Of course the legislation favours the employers: that is what it was designed to do!

A number of legal pundits have described the bill as poorly written and indeed written in haste - theye have likened it to the overbearing tax act in its potential complcations.

The marginalisation of the unions was put in place to offset the impact of growing membership when the legislation bites - they can have as many members as they like but will remain essentially impotent.

I can not recall legislation that has ever been put in place to curtail the activities of a group in the way these laws have.

They are bad laws plain and simple;

Some commentaotr are now using the rather clever assertion that to claim many workers are powerless to negotiate is an example of intellectual snobbery - and it may be in a few isolated cases; but at the end of the day these laws put in palce a structure that can effectively eliminate the scope to negotiate - as Jim points out.

With the cessation of an AWA the default option kicks in - most contracts operate under the implication the status quo remians in place until new terms are set; this law throws that concept out.

If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys

I like the way you begin Jim:
"John Howard’s WorkChoices Bill reflects an authoritarian, undemocratic approach to workplace industrial relations."
All you have done is expanded on your opening statement. The IR bill is about power over the people in the workplace, and out of the workplace and over the people who are unemployed. With no senate we live in an undemocratic country.

One can hardly expect Mr Howard (et al) to show any regard for the average employee. Corporation's are the only citizens with sufficient wherewithal to keep coalition MP's in the style to which they so quickly become accustomed. Fortunately, individual companies have experienced signicant savings, in that now they can contribute multiple amounts of <$10,000 to campaign funds, therefore removing the need for them to make so many more <$1,000 transactions as in the past, think of the reduction in bank fees.

On another note however, it is in fact true that employers' will still be entitled to maintain their freedom of association with unions / associations (small business council, Australian Industry Council?, etc.). They will also be able to use their financial and legal resources to batter individual employees', impertinent enough to take them to court, into the ground.

However, the solution is for the union's / ALP to out those who egage in anti-employee behaviour (SCABS/Black-listed business). Quite frankly, individuals are always less confident, and far more prone to doubt, when they are identified, as this removes them from the protections they enjoy as members of the group.

see my previous post:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13#20614

The facts in practice will tell the story. These changes will prove to be beneficial for all in the workplace whether it is employers or employees.

The reality is that employers depend on satisfied and committed employees if their businesses are to be strong. And strong businesses mean better rewards for all concerned.

Reading the main article and the comments posted to date, one would come to the conclusion that employers must be terrible people and they they make money hand over fist by being nasty and mean with their employees. These changes will make it easier for employers and employees to work together for their mutual benefit.

The time for class warfare is well and truly over.

It needs to be remembered that it is not compulsory to belong to a union. The 80% of working people who don't join unions clearly are quite happy to work things out with their employers or they would join a union. That is they are quite happy to organise things individually rather than collectively.

You know the vast majority of people are really nice people, and that includes employers and employees.

You do not need to be Einstein to work out that the IR legislation is to benefit employers only. It is mainly semi-skilled workers who will be burnt by the legislation. That has been the case in New Zealand, and Western Australia. The Court Government introduced similar legislation; and cleaners were particularly hit hard. NZ and WA provide examples of what has actually happened; rather than the academic push by Mr.Howard.

The clear aim of the IR legislation is to cut wages/salaries over a period of time. In the view of Mr.Howard the Arbitration system as it stands has been too generous to workers.