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.