Mr Cleary discusses the concept of 'if it ain't broken don't fix it'. What is the government to do-wait until the boom busts and then try? I'd much rather sure up the foundations now because contrary to popular belief amongst the left, it will be the poor suffering if the economy flounders. Remember the late 80's under the ALP? Was it the wealthy who suffered most as interst rates hit 17%, and unemployment went close to 10%?
Those who are disabled, disadvantaged, and battling generally are the ones who suffer the most as resources strain supporting themany who rort the system. Why is it so wrong to try to improve this situation? Shouldn't abled bodied people be working for $450.00p/w week rather than collecting $375.00p/w from welfare?
We are losing hundreds of talented people each week to places such as New York and London because this country takes half of every dollar they earn in income tax (not including GST!). Where is the notion of a fair go in that? Once again the irony is that it isn't those moving to London on a 100k a year that suffer now is it?

Agree with you WRE that the rich will always benefit as they have bigger buffers to ride out any downturns in the economy. However, i don't think any of the IR proposals Little big man is going to address that issue, rather, they will marginalise the lower skilled workers even more and make their particular jobs much more transient and easier to swap and change, which means less security and a downward spiral re real wages and conditions.

Don't confuse the welfare issue with real jobs just waiting for unemployed people to snap them up as an answer. The problem is that there is a swag of young people out there that are so illiterate and alienated, they don't know how to fill out a job application, let alone write a resume or turn up to an interview in a proper state, and neither did their parents. No one would employ them, and rightly so. There is a huuuuuuge gap between jobs going around and kids wanting to get work.

That, by the way, is not to let the govt and the way it has (not) tackled the issue of employment in this country, off the hook. They've dumbed us down on literacy, apprenticeships (traineeships are a bogus) R & D, as well as real job paths through proper channels. Not to mention moving cattle jobs such as tele-centres off shore to New Delhi (and don't get me started on that one!) because it's cheaper to shove it OS. Where is the incentive unless one has a silver spoon up one's rectum safely inserted by Mummy and Daddy's super to pay for the education?

"By the Time, I get to Uni, I'll be sleeping...
I'll probably hang that HECS debt on the door,
When I reach the part that says I'm poor, I'll be weeping
To a govt I never voted for"

All apologies and respect to Jimmy Webb and Glen Campbell

Di I see some of your points. However i'd like to draw a few distinctions.
Firstly you say the government has done nothing regarding literacy. It is the ALP that sides with the teachers unions who refuse our children access to phonetics and foreign languages, and confine under tens to play dough. As if that's not disadvantage enough it is the left again that insists on the ridiculous notion of everybody being university educated-much to the frustration of all those young people dying to get into trades before the system fails them and they give up trying.
What the IR reforms have the potential to do is not marginalise the poor, but actually increase the middle class. The U.S cannot be used as a case study in this area because its working class is ten times larger, and welfare is non-existent. In addition America does have very real (and huge)class/race divisions that run parallel to eachother.
What we need is for a semi intelligent, independant senator to stand up and connnect the issues of tax, IR, and welfare together. It's no use saying nothing works, and then fixing nothing. The bottom line is there are too many bludgers on the dole, being supported by an ever decreasing skilleed workforce who pay more tax than the workers of any other nation in the world. Who will stand up for the workers?

I am an employee (I have never been a employer, however I have previously been in the position of responsibility for the hiring and firing staff in a small business).
I am currently in favor of the new IR reforms as from the information I've seen something needs to be done and this is best option I've seen.

however a few questions to all of these opinionated minds, on both sides.

1. were can I find more information? I.e. details and facts of the new reforms

2. From the information I have form http://www.workplace.gov.au
The reforms will:
• Not cut minimum and award classification wages
• Not abolish awards
• Not remove the right to join a union
• Not take away the right to strike
• Not outlaw union agreements
• Not abolish the AIRC

will establish the Australian Fair Pay Commission to protect minimum and award classification wages;
• enshrine minimum conditions in legislation for the first time;
• introduce the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard to protect workers in the bargaining process;
• simplify the agreement making process at the workplace;
• provide modern award protection for those not covered by agreements;
• ensure an ongoing role, for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission;
• better balance the unfair dismissal laws; and
• introduce a national system of workplace relations.

Is there anything wrong with this info?

3. workers opinions have also been polled and they have swung towards agreeing with individual contracts (as opposed to th 80's)
see Policy http://66.102.7.104/custom?q=cache:QPgu-oXtIJ8J:www.cis.org.au/Policy/winter05/polwin05-6.htm+%22Industrial+relations+reforms%22+economy&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8
Is there any information to dispute these claims of popular opinion?

In response to quis I suggest that you visit the ACTU website.

Clearly there are two sides to all stories however on the face of the information provided so far in this debate:

1. Awards will cease to be a minimum safety net in favour of five or so minimum conditions. In some states awards currently protect up to 45-50 conditions which are deemed as a minima.

2. Employees employed in organisations of less that 100 employees will lose access to an indepandant umpire in the case of "unfair" as opposed to the Governments "unlawful" dismissal. This will exclude or at best make it financvially unviable for low income earners to pursue as they will need to engage a lawyer.

3. The indepedence of the AIRC will be removed as the forum by which minimum wages can be set.

In terms of the other matters listed, a cynical mind may suggest that as is so often the case, the real detail is somewhere behind the government rhetoric.

There is much debate in the community right now in relation to the broader issues, I accept the views of prominent community and church leaders who currently express severe reservations about the government agenda.

“The Howard Government’s proposed industrial relations reforms will reshape the workplace landscape in a manner that will tilt the balance firmly in favour of employers at the expense of the Prime Minister’s “battlers”.”
This is certainly true COMPARED to how the system is now, but if we look at it from a clean slate, would not the system still be balanced in favour of employees.

In essence employment is an ongoing contract between two parties in order to trade services for cash. Subject to fixed period contracts, an employee has the absolute right to terminate, with notice, the contract anytime he or she wished. The same can’t be said for an employer with over 100 employees.
In an alleged liberal democratic egalitarian society such as ours aren’t all parties to a contract supposed to be treated equally? Isn’t there some adage somewhere in that Rule of Law thing about all people being equal under the law?

I can see why the author Ray Cleary declared: “Sound and equitable social policy should not be driven by ideology.”
Ideology is the antithesis of pragmatism. The philosophy of whatever it takes. Or in other words, a nice way of saying that the ends justify the means.