I remember seeing an interview with an American worker, who was asked to recognise the Government's success in job creation. He said:" Sure he created a lot of jobs. I've got three of them." I don't think the americanisation of casual labour will improve the economy or social stability or the birthrate. But the PM will have left before the backlash really bites.

Well written piece! Unfortunately, I feel that many Australians do not understand the long term effects of these industrial changes. Many people have an almost disbelieving approach. That 'it' (the negative reforms) will never happen, that we have such a strong worker/economics approach. With the dislike of Unions prevailing, many people are just happy to see the Union movement being squashed, without understanding that the reforms will in fact, affect each and every one of us in our daily lives.
Once employees are forced onto casual contracts, they will lose the benefits of permanence, and therefore lose things such as Annual leave and sickness entitlements. No more holidays with the kids at Christmas? Do we tip waitstaff as they will not be able to rely on penalty rates? Will there be nurses in hospitals on night shift? Why work nights when the pay is the same as day shifts.
The take home pay of most working and middle class Australians has been kept workable due to overtime and penalty rates. Once these are removed, there will be little left in the pay packet.
Having lived in the USA until recently, I witnessed first hand, the decrease in pay conditions and working benefits. Many adults were forced to accept a minimum wage, with hours kept to a minimum of 30 hours and below (thereby no annual leave, medical coverage etc). One only has to look at the working conditions of people in the industrialised nations prior to the formation of Unions to know exactly which direction we are heading in. The gurgler may in fact be closer than we think.

The real (negative) impact of the proposed changes will become evident when the inevitable downturn in the economy occurs.Just watch employers dump staff and cut wages and conditions and the workers won't be able to do much about it. Unions and the industrial commission will be shut out. The State industrial commissions will have a vital role in maintaining minimum wages for those workers who don't come under the federal system.

Blue Ribbon Meats have offered individual contracts for its workers; the verdict the contracts stink. Workers are far worse off having lost ordinary expected entitlements and received lower pay. Its a great system for the employer; woeful for the worker. The worker is treated like a sub-contractor but is paid in a PAYE manner. Nothing academic about this travisty.

You guys have some valuable points, which should be examined further.
I speak as an employer and a manufacturer.
I would love to give a really good wage and conditions deal to anyone working for me. I'd love to pay electronic process workers the kind of money a builders laborer gets, so they can drive their Beamers :)
but the problem is, CHINA and the artificially low wages that a dictarorial regime can enforce, so that manufacturers are basically put out of business in other countries.

Instead of raging against the government who are attempting to KEEP us competitive, why not rage against the Chinese, and campaign for a blockade of Chinese manufactured goods coming thru our ports ?

We are now seeing a flood of ALL kinds of chinese manufactured goods coming here, including Furniture, often using OUR wood. (Ash)
So, I wonder how anyone whining about 'worse conditions' will approach a furniture manufacturer ? What will you say ? how about "Shut your factory down, sack all your workers and IMPORT from China" (as many are doing)

Treating the symptom rather than the CAUSE is a very short term and blinkered approach. One by one, our industries will be picked off, destroyed, annihalated. Then we can all stare at each others glazed eyes and furrowed brows and whine about 'What will we do NOW" ? There will be NO-ONE who can do squat about the predicament. Worse, there will not be enough money in the economy to even pay the dole. We cannot ALL become tourist guides for Chinese industrialists coming to gloat over conquered lands.

When are people going to admit that Austtalia has been living beyond its means for a considerable time and that the standard of living has to be reduced?

Boaz_David but you voted for this government and you must have realised that the agenda was further economic reforms that would take away protection of our industries.
Now you argue that the workers should pay for the choice that you took when you voted for the neo-liberal reforms.

Mollydukes, Great point! I don't expect those who blame the working class for their lack of wealth to understand their own ideological hypocrisies. What I’ve become accustomed to hearing and reading is this.

1. When all the economic arrows point toward the government they voted in as poor economic managers -- they’ll point to toward import substitution and China.

2. When their business go belly they’ll blame those they employ. Finally, when we don’t agree with them, they’ll blame us for being lefty idealists who don't live in their supposed real world.

Yawn!

They voted for the neo-CON’s labour deregulation, border protection and the GST.

But don’t expect them to explain how productivity is linked to labor market deregulation. Howard and Costello haven’t got around to telling them what their standard parrot answer to this yet. But I suspect they’ll just blame China too.

BOAZ_David,
so what your recommending protectionism instead of IR reform?

Plerdsus, your oh so right. However it seems it's going to be the lowest paid workers that will have to foot the bill.

David, we find agreement! (Is that the heavens falling?!)

It is not that our businesses/businesspersons are greedy (though surely they exist in plentiful numbers). It is that they compete against nations who use a lower-paying, more cost effective labour system than the ‘average’ Australian company. A few points:

1. In Australia most people have an expectation to relative comfort, given how our leaders live. And why shouldn’t they? It’s on the backs of the labours of many that the wealthy live. Giving people access/opportunity to a comfortable life encourages a desire to work towards it. Current policy, as David states, reacts to a problem without looking for a cure, with a consideration for the people. Just where in any academic field does it say that profit comes before people?

2. Arguments that competition is good for the economy is irrelevant to the standard of living associated with that economy. It refers to the efficiency and profitability of the economy, not the standards of living, the availability of opportunity and equity in a days work for a days pay (how does one compare a $500/week life endangering job to a $10million bonus to dump an incompetent manager?)

3. Having only a sneaking suspicion at this point – no evidence YET – I suspect that the goods exported from China and like countries, is funded by investment from politically associated business groups (US, Australian, etc.) who obtain substantial returns on their investment in industries producing goods from slave-like labour. What effect do the FTA’S really mean for Australians? Free trade for whom?

4. Rather than paying a little less for products sent to us from overseas we should be promoting paying a little more for products of this country. Besides assisting the local workforce, it says ‘no’ to the ideas of capitalist first, society second. I for one check where something is made and happily pay more if it comes from Australia, rather than from the hands of a 14 year old earning $10 a week.

David, though we have certain ideological difference, I am glad we have found some common ground...

Go for it, Tinker Bell, please read my commentary on the same presently burning subject concerning the point of view published by Jim McDonald - June 30-2005.

To find the answer we need to go back in history and re-discover where the valuable arbitration and workplace relations set-up we have now grew from. Your comment about lack of understanding would certainly apply to the younger public, especially as the history of industrial relations is a specialised subject mostly only taught in universities. In fact, maybe John Howard could do with a good read of it.

The IR changes to the work place are supposed to make us more competitive in the global market. That is if we lower production costs by lowering basic wages we will be able to compete with the likes of China and other aspiring economies.

We really need to be campaigning for reform throughout the global market - eg a living wage for Chinese workers and the outlawing of child labour. This would create a truly level playing field when there is no advantage for corporations to go 'offshore' and exploit workers in developing countries if they received wage parity with the rest of the western world.

Idealistic? - Sure! I like to dream...

You are all missing the point in the worker v imports debate.

There are some products that are made from countries with wages that low we can never compete with.

Therefore we have two options either re-erect trade tarriffs or develop a policy framework to encourage investment in industries that pay high wages.

Trade barriers erected will cause significant retaliation in our resources sector.

The alternative is to develop economic activity that pays higher wages like advanced manufacturing, high tech industries, mineral processing, biotechnology and other services industries.

Does our current IR system or the proposed system assist this strategy?

It does not and the proposed changes from John Howard makes it worse.

The IR system and industry policy is centred on a focus of the enterprise. This has come about from the lobbying of the BCA from the early 1980s. Not based on the American model as many have wrongly spouted but on the Japanese system.

They wanted to replace industry/craft unions with enterprise unions.

However this policy direction fails to take into account the size of Japanese enterprises in comparison with average enterprise size in Australia.

Individual Japanese enterprise had the capacity to perform their own R&D,develop training and industrial relations system without draining essential resources because of economies of scale.

In Australian we have enterprise industrial relations shaping skills formation to the need of individual enterprise without the economies of scale to develop the associated training system. Furthermore Australian firms lack the economies of scale to undertake necessary R&D .

The result is a crippling skills shortage and declining R&D in the corporate sector.

The Howard changes will only make it worse as firms will be driven to compete to strip away labour conditions. So we will not have the infrastructure necessary to move into the areas we need to, yet we will not be able to drive labor conditions down sufficiently to compete at the low end of the market.

We suffer from cultural cringe in always believing the system in another country is better than ours and try and import it.

When will we learn?

We, the western world, are being misled about what is truly important to our well being. we are told to work longer hours, be more 'flexible', buy more stuff to makes us feel better - when we fail in this we are told to blame 'dole bludgers', refugees, feminists in fact we are exhorted to blame any one else except those in power - big business/government.

Here is an excerpt from an interesting website:
http://www.wellbeingmanifesto.net/

which is trying to discover what is really important:

"Fulfilling work is vital to our wellbeing; insecure, stressful and unsatisfying jobs diminish it. High-quality work can provide us with purpose, challenge and opportunities. Through it we can develop our capacities, begin to realise our potential, and meet many of our social needs. In short, fulfilling work is essential if we are to flourish. Workplaces that provide secure, rewarding jobs should be encouraged. Workplace flexibility, including quality part-time jobs, should operate in the interests of employees as well as employers."

Our current IR does nothing to address the wellbeing of the community it does everything to further the divide between rich and poor.

Fear! Apocalypse! Evil right wing government!
This legislation is not about union bashing (although that is a fun side-effect), it is about removing the ridiculous multiplication and beaurocracy from Australian life. Arts funding is a classic example: there are more administrators than artists! Same at universities, there is no funding shortage just a very large blood tick (the paper empire builders), hanging on for grim life.
Bring on reform, smash the leftie parasites!
Stop all arts funding!
Hooray for the coalition!

ps Johnny Rocks!

There is no reasonable argument for the undermining of workers rights & conditions at this point in time. As George Pell has noted, the big end of town is doing well, so why should the worker be targeted?
As noted above, the free trade agreement is looming to be just as big a problem. We cannot force our workers to compete with the frequently substandard employment conditions of our Asian neighbours.

Rather interesting the assertion that the Australian workers are creating future economic paralysis and collapse of companies because ‘the worker’ would not accept what is inevitable. This being the lowering wages and conditions to enable companies and employers to be competitive with Asian nations.
It would appear that many supporters of this, feel that, rather than be active in both business and on a humanitarian level, (in stamping out slave worker conditions in those countries), it will be easier for Australia to change our IR protections.
Trade tariffs and taxation relief for business not being high on the list of ‘must do’, it would be quicker and less of a drama to have Australian workers lowering their own standards of living, self reference and personal freedom.
One could almost hear the echoes of “Let them eat cake”

MARTY.. "yes" i AM advocating strategic protectionism, which targets oppressive and dictatorial regimes. When it targets gross inustice, and exploitation of people. What really annoys me, is that you goto Myers, and look at top brand name shirts, and the price is like $80 !
but the tag says "made in China". (for what ? $4.00?)

Following on from Dan's -of not having evidence 'yet' about outside interests benefiting from keep China 'just the way it is', its true. I mean, the HUGE profits coming into 'top brand' coffers who sell their goods at no less than normal, but get them made for the price of a big mac, is quite lucrative and would be blinding them to the injustice which produced those shirts.

Some Western Capitalist Corporations are just as guilty as the chinese government, but primarily the Chinese strategic economic plans are at fault.

The cycle of 'chinese prices' being factored into large Aussie manufacturers bill of materials, and the associated loss of jobs from local manufacturers will continue until the streets are filled with revolution from hungry workers most likely.

I'm also a victim/perpetrator to a degree. If I am to compete with major world entities in the product range I make, I am forced to cut costs, to meet THEM with a relatively level playing field. This means I'll have to source printed circuit boards from Hong Kong (china?) for $4.80 instead of $15 from my usual Aussie supplier, who by the way offered me the SAME o'seas sourced PCB for $15.00 !! 2 other Aussie suppliers offered similar prices. (for o'seas sourced) Not a bad markup for making a phone call and sending a file by email.

Protectionism should be selective and strategic. Wouldn't we want to be protected from a regime which has targeted specific industries for takeover 'no matter what the cost' ? A study of the rise of Genghis Khan shows that his campaigns began over TRADE issues. (unfair ones)

I don't expect to be protected fair wages, yet works more efficiently than me. I DO expect protection from its opposite.

I have a question;
Who pays for the higher labour costs that the regulation benefits?

You can’t subsidize yourself, so who foots the bill?

We have 50 plus years of wealth transfer for top end of town to the bottom, yet the top end of town has still done better, why not ask “why’ on this point?

Just a thought, are the benefits to one person a cost to another person that does not have a higher income regulated by govt.

Marty,

I am glad you agree with me. To answer your question, as to why the lower end of the spectrum has to cop the cuts, the answer is that broadly we have two kinds of people in our economy. These could be summarised as the internationally competitive (i.e. jumbo jet pilots) and those who aren't (i.e. hairdressers). If we don't pay the going international rate to the pilots, they will depart to where they can collect the going rate. The hairdressers can only do business in Australia, and if gerneral wages are cut they will have to do the same or people will cut rheir own hair.

I get the sense that those advocating for 'flexibility' have never had a casual job, and experienced the difficulites that it entails.

I worked casually for six years while studying, and it is very difficult, even with sympathetic employers. Downturn because the company decides to change direction and alienate its core customers? Casuals' hours dropped. Full-timers decide to change their hours to fit their lifestyle better? Casuals' hours dropped. Another Casual fell pregnant- oops, suddenly no hours for her, because in asking for one weekend off to catch up on the extra sleep required, suddenly found that someone else had been asked to work in her place for the next three months. Take holidays at your peril, as often your hours will be gone when you return. Yet if a full-timer is ill, you're called in. If things get busy, you are called in. There is an expectation that as "Just A Casual", your time is less valuable, and your other life committments less important, than those of your full-time co-workers.

I liked my job, and my co-workers, but even after several years in the job, one change of management and my agreed time off at Christmas was suddenly null and void, and my inability to work these hours (due to long-standing family committments) were considered to therefore mean I no longer needed any hours, and I was effectively fired.

Why on earth is it desirable to increase the numbers of people working in such conditions?

As any HSC economics student can tell, ‘Comparative advantage’ is the keyword when involving international trade. Economics is a competition & the best countries understand their assets & develop the skills that will ensure their future. By & large, Australian governments do not perform well in this area – we need better long term planning involving free education to develop human resources. A point often overlooked is the freedom of education in China & its obvious impact.
We should not attempt to compete with present labour conditions & scales of economy afforded by the PRC & the rest of Asia in relation to manufacturing – Oz simply does not have the population. We need to look at high-tech – model ourselves more on Scandinavia with the technology of Japan (with ethics). This requires an education plan & system that maximises our resources & does not exclude those of lesser social & financial means.
Our lack of tradespeople is an obvious indicator of our lack of planning.
All this has been said before, & this is the problem. When will we have an Australian government that is willing to look beyond its own self interest & provide the obvious? We appear to have the finances to do this, so why not now?

I Agree the income gap will indeed widen.

One point that appears to have been missed is the likely effect that the proposed reforms will have on management practices. I believe that at least in some cases at the margin management practices will deteriorate. There are many incidences in the workplace where employee performance can be improved by good management providing incentive initiatives and proactive mentoring. I believe often overworked management will be less likely to consider such approaches if it is easier to sack an under performing employee. Sometimes underperformance is a result of poor management and ill conceived business processes. Often it is the under performing employee that tells you more about your own management weaknesses and perhaps areas where business improvement can be initiated. It is often through counseling to improve performance that valuable feedback is obtained about internal business operations that has real business value.

Of course in some cases the employee cannot be reformed and is clearly unsuitable however existing arrangements allow these people to be sacked through proper warning and notification processes. But again that is a failure of the recruitment process. How many times has an employee been unsuitable at one job only to go on to success at another? We would be foolish to overlook this phenomena.

Overall I believe that management practices will either stay the same or deteriorate but will not improve as a result of these proposed changes and that will be a cost to business and the economy as a whole. Also removing the physiological job security factor and the concept of "trust" between employer and employee will also lower productivity somewhat.

Quote from swilkie:

“We cannot force our workers to compete with the frequently substandard employment conditions of our Asian neighbours”

I ask, what makes “Australians” so special that they deserve more than our close Asian friends.
If I was Asian, I would be offended with that comment as its racist.
As an Australian, I am offended as it is an outcome you are demanding based on race (or citizenship).

My view is that comment should be removed for the racist connotation it has.

A “We deserve more than you” attitude that is related to race or nationality should never be tolerated.

I do not believe that SWilkie meant that Australian’s deserve better than Asian workers when he made the comment quote “We cannot force our workers to compete with the frequently substandard employment conditions of our Asian neighbours”. This was more a statement of fact (existing & verifiable) that Asian workers are forced to work in conditions that their counterparts in any OECD country would deem unacceptable. This is not to say that they did not deserve better.

Its whether you accept that global corporations should be able to circumvent national labour laws and operate using cheap labour in underdeveloped countries at enormous costs to the environment and social structures, (all of which are externalised) or whether we should have globalisation of basic rights to balance the other deregulations which have occurred in the last 25 years.

I do not see anything racist in SWilkie's comment and I am concerned to see any statement that might discourage open dialog and exchange of diverse ideas.

MOLLY (and Ranier)

I am ALWAYS looking for a party which will truly represent the interests of all Australians (within a Christian framework, but you know this already) So, I have serious issues with the Coalition, and Serious Issues with Labor, Dems and Greens don't even rate in my view.

Labor's track record on protecting us from the cheap slave labor countries is pretty much ZERO. They sold off huge public assets, Recognized CHINA,- they are in bed with the big end of town as much as the Coalition. They might just be in bed with different big enders.

I campaign as best I can for solutions to these problems, and I don't 'blame the workers' (I don't have much sympathy for those who think the world owes them a living though) but I DO blame ==> opportunistic, short term thinking 'we will get control of the union at any price' lamentably irresponsible left wingers who pander to the greed of workers with unsustainable promises .. bribing them, until the company decides its not worth it and shuts down and relocates to Indonesia or China... duh, how smart was the greed then ? Go to Bendigo, look at the hollow shell of Mayfair Hams, a HUGE complex, rotting by the day, empty. Also, find out what the union had in place .. 'continuous card game' etc etc

I also blame the TOP end of town, with its ugly obscene packages for CEO's etc, In fact, I blame our own human hearts. "The heart is desperately wicked .. who can know it" (bible) and what we need is repentance from top to bottom, and a good close read of Acts chapter 2:42-47 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=2&version=31

and especially ==>2nd Chronicles 7:13 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land

Without life under God, we will have perpetual 'us/them' and greed will continue to reign, as it does now.

Interesting article and discussion. I have two comments.
The first is re deaf2thebeat's comment that in publicly funded enterprises (like the arts) there are too many administrators and hardly any artists. While this may be true, it is equally true in private industry, these days. In my business, we now have more staff in our finance departments than in actual production and this is not because production is automated, but because people who can do such work are expensive, and because of the current obsession with measuring and accounting for everything, even things that can't be counted, like creativity. We now operate with skeleton permanent staff and call in casuals (we call them freelancers) when we have to. There are now vastly more chiefs and administrators than indians.
Second, I agree with Swilkie that, instead of further deregulating the workplace, we should be pouring money into education, r&d and building our skills base. That's what the Irish did, and look at them now, from basketcase to powerhouse in 10 years!
Of course, we are doing the opposite, making education more expensive and much harder for many people to access.
Clever country? Not so you'd notice.

It is clear that very few contributors have actually ever started a business. Which is possibly one of the reasons that they all sound like politicians - full of theory, but well short on practicality.

Fact One: protectionism isn't the answer. It only serves to protect unprofitable (in world terms) industries. Whether it is the US raising tariffs against Chinese textile imports or Europe subsidising its farmers to keep out foreign vegetables, it can only afford limited local security, for a limited time. One reason we need to keep giving African nations tons of money is because we (the developed countries) keep finding new ways to protect our own industries.

Fact Two: (I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw this one) advocating interference with foreign economies will not wash, as in "[w]e really need to be campaigning for reform throughout the global market - eg a living wage for Chinese workers and the outlawing of child labour." One man's perceived exploitation (working in a Nike factory) is another's daily bread (working in a Nike factory). Mandating that Nike should pay US wages will only result in the disappearance of that factory. Who benefits then? A few interfering goody-two-shoes in their comfortable armchairs in Carlton. Well done, people, I hope you sleep well.

Fact Three: Industrial Relations laws are not set up to make people feel good, but to reflect reality. So saying stuff like "The real (negative) impact of the proposed changes will become evident when the inevitable downturn in the economy occurs. Just watch employers dump staff and cut wages and conditions and the workers won't be able to do much about it. Unions and the industrial commission will be shut out." is likely to be accurate. But tell us please, if there is less money in the system ("inevitable downturn in the economy") how on earth can we imagine that we will be able to pay the same number of people the same amount of money?

There are iniquities and inequities in our system, for sure. But don't close your eyes to simple economic realities.

Pericles, with no intent to convert your views -
I’m an Industrial Engineer/manager who has run his own business. I’ve also spent many years as a humanist activist & occasional writer. I have working knowledge of the plastics/packaging industry & the problems faced by this typical example.
Protectionism is definitely not the answer, merely a tool to prop up industries (read employers) while a strategy is implemented. We don’t have a real, ‘forward thinking’ strategy, other than screwing the people who comprise this nation. All democracies, even ours, understand the term ‘regressive’ to mean the lowering of overall social wellbeing & this is what the Liberal party is offering.
We have been interfering, one way or another, with the activities of other nations for around 235 years now. International trade is one of the pillars of society & should be promoted intelligently & ethically. We lack control over the activity of multinational companies who wish to employ away from their country of origin. Large international employers such as Nike should be convinced to apply a plan for acceptable international working conditions. We should have import restrictions on multinationals of this type. We should not restrict imports from ‘source’ countries & should subsidise imports from smaller, third-world manufacturers. We should apply a ‘value system’ to international trade.
If we are to suffer a downturn in the economy, something will trigger it. I think we’re actually quite balanced at the moment & don’t need the Libs offerings. The public are starting to agree…
The reality is that our economy is actually quite healthy & that we should be setting plans for a competitive future & spending on it. Nailing the worker right now does not make sense.

It's about time that economic rationalism was seen for what it is, a fundamentalist religion. I'm tired of trying to debate the sociopathic arguments of the faithfull as if they were open to reasoned discussion; it's like arguing with the Jehovahs' Witness. Thousand yard stare. Foam flecked lips. Taliban.

Don't waste your time, concentrate your efforts and thinking instead on how to cut this cancer from our society while we still have one to operate on.

Pericles

Concerning your “Fact 2” where you state – “Mandating that Nike should pay US wages will only result in the disappearance of that factory” would be a good point but no one is advocating that. For example if the average wage for a textile worker is $280 USD per week or $56 p/d in the USA Nike do not have to pay that amount in Indonesia. What they do pay is $2.50 USD per day which is exploitation. If Nike can make 30% net margin operating in the OECD countries they have a viable business however if they can legally make 3,000% margin in Indonesia paying $2.50 per day that is what they will do. What we are saying is that Nike could pay Indonesian workers $8 per day which would allow the worker some disposable income and release them from slavery. No one expects Nike to pay US wages in the 3rd world. How else do we avoid the race to the bottom if we do not set some basic rules?

Protectionism is not the answer however neither is free trade unless you like in cloud cookoo land and expect the entire world to work under the one system. The reality is that some degree of protectionism is here to stay as it is human nature to protect what they have.

Concerning “Fact 3” where is the balance in your statement? Companies have never been more profitable and have never contributed less tax. Since when has a corporation had more rights and less responsibilities than individuals? You should not assume that some contributors to this discussion have never run a business just because that can empathise with others who has less bargaining power. I have my own company and employees and I have never been a member of a trade union however these proposals are divisive, unnecessary,exploitative and encourage poor management and bad communication.

This could be to John Howard what the poll tax was to Thatcher.

All the comments on my contribution seem to read it as supporting the proposed legislation. I don't recall saying anything of the kind.

TonyR, when you say "[c]ompanies have never been more profitable and have never contributed less tax" I would imagine you are looking only at the "big end of town" - Banks, for example, whose profits each year equate to a thousand dollars ripped out of the pockets of every man woman and child in Australia.

However, most businesses in Australia are small, like mine, and live pretty much on the breadline each year. Since I left corporate life nearly ten years ago, I have been averaging less than a third of my salary each year, simply for the privilege of being a tax-collector for the government. Right now, I'm in favour of anything that relieves the burden of government interference in my company.

In an earlier life I was with P&O Lines, who at employed a couple of hundred Goanese on some passenger ships. They were paid around a quarter of the pay of the Europeans who worked alongside them. They were two years at sea, then when they went back to their village they were replaced by their brother, cousin etc. As they themselves told me, they were a) heroes at home and b) by far and away the highest paid in their community. The company line was that despite pressure from the trades unions back home, they would keep this arrangement as long as they could, as they felt they had a moral obligation that went back generations. But equally, they said, they couldn't bring their wages up, as that would not only run the risk of pricing them out of the market, but would give rise to corruption on the supply side.

Is this exploitation? If they pay an attractive wage in local terms, isn't that an improvement over not having a factory there in the first place?

And I still maintain that "protecting" workers with uneconomic measures is actively destructive of business.

Pericles

Your correct I was referring to the medium to large enterprises who seem to be optional tax payers and also coincidently major contributors to both sides of politics.

In the case of P&O you offered for comment I would not consider this exploitation paying 25% OECD wages as it can go a long way in their home economy, however in the case of Nike it is more like 5% of the OECD wage which is immoral exploitation that should have been outlawed long ago.

I suggest you review the DVD “The Corporation” if you have not already to get these issues in perspective and your correct most of the problem is with the large trans national corporations that operate largely above the law.

The P&O example is actually quite desirable as it represents something approaching an ‘apprenticeship’ for the non-westerners. The big difference here is the mix of nationalities working alongside one another & under the same environmental conditions ( & I assume, an equal duties roster). But the shipping industry is almost unique. Tony R is on the right track. Each case needs to be examined on its merits. The point is that multinational corps are the biggest offenders of human rights & so examining & controlling them in some fashion will yield the greatest results .
It is claimed above by mikeed that the ‘corporation’ resembles a fundamentalist religion. I like to think that it is sociopathic & in some cases, psychopathic. The conventional shareholder driven corporation has little or no regard for the individual, those that comprise it. Smart companies are finding that concern for the wellbeing of its employees yields big results. Invest ethically, not just for immediate financial gain.
Small business in Oz is not easy. I ran my own engineering shop for 7 yrs pre GST & found I did up to 70 hrs/week. Red tape should be minimal effort & I know its not the case now. The bar has risen relating to competition, especially service industries, over the past 10 yrs. People are starting small businesses with much more money than previously & are doing so because they have the money. The competition is fierce. If I were to start a small business now, it would not be without a thorough business plan.

Sigh, would people (Pericles) actually READ what I say. I have no interest in 'protectionism' as a general principle ! I have no desire to prop up 'inefficient' industry by protecting it. I DO have a strong interest in strategically protecting efficient, well run, ethical industries from UNfair competition which involves the exploitation of hapless and vulnerable indiduals. It has ZERO to do with 'inneffiency' and EVerything to do with plain Justice.

The reason countries such as China are so competitive is BECAUSE of the wage injustice built into just about every product made there.
But the other side of that coin (tune in Unionists) is the unreasonable wage demands made on employers(in the light of the global situation) by power hungry Unions) which MAKE us less competitive.

Pericles, your slant this time seemed rather bewilderingly shallow given your usual incisive form.

I started and continue to run my own business, (since 95) and I am competing successfully against multi-nationals and exporting to Asia and the USA. (in the electronics field).

The reason our government wont protect the electronics industry is because it wants to sell lots of primary product to China. plain and simple. (as Mark Vales office told me)

The Prime Minister Honest John Howard has a big difficulty in selling his new Industrial Relations legislation; its a matter of trust. Wharf workers were treated in a very unAustralian manner in 1998. We have been deceived in relation to the 2001 election and again in 2004. Apart from Iraq, we were deceived in relation to interest rates and medicare. There are numerous examples of administrative abuse perpetrated on quite defenceless people. The Government has not shown a jot of humanity towards these people.

As stated in an earlier post, Blue Ribbon Meats represents the opposite to what the government and business interests are suggesting. A Blue Ribbon Meats agreement was read out at a demonstration on 30 May. These contracts were signed by some workers, those that refused to sign, lost their positions. Those who signed the contracts soon found they had made a huge mistake. So lets not continue the claptrap about how good the new Industrial Relations policy will be for Australian workers

again, we are debating the peripheral issues. labour productivity increases under the decentralised enterprise bargaining system is less than what occurred under the "bad old days" of arbitration in the 1960s and 70s. We must face reality and accept that the ideological drive of the hr nichols society and the business council of australia has been a dismal failure. we have seen short term focus of achieving greater labour productivity simply by reducing unit labour costs, instead of changes to lead to increased productivity (higher output value) this can only occur by moving to high value manufacturing or service industries. this will only occur by allowing skills accumulation within the industry. having industry focus on enterprise just leads to auctions in the labour market for the skills. there needs to be a conscious effort to promote industry development, pooled r&d to assist firms in the industry, collobarative skills development between large, medium and small businesses within the sector and a movement away from treating labour as a commodity.

during the late 1980s and early 1990s the industrial commission played an important role in forcing both employers and employees to participate in change. importantly the wider public's interest was taken into account.

under the current system some industries can simply pass on costs of exorbitant pay rises to the consumer or other industries and conversely workers in weak bargaining positions have their conditions stripped away with management not being forced to consider other changes.

in developing industry policy it must take into account employment conditions, R&D, investment and trade policies. unfortunately we are focussing on one spoke of the wheel and we are becoming more and more like the traditional farm and quarry. lets put the religious economic zealots to pasture and put into practice policies that can deliver benefits to the employers, employees and the wider public. to do that we need to abandon the zero-sum analysis of the world.

Slasher "religious zealots" would be.... 'me' ?

I will always inject faith issues, because without faith we have only one logical/reasonable/philosophically/intellectually honest and consistent alternative "Nihilism". (though there is a fair number of individuals in these forums who still live in 'fantasy land')

You can wax eloquent about 'policy this and policy that' but in the long run it boils down to human hearts and especially the ones pulling the economic strings.

I do agree that policy is important, even crucial, but policy based on the vested interest of one politically powerful segment of the community (e.g. 'Agricultural') which conciously sacrifices previously important segments (electronics and now manufacturing in GENERAL) for a 'few grains of wheat' should be seen for what it is 'greed' which is sin, for which there is only one remedy 'repentance'.

You can have all the policy fests you like, but if they ignore what is happening around us, they will negotiate themselves into certain and unavoidable economic death and will wake up one morning, no paycheck, no job and glazed eyes saying "What the heck happened ? our union promised us better conditions, more pay.. now we have no job and no pay, and no conditions to whine about".

A few of them will survive, who have the capability of quickly chanelling their talents and remaining resources into tourism for the Chinese Industrialist fat cats to wallow in, while their workers in China languish in poverty social dislocation, unbearable hours and oppressive productivity rates and without compensation for the injuries and health issues caused by the 'we have to be cheap' mentality which put the Australian businesses out of business.

“Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical scepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.” – The Encyclopedia of Philosophy

OK BD – I’m on it. So, to not believe leads to this? And how do you account for the many atheists and agnostics who contribute to charity, lead meaningful lives within the community, hold compassion, tolerance (?!) and humanity above all else? Or are they just putting up a front? Living in that fantasy land you speak of?

Tell you what, when you can justify the evil perpetrated by the Churches and the abuses they have covered up and lied about, I’ll agree that Nihilism is what disbelief leads to. Until all is justified, then one good human who doesn’t believe will always stand higher in the crowd than a hypocritical believer.

However, this thread is about economic discussions. So let’s stay on topic shall we? On that point I agree with the majority of your comments and believe you have the competition vs protection debate quite evenly read. (See, I knew we agreed on something!)

You should know by now Boaz that there is no point *sighing* at me, nor in belittling my contribution as "shallow". Pretending that I misunderstood your intent won't wash either. You explicitly supported protectionism in your post (I quote) .... 'MARTY.. "yes" i AM advocating strategic protectionism, which targets oppressive and dictatorial regimes.'

The fact that you don't support this approach "as a general principle", but only "strategically protecting efficient, well run, ethical industries from UNfair competition which involves the exploitation of hapless and vulnerable indiduals" doesn't make it any more right, or alleviate the problems it creates for others.

What you are saying in fact is that you, a fat cat capitalist in a prosperous OECD country, need your business protected from "exploitation" by people with less than a twentieth of your per capita income - shame on you! Those "hapless and vulnerable individuals" surely have as much of a right to earn a crust by selling their labour as you do.

The other side of this argument is short-sighted too. If your industry is protected, you will have no incentive to become more efficient, and eventually will go out of business through pricing yourself out of existence. It may take a while - depending how long you are propped up - but it will happen. But I expect by that time you will have seen the writing on the wall, extracted as much swag out of it as you possibly can, and left your workers to carry the can of unemployment, thanks to your lack of foresight. Congratulations, you qualify as a fully-fledged exploiter of other people's misery.

Let's stick with this protectionism for a moment, since the generally accepted version - one nation shielding its industries from overseas competitive inroads through financial means - is also a useful metaphor for what will happen at home too, over time.

TonyR, when you say that paying 25% of OECD wage is more acceptable than 5%, we are now simply discussing relativities. 5% to one economy still might be more attractive, relatively speaking, than 25% to another. It just depends how poor they are to start with.

Swilkie, I hate to say it but your "desirable as it represents something approaching an ‘apprenticeship’ for the non-westerners" comment is somewhat patronizing. Exactly the same could be said about a shoe factory - an opportunity to observe and learn production management techniques.

The simple fact is that we choose to live in a capitalist economy, but baulk at some of its rules. One of them is that inefficient industries wither and die, and their workers will be asked to find something else to do. If all we can do is take in each other's washing because we sit in protected industries with cast-in-stone rights to have some business pay us more than we can earn for it, the end will come more quickly than you think.

Another little contribution. When I was growing up in Europe in the fifties, there were two labels that were the byword for "cheap and nasty". These were "Made in Germany" and "Made in Japan". Since that time, both economies have waxed and waned, as their industries grew, matured and then became stale - it is a natural cycle, and you cannot protect yourself from nature.

Once again, may I point out that this is not a comment on whether the present IR proposals are "right" or "wrong", I'm just trying to put them into a little perspective.

Pericles,
I agree with some of what you have to say. Australia must become more competitive and must look to efficiency to meet that competition head on.

However, that does not mean that Capitalism need to ignore it’s social responsibility. Most proponents hold the current Capitalist market as a good working model, based on the theory and thinking of the early US Capitalist, John Adams. Yet they time and again forget to include is works on ethics and moral values that are an integral part of a Capitalist system. I think this is the thrust of the other posters arguments. It’s all well and good to maintain competition but to do so at the sacrificial alter of profit over that of human exploitation is unacceptable.

Now, I know that inefficiency is a killer of industry. But to suggest that it’s OK to use a cheaper labour – because it’s cheaper is a little trite. Of course people in Bangladesh, China and El Salvador will be cheaper. Of course they would be happy with 5% of an OECS wage. Any wage will buy a little bread and milk. But the ethical view is whether a business should be allowed to use this market, just because it’s cheap? It comes back to maximising profit.

As an alternative, how about offering the near-same wage as an OECD country and giving the business huge tax breaks in the country – the same effect of bringing industry to the region while infusing the region with ready cash. OK, I am not an economist and can easily be shouted down on this idea but it would seem to me that in this case a little less profit will go a long way to developing industry and work skills in a region.

Like you, I agree that simple protectionism is dangerous and back-stepping. However I think that business needs to regain it’s social responsibility as well. It has been given the legal person privilege, no how about giving it the legal person responsibilities?

Footnote : Pericles said- "Swilkie, I hate to say it but your "desirable as it represents something approaching an ‘apprenticeship’ for the non-westerners" comment is somewhat patronizing. Exactly the same could be said about a shoe factory - an opportunity to observe and learn production management techniques."
Pericles, I agree my choice of words 'non-westerners' was pretty ordinary- read as 'non-western nationals'. Also, you misunderstand what I mean by 'apprenticeship'- 'an education in western working conditions' is more accurate. This is a service industry. The P&O workplace is vastly different to that of an Asian, labour-intensive manufacturer - opportunities are available for interaction that do not exist in even western factories. As for learning prod. management techniques, The P&O case is relevant for the above reasons. Tell me, though, how does one one observe & learn production techniques when stuck behind a sewing machine for 12+hrs at a time (even a toilet break is a luxury)? Factory production work is tough in western countries. It's inhuman, bordering on slavery in some third-world situations.

Australian workers and unions are being sold a pup, again. The campaign by the ALP and union leadership against the proposed industrial relations (IR) legislation is a farce.
The ALP still has its real roots in the big business part of town and it is those interests that are being served. These proposed laws were known before the last federal election and that is when the campaign should have been run. But it wasn’t. Why not? Because the ALP would have been elected. Now, it is the coalition that cops the opprobrium and the ALP can play the workers hero.
Note that the ALP will not commit itself to repealing the IR laws if and when they are re-elected. Why not? Because big business wants them in place.
Proof of the pudding is bolstered by the fact that industrial action has been ruled out as an option. Yet that is the only way this campaign can be won.

Pericles,
I take your points on board, but let me expand my 'theory of strategic protection' I don't know how workable it would be, but my intention was not to protect my high priced labor and 'deny' the opportunity of vulnerable Chinese peasants selling their labor.

My intent, was to show that it is pointless for countries like China to artificially keep labor rates low because they will not have the economic advantage they are seeking by doing so ! I would review protection in a timely manner where the conditions in the targeted country would be a highly rated factor in the mix. Rates of protection would come down, as workers conditions in such countries come up.

JUSTDAN
I can explain all the things you mentioned bro, with 'culture and socialisation' People don't immediately 'jump into the nihilistic furnace' as soon as they discover they are atheists. But it is a gradual thing, filtering down through the arts and media and opinion leaders. Many atheistic people will retain 'goodness' till their last breath. They will embrace 'humanism' or some similar pseudo religion. I only challenge the philosophical basis for it :)
Further, I would never try to justify the Church sins u mentioned.

So who is going to pay for all the protection you people talk about?

Just a thought as nothing is free in this world.

If you think china keeps it labour rates artificially low, how do they do that?
With a huge surplace of labour, why would the market make it higher, and if it did, how would the Chinese economy sustain itself, being uncompetitive as a result?

As an economy, Australia has run a rather large continuing deficit, with very little to prove for the $400 plus billion debt we now have.

Regulating more consumption of wealth by having unsustainable labour market conditions will only continue to increase the national debt.
So when do we stop increasing the debt?

All I want to know is there anyone who can tell me we can pay for the continuation of the present system.

If you have an opinion against the changes, then you “must” have an opinion about who actually pays for it?
Saying ‘business’ when all they will do is add a margin on to the increased costs from regulation, meaning the sale price goes up, making china more competitive than before.

So who is going to take up the challenge?

Er, your arguments are a little sophisticated for this thread, dunart. As I said before, it is clear that so few of them have actually run a business, they still think that wages are decided by management in isolation from market conditions, company profitability, employment sustainability or other aspects of real life.

And thanks for the clarification Boaz that your position is completely idealistic, and nothing to do with your own circumstances.

"I would review protection in a timely manner where the conditions in the targeted country would be a highly rated factor in the mix."

How exactly would this work? Who would decide, and on what criteria? And how would this be influenced by our export aspirations to a particular destination... e.g. would the interests of our coal exporters come ahead of, or behind those of the inductries that want to be protected from Chinese imports?

Or perhaps you would prefer us not to deal with these economies at all, on the basis that they don't meet your standards in their treatment of their workers? Surely that would be more ethical than merely imposing economic sanctions on imports?

Forget the income gap for a moment, and let's consider the impact on the small businessman.

I run a business that relies upon particular skills that are in great demand by larger organizations. At the moment, I attract this type of person by emphasizing the benefits of working in a small company environment - less bureaucracy, more responsive management etc., and as a result have a very low attrition rate.

Since we have fewer than 100 employees, under the new legislation they will be considered by the government to have no rights under law - I can just fire them as I please, willy nilly.

That's an absolute lay-down misere for a larger organization who wants to poach one of my people. "Think of the security we can give you", they will say, "don't entrust your future to a boss who can put you out on the street tomorrow."

Yet another piece of legislation concocted between the government and the big end of town. They have absolutely no clue how small businesses work. Yet 99% of Australian companies fall into this category.

I think we should ask our elected representatives to look in the mirror and ask themsleves if they were part of the ordinary workforce, would they be happy with the proposed changes. Also, I'm confident, that if we tied our approval of the proposed changes to them working under the same pay and entitlement conditions as their constiuents, then debate on this subject would not even reach the floor of the house! Our politicians, as they have in the past, continue to let us down badly. The Australian standard of living has been in decline for at least 30 years, which, I'm afraid, irrespective of the proposed reforms, is destined to continue. With nations, as with people, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Unless......And there is no such thing as a level playing field!

chatters, they are interesting points you raise.

It seems to me that the next election will see contestation between the public understanding of what are acceptable standards of living (and wages) and how the impending IR legislation will contribe (or not)to the decline in living standards.

Thanks Rainier. I feel our pollies need a good dose of integrity, also our business and union leaders. I looked around my house recently, and it was hard to find an article with a "Made in Australia" tag. We are fast losing the capacity to make things here. during WW2 our factories were quickly converted to production of war material, now, we have no choice but to rely on the USA, because such factories no longer exist. Our shopping centres are tenated by retailers who sell imported goods and are staffed by part-time Australian servers. Over the last 30 yrs our manufactring industries have been decimated. Our commodity prices are always under pressure and we pay for our imports by trading stuff we dig out of the ground. Now I don't know what the solution is, however, I do feel our current crop of pollies don't know either. Perhaps it's a good thing that the Reps & Senate are in control of one Party, because now the pressure is right on this one Party to deliver the goods and be held accountable. This might eventually lead, after some pain, to us obtaining the political sea change we so desperately need.

I think that the Liberals won't rest until we are on a par with our first-world business competitors in the third-world and Australia's work force is reduced to the same over-exploited level of third-world workers. A truly competitive frame of mind aims at the highest possible result whilst treating your team fairly. We can reduce our standards downwards; or we can aim higher and retain our fair-go attitude. Western workers need to learn from the mistakes of past and not get sucked into the cultural supremism of the past and blaming overseas workers for their lot. Off-shore workers have a right to work and conditions just as we do. We can can get caught up in a downward spiraling competition, that is, we reduce our living wages and work conditons so pressure is on to reduce theirs and soon all workplaces are "reformed" down to third-world levels and the only ones who benefit are employers, especially, the multi-nationals. All workers need protection from over-exploitation and unfair work-place laws.
Australian empolyers need to take a more positive and truly competitive approach and force the competition to new heights rather than just scapegoating their workers and falling into the Liberals old, very old ideological attitude of employer to be rewarded must ensure employee deprived. Do we really want to go back to that old capitalism (bosses vs worker) that caused such political and social unrest of the twentieth century. Old saying referring to that old way: "As someone has pointed out, when economic theory addresses capitalism, it says nothing about morality." (From the book 'Death in the Locker Room'.)
In this century a successful business must bring morality into its workplace relations. Howard's reforms are wrong - they completely ignore the employer's responsibilities to their staff. I have owned a successful small business and grew up on a very successsful farming enterprise. From my experience being fair to workers pays dividends. Australian business needs to get back into that old-fashioned fair-go attitude.

Thanks Pericles for your answer.
I have been coming to that conclusion myself. Most people do not believe that there is a relationship between their total wage package, and the sale price of the company’s goods and services.

This is defiantly re-enforced by no one taking up the challenge to explain “WHO” pays for the regulated benefits for what is only a % of the population. As a self employed person, no one guarantees my continuing income, regulated to inflation.

What make are them so “special” that they need a “hand” all the time from govt.
There is a word for it, but is slips my mind as does the lack of response about my question, “who pays”

Pericles – in answer to your comment “ when you say that paying 25% of OECD wage is more acceptable than 5%, we are now simply discussing relativities. 5% to one economy still might be more attractive, relatively speaking, than 25% to another. It just depends how poor they are to start with.”

Correct, but that does not negate the point I am making. We need international trade regulations that say Corporation must ensure that proper health and safety standards are applied in their centres of production and they must at least pay subsistence + “n” wages, “n” could be and internationally agreed % of the subsistence wage. All of this is perfectly possible and should be a condition of trade. Having access to “n” in the 3rd world provides a modest disposable income which is feed back into the local economy and provides incentive to others. Without “n” resentment and desperation is implanted, which has considerable costs associated with it.

In answer to Dunard’s question “who pays” it‘s the Corporations who will have to pay by accepting lower profit margins and less ability to externalise their true costs. They can be profitable but not super profitable as for them to be super profitable is to accept social and environmental destruction. Yes regulation has a cost but nothing compared to the cost of maintaining the current imperial exploitative system with the obscene spending on weapons each year, resources which could be diverted to more productive activities.

This has never been a question of cost but a question of power and who exercises power on behalf of whom. We invented the rules that Corporation operate under and we can change them to suit our needs however we should not wait for the Corporations to do this for us.

its fascinating listening to the debate on protection and its pros and cons.

again no one is pointing out the obvious.

ppp, not public private partnerships but purchasing power parity holds the key.

International exchanges used to be set by governments, central banks or linked to some sort of gold/commodity standard. This has been abandoned in most countries, many of which have floating currencies.

This means that the market sets the value of currencies amongst each other. To test whether or not the market is "right" you simply compare a price of a product in country a to the price in country b, the conversion factor should equate to the currency exchange.

The economist magazine runs a big mac index, it gets the price of a big mac in the local currency and compares it to the price of the big mac in the United States (trading currency). From the index created on 9 June 2005 it shows the $A is undervalued by 18%

Effectively the market error in valuing the aussie dollar against the major international trading currency has created an 18% tariff on all products.

So those who argue against tariffs must also argue against floating currencies because the market has effectively imposed an 18% tariff on all goods.

Lets hear from the free traders/economic rationalists on this point

So a company will operate with a lower profit margin to increase your “profit”, i.e. higher wages and conditions?

Rather interesting thought tonyr when you are demanding a higher share?

You won’t, so why should the investors in the company accept lower returns for risk?

Will you keep your “super fund” in a fund that invests in companies with a lower return?

I would not, just as I would not work for a company that paid me less, all else being equal.

“Weapons” spending has got nothing to do with work place regulations, a typical side distraction from the left when the questions get to hard!!

So what’s wrong with the market slasher?
Its acting as a market should, valuing our currency with many factors taken into account.
Look around you, and you will see many examples where the market values a product, both above and below what should be its value.

Just maybe the market has under valued our currency due to the “workplace protections” this country has, making it a far riskier and expensive place to operate a business.

With respect TonyR, I think your concepts of "international trade regulations" are somewhat patronising to the target country, even though you probably don't intend them to be. You show strong leanings towards the control mechanisms of colonialism... the very idea of a bunch of countries sitting around debating what your magic variable "n" should be fills me with dread. Would it be the same for all, I wonder? Or would it become tied to non-trade related issues such as the rights of women, or a ban on hunting foxes? Or on regime change, perhaps, if there is a government of which you disapprove?

You also suggest that the nonexistence of "n" causes "resentment and desperation ... which has considerable costs associated with it." Would you care to cite an example of this that originates within the target country itself?

Nor do you address the impact of these impositions on the "donor" company. How would it affect their decision to invest in that country in the first place? Would this not be detrimental to the possibilities of that country to begin to fend for itself in the world economy?

It sounds as though you would actually prefer to continue to subsidise these countries through direct financial support from your international conscience fund ("n" percent of GDP) than to allow them to make decisions for themselves. That may make you feel warm and squishy inside, but it is actually very damaging to the very people you believe you are helping.

The single most effective element of assistance to these poorer economies would be to prohibit, internationally, the imposition of trade barriers in the form of both import restrictions, and industry subsidies. "All of this is perfectly possible", to use your words, but would be vastly simpler to explain and to implement.

The only problem is that there isn't the political will for it to happen. Only when there is genuine and visible economic advantage - and this would come from individual commercial firms - will you see the required investments in those economies.

Dunart

Weapons spending has everything to do with International Trade and I never said it was directly related to workplace relations. If companies have to accept lower profit margins they also benefit from lower risk and lower operating costs. If international trade is conducted on fairer terms there would be less instability less conflict and less of all the costs associated with these conditions. Consequently governments would have to spend less on law and order, defence and would need to raise less tax and allow companies to retain more of their profits even if the revenue was attained from marginally lower margins.

You seem to have forgotten how externalisation works and how cost externalised only shifted to other parts of the economy . It does not evaporate into thin air just because it has been left off some corporations books.

Pericles

There is nothing patronising about a leveller playing field and the 3rd world would welcome such a move. Most OECD countries would also welcome some mechanism to better manage the bidding war that transnational corporations initiate between rival nation states as well as states with a nation while hooking for corporate welfare. Unfair terms of trade are the greatest rip-off the 3rd world as to endure whereas corporate welfare is the blowback that effects the developed countries.

How about passing international legislation to immediately outlaw tax havens just for a start if they are really serious about having a level playing field. It’s ironic that those who have the greatest leverage on Government pay next to nothing back in tax.

That was a quick about-face, TonyR. You seem to agree with me all of a sudden.

>>There is nothing patronising about a leveller playing field and the 3rd world would welcome such a move.<<

Nothing would make the playing field "leveller" than the destruction of all tariff barriers and industry subsidies.

>>Unfair terms of trade are the greatest rip-off the 3rd world as to endure<<

Errr, yes. Tariff barriers and industry subsidies have a significant impact on terms of trade. They should be the first to go.

What happened to the "n" factor?

Quote from tonyr

“In answer to Dunart's question “who pays” it‘s the Corporations who will have to pay by accepting lower profit margins and less ability to externalise their true costs. They can be profitable but not super profitable as for them to be super profitable is to accept social and environmental destruction. Yes regulation has a cost but nothing compared to the cost of maintaining the current imperial exploitative system with the obscene spending on weapons each year, resources which could be diverted to more productive activities.”

If corporations have to accept lower “profits” as a result of regulations, the best you would have to play with, would be a few %.
For instance, if wage costs were 50% of the final product cost, with the company making 15%, you would have a problem very quickly as it does not take much regulation (and business tax) to push that below 10%, making the company look elsewhere to do business.
Sounds familiar to me, where has all the Australian manufacturing gone?

As for weapons spending, what’s that to do with the argument, as it is funded from tax, and does not have anything to do with business production costs?

You finish about it’s not a question of cost, but about power. So now the cost’s just “disappear”?

Quite happy to have a level playing field.
That would mean no govt regulation that benefits any company or individual.
Total free trade would mean people, capital and business decisions would be made without any govt regulation influence.
Stopping the so called “tax havens” is against free trade principals.