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.