It is good to see that Boaz has a friend in Sniggid.They are tough and clever. Look out anyone who calls them a scab, they will biff them and then turn the full weight of the law on the thugs.I thought Boaz took the cake on these postings for intellectual dishonesty, however its clear that Sniggid is going to give him a run for his/her money. Will you please set out on your next posting, any errors in Jim McDonald article. I myself found it well researched,cogent and accurate. Please note ;
No law currently exists that prevents an employer paying an employee more than a minimum award condition. Therefore it is patently obvious that these new provisions are not required, to facilitate wage increases and/or improvements to conditions.

Sniggid, its no secret that Melbourne had a turnout of 200,000+ people to protest about the proposed IR changes because all Victorians were hurt by the changes wrought by the Kennett government in 1992. The Kennett government changes are seen as the forerunner of these IR changes.

The effects of the Kennett IR changes in 1992 were
- reduce size of Vic public service, 55% of those retrenched have never worked again
- lay off workers who serviced the public service
- reduced visitors to ski resorts
- average time spent on holiday in regional Victoria reduced from 7 days to 4 days
- reduced income in regional Victoria from tourism
- Victorian government departments use outsourced contract labour for cleaning, IT professional services, engineering services - hence the hole in the Burnley Tunnel as City Link was a skip free zone
- increased use of casual labour from university trained engineers, teachers, IT
- retrench Australian workers so we could import trains and trams from Europe
- replace ticket collectors and tram conductors with non-Y2K software and expensive ticket machines supplied from overseas thus reducing safety on public transport and increasing fare evasion that lead to the introduction of facist transport police

Now IR reform may have worked in WA but it really hurt in Victoria, which is why most people who lived in Victoria in the 1990s look at the IR reforms in fear.

Sign the petition urging Barnaby Joyce to cross the floor at http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/campaigns/takeastand/takeastandpetition/cat_process

Sorry people they are my personal views,

however, I do advocate the setting up of the website / journal of employee freindly employers', and anti-employee employers, which will be freely available to all. Perhaps this could also provide a selling point to those GOOD employers (eg Buy Australian - something along the lnes of ACTU approval), as consumers (predominantly employees) could make an informed decision which suppliers and products they choose. Obviously this would have a detrimental effect on those without such a mark.

Then of course, anybody dealing with these black-listed employer's would be banned from being approved, then perhaps those that are approved could be de-listed if they employ known scabs?

Thank you lil john, the Unions are comin back.

PS That IS market forces at work, bankruptcy anyone?

Just a note: the IR reforms in WA have recently being roundly criticsed by one the architects and by one who oversaw their implementation.

They were instrumental in a fall in womens wages together with a broadening of the gap between women and mens rates in particular.

The government has failed to show any one how their assupmtins will work: no business has indicated how a revision to unfair dismissal laws will lead to employment growth - most have indicated the changes in that regard will
not induce them to hire.

I have dismissed two employees in the past three weeks - it was niether hard (procedurally) nor unfair - because there was cause:

The new age will see dismissal rooted in whim, prejudice and probably managerial incompetence.

Dont be surpised if, once in place, these laws see a rise in what I would describe as managerial delinquency - like a pimply 18 year old with a drivers licence and the liberty to drink - managers will get carried away with their new found freedom; previously too gutless or capable to mange a work force they, some, will go crazy with power.

Far from reforms these changes are laws, bad laws, prescriptive and a gift to the mean spirited.

Most of the contributers to this page would have us believe that the new IR Laws will unleash horror and terror on employees as their employers suddenly become terrible people who want to kick them around and sack them at the drop of a hat.

With all these disenchantered or sacked employees how on earth will these terrible employers prosper? The fact is that productivity and profitibility is only enhanced if there is workplace harmony where employers and employees get on well and work together for a common cause. If the business does well they all do well.

Jim McDonald's article takes the overall position that the only path for employees is to be protected by unions or otherwise they will be exposed to the "natural" nastiness of the hated class known as ëmployers". The vast majority of employers are not like this. They risk their capital and prosperity by being in business and know that working together with committed and happy employees is the way to having a successful future.

Unfortunately unions have staked their future on division and conflict in the workplace. As their membership numbers have plummeted they have learned none of the lessons of business. If your customers base is in decline you need to change the way you do business. In WA under workplace agreements unions could have offered to represent members in individual Workplace Agreement negotiations. But their obsession with collective bargaining prevented them from being relevant for most employees. There are new opportunities for unions under these new Laws. But if they continue to sing the same old song their continued decline is guaranteed.