24 hours are almost past since the challenge to Peter Hendy

I will repeat the challenge

I challenge him to answer these fundamental questions

Will a worker be able to refuse a direction to perform unsafe work?

If they do and work for someone with less than 100 employees will they be allowed to lodge a claim for reinstatement, if dismissed?

Will a worker be allowed to refuse an unlawful direction?

If they do and work for someone with less than 100 employees will they be allowed to lodge a claim for reinstatement, if dismissed?

If other readers like watching spin doctors squirm then wait for Peter Hendy's answers. I love watching innovative spin and I await with interest Peter Hendy's answer, that is of course if he is brave enough to answer

Slasher,just keep the lawyers out of it.Are we going to get down to legal definitions of safe work places?If you want more employment make it easier to employ people.The casualisation of the workforce is due to lower margins,high taxation,Govt red tape,workers comp.,super contributions etc.

If it so damn easy,why don't you become an employer?When most employers do their sums and divide the hours they do into their salaries,they are earning less on an hourly basis than their employees.Add the stress of failure and possible litigation to this and it can all become just too hard.

The real rate of unemployment is much higher than 5%.I'd say at least half of those on DSP[700,000] are the long term unemployed.Add to this all those who can only find a few hrs a week and the real rate of unemployment is much greater.The Public Service has also expanded over the last 30yrs to care for the unemployed and socially disadvantaged.This has meant higher taxes for all and thus less for the workers.Hence both parents have to work just to survive.If everyone works ,both you and the rest of society benefits.

We have to make easier to employ people.Good workers are hard to come by and are paid well above award wages.

Let's not get too alarmist,since if John Howard's IR reforms hurt the worker,he knows full well,that his next election will be his last.

Molldukes,to quote you "...some workers will be worse off with the new IR regulationsand why should they give up their standard of living to ensure your business will survive."

Well if David Boaz's business and many others don't survive there will be no jobs or living standards to maintain.

What do suggest,print more money so no one has to work?Alas Mollydukes ,it's been tried before.Maybe you could get the Public service to fix your plumbing at five times the price.

You see this is the fuzzy logic that John Howard and others have to confront with many like you,who cannot grasp economic realities.

Sure there is a lot wrong with multi-nationals and big business,but the bulk of our popluation is employed by small business on low margins.We have to deal with the economic realities that confront us now and work within that frame work.

Just read my last post in this section and you will know my reservations about Global economics.

arjay,
you would rather allow businesses to kill people just to keep the lawyers out. What sort of sick morality have you got. This is the crux of the issue some people value their overseas holidays, rolex watches more than the lives and welfare of other people.

I am aware of many situations where employers have removed safety guards of machinery to increase profitability, end result worker loses three fingers, but thats ok according to you as long as you get a buck in your pocket you do not care

Arjay, it is Howard’s IR reforms that are going to bring the lawyers in. That is the way they propose that individuals dispute an unfair dismissal.

As you note, it is not easy for small businesses in this society and the Howard government policies over the past 10 years have not helped. They see multinationals and large employers as the basis of a growth economy.

If small employers are ineffient and having trouble paying a decent wage then they need to get a job with effecient employers, surely?

Stop focusing on welfare and look at some of the other inefficient practices of this government. After all, the bludgers have children who do not deserve to suffer for the parental shortcomings.

Howard is not motivated only by his desire to stay in power. He wants to go down in ‘history’ as the one who made far reaching changes that kept the economy ticking over and the negative results of the IR reforms will not be immediately apparent.

You say that currently both parents need to work to survive in this society. I fail to see how you think that earning less will make things better.

As a side issue, it seems to me that if you need two incomes to ‘get by’ you probably want more than you really need. It may help to compare what you have with the rest of the world that don’t live in Western economies.

In some cases, good workers are paid well, but not all. As you point out, good employers are unable to pay well in many circumstances. Your arguments contradict each other.

So take a good hard look at what this government is doing, rather than relying on your fuzzy logic to tell yourself that whatever the Liberals do is for the good of us all.

Slasher and Molly.

It seems that you are allowing emotion and 'irrational hysteria' to be your guide.

The simple fact is that NO 'system' will be perfect for both sides, because you cannot legislate for every permutation of human behavior, agreed ?

Now.. classic example of the 'weakness' of the current legislation as I (rightly or wrongly) understand it.

If you have a worker who is underperforming, (i.e. turning a profit into a loss simply by their work habits, taking 2 hours to do a 40 minute job) you have to do something. If they are EMPLOYED to do THAT job, i.e. at the interview, you say "I have THIS job available,... etc" but they are unable or unwilling to perform at the required level EVEN for simple break even. ... THAT is the person these changes are aimed at. There is one such person at my wifes work, and they alllll know what she is doing. She deliberately AVOIDS the job she is given, and tries to occupy herself with simple easy time-wasting jobs, now, she was working on one particular product and that factory has now LOST that contract. (slowness of supply)

If one had to 'warn, x3 counsel, write to, re-train, shift around' etc such a person, the result will still be the same "bludgeville".

If we go too far the other way, making it ultra easy to dismiss people
we will be rewarded with SOME heartless and opportunistic employers.
But as Arjay says, 'word travels' and trust me, it travels for employERS and for employEES.

So, in the final analysis, it will depend on what kind of PEOPLE we are and what VALUES we promote in our society. You can thank the 60s and the 'me' generation for most of the problems of today, and without 'new people' it will not just 'not change' it will decidedly worsen.

Sadly, the 2 views I see expressed here mainly seem to be still 'its our way or the highway', yet there IS a moderate middle ground. If we can only put hysteria aside.