I find it really odd that John Howard has gone down this extreme path of IR reform that puts the employer in a position of total power.No mention of reducing regulation,red tape or taxes.This is electoral dynamite.

While John Howard is a great political tactician,I don't think he has a clue about the economy.Could it be that Peter Costello has laid the ultimate plan for John Howard's demise.Let John paint himself into the corner of extremist IR reform and then rescue the electorate from his evil clutches by becoming our new Prime Minister?

Stranger things have happened.

Sniggid, I would have to agree with some of what you had to say, I believe there are some good employers, in fact I have met one. However the overwhelming majority I have had the misfortune to work for in my 50 years of life have been exploitative, greedy people, concerned only with the size of their bank balance, at the expense of their employees, and I don't expect anything to change for the better, for employees with these draconian laws taking us back to the 19th century of the Master/slave days. The employer will have the right to unfairly sack the employee, without redress, offer to buy the employees holidays [2 weeks] at whatever price they feel like paying for them. If they ask an employee to work unpaid overtime, and the employee refuses, they can just sack them, and get another one who is so subservient, that they will work overtime for nothing, it is a complete breakdown of wages and conditions, hard won over 100 years, at a time when unemployment is low, interest rates are low, inflation is low, and the economy is good. Imagine how hard the employers will screw the employees when the economy is "BAD", no thanks Mr. Howard, you are gone at the next election.

Sniggid,

I of course agree, most employers are good employers. However, there are a minority of profit above all, and whoa betide anybody that gets between them and their profit.

My proposal will not effect good employers in any way, however the bad will be outed, to their shame amongst their peers and to their detriment in the market. As for scabs, did you not see what happened with the MUA/Patricks Stevedoring dispute? The time for class warfare has not ended when this government launches such extreme attacks on workers.

Employers' are predominantly good, SCABS never are. They should not be able to take advantage of the unions/ALP lack of organisation to mount a pretence that it was not them, with my proposal, once branded they are branded for life, and as such it is a deterrent.

Aaron
I’ve been wondering just ‘where’ you have been coming from, but now its pretty clear.

Your use of ‘SCAB’ and reference to the MUA are clear evidence of a particular mindset which requires drastic verbal surgery.

SCAB
Let me say at the outset, if I as an individual, employed by any company, and not being a member of a union. OR.. being a member of a union where the leadership style was one of intimidation, brute force and terrorism, I would not only return to work if I wished, I would do it as openly and as ‘in your face’ to any smart mouth who thinks they can run my life or terrorize me !
If anyone came and tried to stop me physically, they would be either charged with assault or be the unhappy victim of their own folly in underestimating me, or both.

MUA
That was probably the absolute worst example you could ever find to use in a discussion of this nature. My feeling is that the Government were WAY too lenient on the entrenched corrupt terrorists who tried to blackmail this fine country. I find that the police not charging many of the thugs of the MUA with ‘the book’ to be a travesty of justice unparalleled in our time.

Anyone who has even half a brain and does not need to read by ‘brail’ will know the disgusting abuses and corruption and nepotism which characterized the MUA for so many years. “Inherited jobs” ? come on mate..which world are you living in ? Read up on the Painters and Dockers to grasp the mentality of these people.

TROOPS
You appear to be about a millimeter away from some Nazi group, who believes in power by thuggery. The MUA tried to impact Australia’s whole economy world wide through union links.
All this to protect lifestyles and incomes for the ‘chosen few’ that even yuppies would envy.
That, is when I’d bring in the troops with zero apology.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING actually preVENTS individual talent from being rewarded, but ensures highly paid union officials are employed !

I am somewhat confused Aaron. Who are the SCABS you are referring to? Are they the people who are not members of a union and go to work when the union says they should be on strike?

You are clearly one of the 20% of employees who choose to belong to a union. It is not compulsory you know. And the 80% who are not are not affected by union tactics.

The IR changes don't seem too popular at the moment. However, the test of the pudding is in the eating and once they become Law and are enacted the taste of the changes will start to be experienced. That will be the ultimate test. And the future of the coalition Government will depend upon exactly how it pans out over the next 2 years.

I'd suggest that you and other contributers to this topic are Labor voters just as I am a Coalition voter. It will be the "swinging" voters who will decide the issue, not the noisy minority that we are.

Sniggid I am sure is aware that even today with low union membership manyof the conditions under which non unionists work are there through the action of the unions in earlier years.

And I agree there is little thats sets employers apart from the rest of us; by and large they are probably reasonable people too.

But under the new regime the reasonableness of many will be tested; some employers will jump at the opportunity to exploit the new arrangements and that will in some cases be enough to change the dynamic of an industry - the board of a major company is at great risk of having the reasonableness sniggid refers to eroded by its pre eminent motive to maximise profits.

And again sniggid opens with a few assertions the scheme will ultimately benefit every one - but like the government there is no causal link - no mechannism describing the link betwen these changes and growing employment or increased profitability.

There is a vast shortage of workers within hospitality according to both the governemnt and the industry - clearly a sellers market; under the principles espoused in these laws the would be waiter holds the whip hand - there is no impediment to companies paying above the award but I see no evidence that conditions in that industry are being sweetened to attract workers - if anything the reverse is the case.

There is no evidence of the unseen guidignhand of market forces here - just pre scription, regulation and arbitrary ministerial and mangerial prerogative