The proposed reforms represent a dangerous form of social engineering. And while many of the effects can be forshadowed by examining the state of affairs in the UK NZ and the United States States I suspect that there will be added pressures placed on the work force that will transform the way it operates, the way families function and the manner in which the community at large interacts.
The mooted bargaining process will inevitably give rise to a race to the bottom And inspite of the reassurances of John Howard the "first rule is that there are no rules" approach mooted by Costello will be the model we ultmately get.
Not only will the dynamic between the worker and the employee change, the relationship between workers on the shop floor will change. JObs and job security will become the subject of a bidding war from which the only person emerging the victor will be the employer. Annual leave, statutory breaks and all manner of entitlements will eventually be up for grabs posing an incalculable risk to the health and safety of the work force; and many of those conditions are in place offering an ammenity to not only the worker but his or her family.
THe promise of increased employment is little more than act of faith In much the same way as the GST was said to see of the black market more than an act of faith - little proof has been offered up; in fact most academic analysis suggest the promise is a hollow one.
Members of the HR NIcholls ocxiety have the champagne on ice already -imported no doubt.

What absolute rubbish.

In effect these reforms complement the reform of some years ago when union membership was made voluntary. Unions have had to accept that we do not have compulsory unionism in the country, but have religously insisted that they are the only organisations that can conduct negotiations about working conditions and have rights to appear before the IRC.

Those who do not wish to join a union must have the same rights as unions to negotiate about working conditions and wages. But they need to be able to negotiate either for themselves individually or as a collective represented by a non union organisation, such as a professional organisation. And whatever is the case unions should respect their decision. Only in this way do all employees enjoy the same rights.

I have never been able to understand why a union is not prepared to provide an industrial service to individuals who wish to make individual agreements with their employers. This legislation might just force unions to do so in order to remain competitive and viable in the future.

In essence unions membership is a choice. But non union membership should not "leave you out in the cold" and not have rights within the IR scene. This legislation will balance the ledger and give citizens who choose not to join a union equvalent rights to those who choose to become a union member.

Sooner the better as far as I am concerned.

Mark Bahnisch and John Quiggin, What is your response to the last post by Sniggin?

What rubbish says sniggid. It really depends on the premises you are operating from. However, there are current examples already where workers have been screwed down by unscrupulous employers. The IR legislation proposed now is only the thin edge of the wedge.

The Treasurer indicated last week that that he would like to see workers trade their lunch breaks for cash. He also stated he would like to see unfair dismissal laws applicable for all businesses. That is, the Treasurer has let the cat out of the bag.

There may be employers disadvantaged by the current IR situation, but there is no need for the pendulum to swing to the extreme.
The system may need tweaking up a little, not wholesale change

It is not about unionism; the concept of compulsary unionism is a dead issue - many of the unions are in receipt of palliative care anyway and breathing their last due to complacency and galloping irrelavence.
It is about employees being offered little or no protection. The formula is very simple once the rules are weakened: if it can be done , it will be done; when it comes to entitlements if they can be removed they will be. The market will see to that. And the benefits will flow predominately one way. Choice has little to do with it. Managers and Directors have one responsibilty and that is to maximise the returns of the enterprise by whatever legal means at hand - and some will try illegal means as well.
Freeing up the system simply places individuals in direct competition with not only each other but the employers and the market - clearly some will do very well out of it but as casualisation of the work force rises - now up to abot 26%, the majority will be exploited.

Sniggid, if non-union membership should not leave you out in the cold as a worker, who you gonna call? Government? Whilst unions have their flaws, just tell me what govt in Aust legislation has been all for the workers. My last recall was the Hawke/Keating govt and whilst in hindsight they didn't do the union movement any favours, it was a pretty benign time for workers. Why should unions and their members take up the flack for supporting workers who won't pay union dues and get the same benefits they are prepared to stick their necks out for? Do you go to your local Dymocks retail shop and ask to borrow a book for two weeks to read and expect a free service as per a library?

These IR reforms are not about sticking it to the unions, who have virtually lost their teeth anyway, thanks to lack of worker support. It's about casualising and de-structuring the workforce and disempowering the individual, rather than the collective workforce (where there is strength). So when you, as an individual worker, who have never felt the need to belong to a union, because you got your pay rises anyway under the Keating govt, now find yourselves without any recourse for dismissal, stripping away of your rights, casualisation of your job, under this govt. only then, wonder where those rights came from. No govt or employer body gave us sick leave, holiday pay, overtime etc. The unions have plenty of flaws, but workers can't win anything without 'em. The govt isn't exactly handing it over on a platter at the moment.

The chat about the current state of the unions I think is very interesting. It seems to me that if anything will revive the role and purpose of unionism in Australia, it will be the implementation of the new IR reforms. Unions were born from the need of legitimate civil disobedience and when that need reappears, so will the union movement. If goverment policies won't protect you, where else can you go?

Sniggid says

"Those who do not wish to join a union must have the same rights as unions to negotiate about working conditions and wages. But they need to be able to negotiate either for themselves individually or as a collective represented by a non union organisation, such as a professional organisation. And whatever is the case unions should respect their decision. Only in this way do all employees enjoy the same rights."

But shouldn't employers respect these decisions also? If you think they should, then presumably you reject the policies of the present government, which, as an employer, demands that employees sign AWAs or individual contracts and, as a matter of policy encourages employers generally to do so.

John Q, we are not in the luxurious position of declining the changes of the Lib govt in IR reforms because apparently, we have been voting for them for the last ten years. A bit of a legacy because apparently we didn't like the Keating package of everything else that was wrapped up in worker reform. Although IR is state based, it also overflows into IR National because of our laws and constitution. Now that the little JWH has control and power over the govt AND most importatnly the senate! Well, if i was a worker, I'd be a tad worried. If i was a big fat cat, it wouldn't probably make a dent in my DKNY wallet. Watch the bumpy space.