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.