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.