If the polls are correct, many are on the porch with the baseball bats ready.

I agree Hedgehog, most people I know who voted for him last have told me that if this is what he stands for they will never (as opposed to never ever) vote for him again.

The current system of protections of employment related conditions acts as an incentive in the less prosperous times for employers to look for more innovative ways to cut costs. My fear is that in a completely deregulated environment employers will slash workers conditions first leaving them (the workers) less inclined to assist the company out of it's crisis.

I suspect most employers will be too dumb to work out that an attack on conditions will result in a loss of employee loyalty.

Jake seems to have met many of the employers i have.

Around 46 percent of jobs created between 1993 and 2003 paid uder $26000 a year. IR reforms or not we are a dog eat dog society already.
Tuff luck if your not the best of the best.
All employers will use and abuse, it doesnt matter who you work for in my experience.

Howard's arguement for IR reforms is completely flawed. If it's actually true we are experiencing a booming economy and near full employment, the logical economic step for our nation to take is not to create more employment, but rather to increase investment in education and training, especially trades skills training. This is consistent with the skills shortage we are experiencing, and the lack of doctors, nurses, trades people and other service professionals in the community.

It is also consistent with my experience as a primary and secondary teacher for 10 years, where politicians on both sides have starved the schools of proper funding, and deprived teachers of the authority, respect, and resources to teach.

John Howard has virtually destroyed the Tertiary education system, and the TAFE trades, training, traineeships, and apprenticeships system. He will eventually go down as the worst Prime Minister and most corrupt politician this nation has ever had. Mark my words.

For further information, please view my website; http://onenationwa.tripod.com/
Teresa van Lieshout.

While it might be strategic to introduce IR legislation while having a recession, it would be an unethical thing to do. The promotion of the IR legislation has been introduced in an unprecedented manner at a huge cost. Already examples have been found in relation to WA, Victoria and New Zealand to show that the legislation is unfair and damaging to numerous groups of employees.

When Mr. Howard states that the IR laws will be great; he is using the fundamental orifice of a bull as his megaphone.

Today "The Australian Newspaper" reported that the Federal Budget surplus is expected to be between $14-16 Billion. This being the case, we should be improving, Health and Education Funding, not as in previous years cutting it. We need more trained workers in the trades, Doctor's and Nurses are in a worlwide shortage, now is not the time for a Liberal Party assualt of the working class, rather it should be a time, for investment in the nation's most valuable capital, it's people. John Howard and the rest of the Liberal's who have spoken out in favour of this draconian legislation, taking us back to the Master/servant days of the 19 th century including Peter Costello who has been an advocate of this philosophy publicly, are to be condemmed. If they were fair dinkum about reducing costs to business, they would place C.E.O.'s under the same law, as their remuneration totals millions to only one individual. The recent Telstra announcement to cut 12,000 jobs in the bush, and export them to India, should bring Sol, a hefty bonus, however, no benefit to the Australian families left in the wake of the descion, we are clearly heading in the WRONG direction.Regardless of who leads the Liberal Party into the next election, it is now clear for all to see, what they stand for, we need change, and the only Party offering it is Labor.

More and more of our businesses are moving off shore.Even skilled and professional sevices can be sourced in India or China.The bottom line is that if we are going to compete with them,we will have to live like them.So long as we continue to drop tarrifs,so must our wages in order to compete.Cheap overseas products eventually come at a price.We are just beginning to realise cost.

In inflation adjusted terms federal funding for Health in the budget has increased over 40% since Howard came to office. It is a total myth the idea that Howard has cut Health funding.

QUOTE: rather it should be a time, for investment in the nation's most valuable capital, it's people.

RESPONSE: Yes I agree. Its time for some serious across the board tax cuts so that working people can keep more of their own capital. Howard and Costello preside over a big fat government that is completely at odds with their parties ethos. Capital should be in the hands of the workers and producers that grow the nation, not in the hands of central planners.

I agree that we should have tax cuts. It's silly that people on social welfare should pay tax.
It would be simpler to have a tax free threshhold of $20,000 and move to the New Zealand system of the tax office telling you how much you should pay in tax, and if you disagree then you should complete a tax return. I am sure the ATO has a fairly good idea what most people's income is from checking employee PAYG returns and company dividend records.

Our reporting regime got a lot more complicated with GST and BAS and activity statements and accountants are currently having a field day.

Middle class welfare is wasteful as well, examples are things like medicare rebates and rebates for children.

Historically growth in Australia has occurred from government spending. Most research in this country has been undertaken by CSIRO and government departments. Private industry is good at collecting money but rarely turns out a good idea, the Wiltshire Staysharp knife is a notable exception.

Our infrastructure owes its existence to goverment monopolies. Compare Australian rural communities with similar communities in North America and Australian communities were on the grid earlier than their counterparts.

From my perspective I can see that these IR changes allow employers to reduce working conditions and pay rates at a faster rate than they are doing presently. Many Australians are going to feel the pain of reduced wages, higher living costs and very limited social welfare.

Mr.Howard and his coalition colleagues live in an ivory tower. They have no clue about how the ordinary Australian lives. Even now in a time when the Australian economy is meant to be buoyant, there are countless Australians struggling.

Mr. Howard claims that the new IR laws will create more employment; that does not appear to have happened when similar laws were used elsewhere.
For the ordinary Australian the proposed laws are mean and cruel, ample examples already exist to indicate this is a fact; rather than, an opinion. Anybody in doubt about this might try using Google.

The IR laws in the short term are great for Mr. Howard's big business mates. Once workers wages fall behind the cost of living; then, workers capacity to consume is reduced

Who here would support a 'Family Freindly' notice on applicable merchandise? Would anyone, adjust their purchasing on the basis of it? Would anyone use only stores, and purchase only items that wore it?

Please just a short reply, i am trying to guage interest.

I modify my purchasing to avoid rewarding / supporting firms whose actions I disapprove of.

Sure Arron i think its a great idea. Hard to implement though.

I am already doing it where possible;(as are so many people I know) I will most certainly be interested.

ACTU / ALP could easily register / trademark a logo (ie like 'buy australian made') that could be included on th epackaging / promotional material of companies that complied with the standards.

It would be entirely voluntary, however it would appeal to many (particularly LARGE retailers etc.) as they spend $B on advertising / marketing to improve their market share. If they bit, their suppliers would have to comply as well (inc. transport etc.). Also as it is voluntary standard, there is no way for fe(de)ral gumbimint to regulate it.

Stores / suppliers that did not comply would overwhemingly suffer at the check-out (where it hurts). IR reforms do not address the dichotomy that whilst the employer is more powerful than individual employees', individual employees' are all consumers, which by definition may control employers' / producers.

Perhaps some of our largest retailers / employers' could even be induced to paying to advertise with this logo?

Aaron, I would definately support a union friendly business, with the appropiate approval of the A.C.T.U. at the expense of businesses without the approval.

Why not get the ACTU to start and run a few businesses. They could leverage their popular image to get a marketing advantage.

Imagine how popular a car marketed under the name ACTU instead of Holdon or Ford would be. And imagine how harmonious the worksites would be if the ACTU was the owner/manager of enterprises.

:-)

Howard IR legislation is like his bowling....

How on earth will the ability to sack some poor indivdual who doesn't have the skills to do a job help to resolve our skills shortage!

Since Australia fell off the sheeps back we seem to have wandered around in circles, looking for another back to ride on. Sadly in our new speculative global economy the backs have become fickle things. Howards changes to IR will not make any difference to the economy, when the world economy dips the Australian economy will dive. And when the world economy picks up, so will the Australain econmy.

The IR reforms will be detrimental to those who have no empowerment, the already disadvantaged. The beneficaries of the reform will be those who have the power, but these benefits will make them poor managers of their resources- people will become consumables...just like your VCR, any problems....just throw it away, and get another one for a cheaper price!

People rarely get sacked for being unskilled unless they misrepresented their skills when hired. The two main reasons people get sacked are:-

1. Poor attitude.
2. They have become redundant to business requirements due to a downturn in business or a change in the nature of the business.

At the moment anybody can be sacked due to item 2. People can also be sacked due to item 1 but it is procedurally difficult and leaves the employer open to time consuming litigation.

Sacking people with poor attitude generally lifts moral and hence productivity. Few people want to work along side slackers or trouble makers.

Terje
you have a remarkably good point there !

How ironic it would be for the ACTU to begin manufacturing, and find they encountered:

a) Pressure from employees to pay high wages for short working hours.
b) Pressure from the market to be competitive on price and quality.
c) bankruptcy court as they discover that a) and b) are not compatable. (neither are they necessarily mutually exclusive in a perfect redeemed world)

I just wonder how they would justify the redundancies to the workers ?

Then, I suppose they would do what most left oriented groups do, 'whine' for money to be allocated to 'save workers jobs' ....but from where.. well it doesn't really matter because they don't care.
Ideology (rather than reality) always comes first ...right ? :)

The biblical concept of "don't muzzle an ox while its treading out the grain" (so it can eat + work) does not mean "let the ox loose in the wheat field" without it doing any work, which seems to be the mentality of some attitudes.

A fair days pay for a fair days work is a basic principle. Pushing the boundaries of 'fair' seems to be the messianic calling of both employer and employee groups. I think its called 'selfishness'.

I don't think anything will resolve that conundrum apart from renewed hearts and minds on both ends of the spectrum, along with a dose of national repentance, in the context of market forces and in house development and innovation, which determine the survivability of any business.

Actually, for those who don't recall the ACTU has had previous involvement in business back in the 70s. It bought a department store in Melbourne which it then used to help break the practice of retail price maintenance. Under RPM manufacturers and suppliers would dictate to retailers what price products were to be sold at - any retailer trying to udercut the price didn't get supplies. The federal govt was forced to ban this practice.
The ACTU also ran independent petrol stations under the banner of ACTU Solo. Again this helped break down the cartel of the major petrol companies.
Staff employed in ACTU business enterprises would have employed on award conditions of course but the main beneficiaries were ordinary consumers whether they were union members or not.
I was happy to shop at the ACTU store and to buy Solo petrol.
Under Howards rules even the ACTU would have to employ staff under AWAs if they were try the business route again, so can't see it happening.

Terje / BD,

Perhaps it is necessary for you to examine your own failings as manager’s?

I have extensive management experience and some qualifications (with more on the way) and I believe that while the majority of employee related issues come down to either [i] Attitude or [ii] Aptitude (& only one is completely solvable), all issues or problems arising in th ecourse of a business’ operations etc. are attributable to the manager(s) of that business. The raisin de etre of a manager, is to solve, or more importantly prevent problems when and if they occur.

I have found that manager’s may be divided generally into two major categories, which are differentiated between by their response to problems. One is the pro-active, competent manager that automatically identifies the problem, seeks the cause of the problem, and solves the underlying cause thereof. The second identifies the problem, and makes excuses, explaining how the problem that occurred is neither their fault, nor responsibility. These two responses are mutually exclusive, in that time spent doing one, is time spent not doing the other.

Perhaps this explains the saying of an infamous Corsican, that ‘there are no bad men [sic], just bad officer’s’.

Perhaps BD / Terje, your employee’s would respond better to leadership than direction or threats?

...."In inflation adjusted terms federal funding for Health in the budget has increased over 40% since Howard came to office. It is a total myth the idea that Howard has cut Health funding.".....

This is not really correct. The facts are, the amount of tax revenue collected by the Howard government has increased every budget year under the Howard government. In this financial year it is expected to be close to $205 billion. The % of the total budget spent on health is only 18%. This % has not increased over 10 years, despite record levels of taxation revenue, and budget surpluses collected. The budget surplus for the next financial year is expected to be $14-16 billion, and none of it has been ear-marked for education or health. Health spending has remained the same over 10 years, but inflation and increased tax revenue collected mean that it has actually decreased proportionally to these variables.

Teresa, So if what you are saying is correct, the majority of the population, may face lower incomes, not compensated with an increase of Government services, even though the Government has plenty of money to fund the services, do I read you correctly. G'day David, hope you are well.

That's right Shonga.

The Howard government has been doing it every budget year. Collecting greater tax revenue and not increasing spending on health or education proportionate to this increase in tax. That's what a budget surplus is; they collect more than they spend. Costello claims publically that surpluses are for the government's "unfunded superannuation liabilities", and to "retire debt", (foreign debt). Foreign Debt in Australia is about $549 billion (last Dec 2004 qtr). You can get these figures from the ABS.
But now, we are going to be working more for less, with no tax relief, or relief only for the rich. And the business council says we need IR reform to stay competitive and keep living standards UP compared to other nations. This is rubbish, because our wages are going to be brought DOWN in order to be on par with other nations lower living standards. It's difficult for us to be competitive now internationally with our labour rates, because Howard and Costello have not developed Australian owned industries, companies, and businesses, but rather have sold most of our assets and industries to foreign corporations, and pursued globalist policies. The story of 'One Nation' is proving true and that is why I quit the liberal party and ran as a candidate with One Nation in the last state election, as they are the only political group who promote Australian interests, and are essentially an Australia-First party.
Check out my candidates web-site; http://onenationpwa.tripod.com/
regards, Teresa.

Teresa, interesting site, What I fail to see is how the average family will be better off with a tax cut, instead of increased services. We get a tax cut, then the services we used to get are privatised, so we spend our tax cut on the services we used to recieve, paid for by our taxes, where is the win there, I certainly am unable to find one for the average low income family. Perhaps the more affluent among society may recieve more than the cost of services, in their tax cut, but for the battler, it will be same old, same old...

baccccccck from the SINBIN

IR REFORM

“The employer will determine when and where u work, not you” (Hedgehog)

Hedgy, this might seem like a ‘remarkable grasp of the obvious’ but.. umm sounds like you want the tail to wag the dog there ? How in the heck could ANY business run if the employees tell the manager/founder “Now listen here chum, I’m going to work thus and so, and up yours if u don’t like it” I mean..c’mon.. if you want to have any credibility you HAVE to do better than this mate. Very shabby thinking.. shabby indeed.

AARON. Thanx for your sympathetic support during my time in the sin bin :) I could never hate you mate, with a name like that..’Brother of Moses’ but if I may take issue with one of your points.....

<<Anyway, I feel that knuckle-dusters and clubs are soooo last century, don’t you?>>

THE “LEFT” AND VIOLENCE
Actually, it was like last year or 2 and Craig Johnston who is described as

“Trade unionist and political prisoner Craig Johnston” by the Green Left Weekly,
<<Johnston was convicted on two charges of affray, one of assault and one of damaging property during the raids in June 2001 >>(TheAge).
is one ‘thug’ who rampaged through Johnson Tiles and Skilled Engineering with SUCH ‘Clubs and knuckle dusters’ attitude. It is clear that the Green Left view ‘violence’ as a legitimate form of political protest.
Does it surprise anyone that Mr Wreith brought in a few Rotty’s to deal with the MUA ?

MANAGEMENT THEORY
Trends in Management Theory have been moving away from the ‘workers/bosses’ approach for a long time now. There is much more ‘inclusive’ thinking. In a free society, we cannot escape from some people who (like my own former boss) have the attitude that “Leadership is when I say something, others follow”. (as opposed to “inspiring them to achieve shared goals”) But through a greater sense of ‘community’ perhaps we can ostracize and shame such people into ‘repentance’ from that type of approach ?

T.U.S. good and valid points..key word “uncorrupted” (Seldom happens)

David, I wasn't aware that you had spent time in the "SINBIN" what happened, you of all people would be the last person I would have thought, would go there. I have been there, but for due cause, you on the other hand usually explain your view, with dignity and persuasion, anyway welcome back mate, hope to hear a lot more from you, Regards,Shaun

Thanx Shaun
yes, as Jimmy Swaggart once had to say on national TV..

"I...have...sinned" :) but in my case it was not messing with some hookers, I made an incorrect assumption about Almanac and posted it without due research.. I've since apologised to him. ("Some wont Integrate" thread.)

I thoroughly enjoy our interaction here... and I see great possibilities for implementing social/political change via this web site. I think as more and more people participate, it will be taken more seriously by those in the Political arena. That's why I try to use headings and good spacing.

My current bee on my bonnet is this '

WE WANT A PEOPLES BANK ! I checked my sons account today (he asked me to transfer some money for him) and I noticed that he got charged THIRTY SIX DOLLARS ! for just 'atm' etc use ... the mind boggles... that was for on month, those mongrels are simply STEALING in my opinion. They slash personell, they outsource jobs, .. they then charge us MORE.... and MORE..and MOREEEEE... ! So, clearly the concept of 'privatization and competition' in the banking sector has done SQUAT for the financially challenged battler.

They COULD (if they chose) reduce fees, and charges in many areas. OR.. They could simply not ADD NEW ONES like they recently did with Netbank.. 50c per transaction. Its a LICENCE TO PRINT MONEY !

I thought Bendigo Bank might offer some help but they charge MORE for eftpos/atm transactions. 70c instead of 50c like the CBA who give 15 free transactions per month.

So, I'll repeat it WE WANT A PEOPLES BANK ! I could not give two hoots about any impact on shareholders in the major banks. I care more about 'financial services affordability' for the lower socio economic people

David, you will have millions of people agreeing with you. I am sick and tired of hearing about shareholders. I want a peoples bank also. There is no need for all the fees, it is a rip off, and it is time Australians stand up and make a noise. To make matters worse, whilst the CEO's and shareholders fill their coffers, the banks are downsizing the branches, people are losing jobs and many jobs are going overseas (call centres). The usual speeches regarding staff losses and branches closing, is that people do not use the bank branches. We do not even need huge branches, just having branches nearby is great. Not everyone likes to do on line banking. Lets keep the momentum going!

The protected status of Banks in this country has been an issue for me for a number of years now.

In 2004-5 the top four - ANZ, CBA, NAB and Westpac - between them scored a net profit after tax of $13.8 billion. So if we add back the tax, plus the contributions of the other "little" banks such as St.George, Adelaide, BankWest etc. it would appear that every man, woman and child in Australia has forked out a minimum of $1,000 each, to make up this surplus of revenue over expenses.

That $1,000 - extracted from each man, woman and child, remember - is what is left over after paying for the CEOs, their fellow directors, the few employees they still have hanging around, and their overseas call centres.

Note that the $1,000 has to come from somebody's after tax income. It is the amount that is in addition to that which we pay for the services actually received. And it is paid by every man, woman and child in Australia, not just the wage-earner.

I have written about this many times. I was even published once in a broadsheet newspaper, but only because I put a humourous spin on it.

After the perpetual inability of our treasurer to get his sums right, and the tragic waste of our money on so many levels of government, this obscene racketeering upsets me most about trying to run a business in Australia.

To the barricades!!

Boaz, you have lost your downward envy, thats brilliant. Rail against the Banks, fight the greedy not the needy. The damage to our communities by these parasites far out does anything your Unions, single mums and refugees can manage. Keep it up Comrade.

David, You have the notion, have you the plan yet, to set this notion into action, I certainly hope you have. If not would you please work on it because almost everyone would agree with the notion of a community bank, as you know I am on the poor side of society, however I would be happy to trrow $10 at the idea, who else is so inclined, David, what a man you are.

Hi Shonga,
The reason we advocate tax cuts is primarily because the Howard government has already privatised so much and increasingly so, and therefore the cost of essential services (education, health, personal home security, etc) to tax-payers has aready gone up. So, if that's their political philosophy, then I believe workers should pay less tax, in order to pay for their increased services costs.
51% of federal tax revenue comes from individual incomes. They're not interested in individual workers and families anymore, only big business. They couldn't care less anymore about public education and health services to the tax-payer. We need that money ourselves to pay for what was in the past provided by the government. Labor is practically the same.
Besides, Australian workers are one of the most highly taxed in the world. We have to endure taxation and rate charges at three levels of government. It's absurd. If I taught in Japan, I'd pay a flat income tax rate of 4%!
We also think federal tax revenue should be collected through the banking system, not through personal incomes and businesses. The banks are crucifying the people of this nation and the Howard govt. is letting them. In the U.K, it's unlawful for the banks to charge fees, but here they do what they want. We should collect tax revenue through the electronic banking system, debits and credits, rather than personal incomes. That way large corporations will be forced to pay their share of tax through the banking system, if they are trading in Australia, and individual bank accounts will be taxed proportionate to debits withdrawn. All other federal taxes (and some state taxes) including PAYE should be abolished. The revenue raised will be substantial, more than is currently raised, and we will be able to adequately fund education and health services. The debit tax council has done alot of research on this already.