Well said rancitas... That's just it - the whole thing is not an economic argument - it's a horrible, elite-ist argument in which those ALREADY doing well smugly say 'I'm going to do well out of this, what's your problem?'

There are shades of a 'trading places' philosophy that those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale are there because of choice not circumstance while simultaneously making no appology for their OWN progeny's way to be greased with money, influence and the 'old boys' club. But it's all effort - right? Under this new system people would get what they deserved according to effort...? if that were true, get ready to see a lot of YSL clad bums on the street...

Get real. We are humans, we wage a constant battle to balance nurturing and kindness against our selfish, greedy nature. I don't think the people responsible for the profit margins of a business are any different...and we all know that self preservation (selfishness, greed) wins.

Power corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts ABSOLUTELY. Give these bastards the chance and there will be a slave class in our lifetimes.

Seventeen of Australia’s leading academic researchers in the fields of industrial relations and labour market issues, employed in universities across Australia, have released a series of papers analysing the details of the Howard Government’s proposed changes to Australia’s industrial relations laws and the likely effects of these changes.

The Federal Government’s Industrial Relations Policy: Report Card on the Proposed Changes

Follow this link and download the paper: http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/content.php?pageid=14896

Rats rancitas; your case of unfair dismissal for wearing long hair is a poor one, let me explain. Basically the employer owes us nothing except respect for what we do in his or her service and our private lifestyle choices should not interfere with that.

My experience as an add hoc shop floor rep in many places was most bring the sack on themselves by their attitude and flaunting your differences with the boss was the best way to do it. Why be out of step when you need the money?

During the depression and trying not to embarrass their mum at the dinner table many boys left home and went fossicking for what few jobs there were along the roads and back blocks. One uncle slept under barbed wire fences for protection in Tasmania but he eventually got over to Melbourne, another from my mother’s side boiled grass in the tea billy with his brother on their way between Sydney and Dubbo. They were my mentors.

Back in Melbourne there was a queue from midnight to daylight where fellows could read the same paper. Outside the Commonwealth Pottery one frosty morning was a job for my lucky uncle after months of waiting. Someone from the factory died overnight and failed to turn up next day. Uncle humped clay for many years.

Employers did not forget either and raking up cases that are even half dubious play right into our government’s hands. Besides; my late auntie was there at Fisherman’s Bend when a girl was scalped by a drill which she was using to make our wartime airframes. A wisp of hair is all it takes.

Bruce,
You ask how many companies would split themselves up and suggest that they won't, obviously you have had no experience in the retail industry. In Queensland there is regulation that governs trading hours. Essentially companies that employ more than a certain number of employees are classified by legislation as non-exempt shops. Prior to recent reforms trading on Sundays for non-exempt shops was prohibited.

Companies regularly used corporate restructing to ensure their staff numbers were below the threshold and thus were able to trade on a Sunday.

Without pointing the finger at particular companies why is that there exist XYZ Electrical, XYZ Computers, XYZ Furniture stores all with separate company structures and cash registers yet are often located next to each other. For the customers ease of operation wouldn't there be no dividing walls and separate registers, golly gee there must be some other reason for these artificial divides.

I'm sure Bruce still believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy and that corporate Australia is made up of men and women of virtue who would not contemplate using an "artificial" corporate structure to benefit their operations.

Taz you totally miss the point in your effort to deny that there is any problem with employer behaviour. Your argument reminds me of the Monty Python skit that goes ‘you think you had it bad, why we had to live in a paper bag and ……’.

You write that the employer owes us nothing except respect for what we do. Exactly, and so an employer has no right to be biased against us for being or wearing something they do not like. Rancitas, wore a hair net so your spurious little vignette about one wisp of hair is irrelevant.

Rancitas was doing the job, so the employer had no right to change his conditions due to a personal dislike.

Your attitude seems to be that as a worker, one needs to tug the forelock and pay due deference to the bossman. I think they call this an 'Uncle Tom' attitude and I thought that as a society we had gone beyond that.

However, as many of the previous posters have noted, a clear class difference between the employers (and the successful enterprise workers) and the rest of us, is just what the neo-liberals seem to be bringing about.

On the upside, I guess all those old novels from the Victorian era will again be relevant and meaningful to us

From the lips of the devious Kevin Andrews himself

Then There Were Three

Australian workers will be left with just three core entitlements – the minimum wage, unpaid parental leave and sick leave – if Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews gets his way.
The traditional five-day working week, penalty and overtime rates will all be up for grabs under the federal government’s new regime, Andrews admitted, last week.
Andrews nearly came clean on minimum standards that Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) will be benchmarked against in an interview with Ben Packham of Melbourne's Sun Herald,
He confirmed his intention to get rid of the "no disadvantaged test" for judging the validity of his secret, individual contracts. He said it would be replaced by five legislated minimum conditions.
These will be a 38-hour working week, sick leave, parental leave, the minimum wage and four weeks' annual leave.
But then Andrews revealed two of those legislated minimums would not be minimums at all.
He told the Sun Herald that weekend rates, overtime and penalty rates could be bargained away, rendering the 38-hour week entirely meaningless.
Andrews said work could be performed over up to seven days a week and penalty or weekend payments "would depend on the arrangement between the employer and the employee".
He went on to say workers would be able to "trade away" two weeks of their annual leave, effectively leaving the minimum at the US standard of two weeks.

http://workers.labor.net.au/271/news1_three.html