Oh certainly there does need to be flexibility to reward top performers, but the worry with individual contracts is that people who are shy and quiet and who feel they could be easily replaced (which the removal of unfair dismissal will enable) will not benefit from these contracts. They need a 'champion' to negotiate for them, not because they are physically unable to negotiate, but because their position of a lack of power and confidence ensures they feel they cannot.

People who are able to negotiate will do beautifully out of new arrangements. People who are quiet, shy, unsure of their rights, who struggle with legalistic language etc, will be distinctly disadvantaged. Which seems deeply unfair.

Bruce's attitude presents the core of the argument for those 'self-reliant, hard, and smart enterprise workers', that this Government wants and against those they characterise as 'bludgers'.

Bruce seems to make the assumption that if you are a hard worker you will certainly be noticed and rewarded. However, this is not the case in many workplaces where lower-level managers act as filters between the semi-skilled workers and the higher-up managers.

It is a mistake to assume that these low-level managers will always act in the interests of the business and give credit where it is due - to a hard worker who is, as Laurie points out, shy and retiring and/or otherwise unable to make as case for improvement in their wages and conditions.

Hayek, the economist who many neo-liberals cite as their source of wisdom, puts it this way; strength of character and independence of thought is rarely found among those who are not confident that they can make their way by their own efforts.

Well, that puts me in my place as someone undeserving of being part of the new neo-liberal society.

It is a bit of a shame that those who support such changes aren't in position where they could be exploited by such reforms, or be able to put themselves in the shoes of such people. If they were to do so, these plans would not be so strongly supported.

It is a huge shame that those with a senate majority are in this category.

Tim Carter.

All this talk about the 'bludgers' getting what they deserve is fine - IF we're all starting from a level playing field.

What the advocates of these changes fail to recognise is that some people just don't have the raw materials it takes to be a doctor/lawyer/CEO - are they less valuable humans because they are not as smart? Do they not work as hard?
Did they ask to be born or have any choice in what their mental/physical capacity was going to be when they were conceived?

In this way it IS deeply unfair (as L put it a few posts above...LOVE your post by the way - good point!) because this brave new world doesn't acknowledge the difference, maintaining that it is all effort.
Sounds like the well worn myth that any American citizen can be President - works in theory but we all know that in practice it is a totally different ball game...

Yep - I'm sure all the brickies labourers out there *could* have been doctors if they'd just tried a bit harder, eh?

When we are born equal and educated equally (that includes the meany rich kid lessons about how to dodge tax....) THEN call it fair competition and - sure - every man for himself.

You can't have a race when one jockey has a Thoroughbred and one has a Donkey....

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. Over-exploitation is wrong.

Also, not all of us live in cities where there is a ‘business down the road’, as Bruce suggests. Some of us live in small towns where there is only one business that requires our skills, so there is no competition to keep this employer honest.

Sure we can all move to a big city, but even if we can afford the financial costs of such a move, what about the emotional costs in terms of disrupting our kid’s schooling, losing all our social supports and resources such as, doctor, dentist and mechanic, that we know and trust