left.

Since business can no longer rip off the Government. The government now have business compiling and reporting at regular intervals during the year. Revenue is received regularly as is the interest earn.

The only problem is that big business is still managing to avoid tax, while the screws are put on the domestic tax market and small business to pay up or risk penalties. There is still two different rules out there for the majority versus the monority.

Little does business know that they have been are on a worldwide listing and open to foreign interests to be targeted and ran out of business or simply just bought. Or another scenario, just keeping their head above water.

Australia will have a few tokens industry striving to maintain our nationalism under the banner of Australian owned and produced. And the FTA to control them by Foreign corporate investment.

Its funny that people lament the excesses of competition and long for a world of co-operation. Yet when businesses collude they think its a dirty word.

I think we should abolish the ACCC. I think collusion is fine whether done by businesses or workers. The only time it bothers me is when the cartel is instituted by laws that ensure that it is perpetuated and where players are "forced" to join the game.

Freedom of association should mean freedom to work together or not.

Let individual liberty guide our policy making and we will all be richer for it. And not just materially

Terje do you not understand the difference between co-operate and collude?

Yes. Collusion is a form of co-operation that crosses corporate boundaries and has been criminalised by various laws.

So if BigSuperMart owns 20 stores across town then it can legally co-ordinate the marketing, price setting and behaviour of those stores.

However 20 independent stores can not work together to do the same because its called collusion.

So criminalising collusion is a way in which we can entrench the market power of larger players and encourage mergers between smaller players

Remedial English for you Terje

Collude: To act together secretly to achieve a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose; conspire.

Cooperate: 1. To work or act together toward a common end or purpose.
2. To acquiesce willingly; be compliant: asked the child to cooperate and go to bed.
3. To form an association for common, usually economic, benefit: When buyers cooperate, they can make large wholesale purchases at a discount.

Terje - knowledge of English D minus
- credibility zero.