Kym makes a good case. All commentators are sure that the IR legislation will make unskilled workers poorer. However the changes in the Australian economic environment over the past 15 years also mean that educated, skilled workers also work in an unstable workplace.

It takes 5 to 7 years to train and gain sufficient experience to work as an experienced nurse, accountant, teacher, engineer or programmer. As students are now expected to pay for their degrees young people must evaluate the costs of their education against the likelihood that they will find stable employment in their chhosen field so they can pay off their HECS debt, find a job, find a life partner and get a mortgage.

When countless graduates have already found that their job has disappeared at the stroke of a bureaucrat or politician's pen you wonder for how much longer can Australia call itself the lucky country. You also wonder for how much longer can Australia still continue to squander its social capital and infrastructure before we become a basket case.

Kym, A very good piece, congratulations, although you will have some on the forum, accusing you of being a "leftie, or a commo" for merely stating the bleeding obvious. All the major Churches are opposed to this legislation, one could hardly describe the Churches as leftie's or commo's, but please brace yourself, as these comments will come. Fairness, and equality are strange bedfellows for the extreme right wing elements who preside here, they are unable to see reason, so whilst I agree wholeheartedly with your piece, others in this place will not. Common sense tells us that whether we be employer or employee, we want/need security, and we don't want to lose income, even by stealth, as is proposed. However in light of the sedition laws, maybe it is not a good idea for me to comment any further.

We are evolving back to the past where a reasonable wage or salary were seen to be dirty words by the ruling class. It will not be too long before we need to know our place. THe aim of the IR legislation is to reduce pay increases in the future.
AWAs provides the avenue to divide and conquer; no matter what is stated or written, there is no equality in the bargaining situation between employers and employees. It has been stated that employees can utilize their Unions in any negotiations with employers; however, the IR legislation seeks to knobble Unions and the Labor Party itself.

The IR legislation provides the situation where employers can become leaches; unfairly taking from their employees to yield profits for themselves or for their share holders.

I recently signed a individual workers agreement. I sat in a 45 minute meeting with my 2 new employers. It was a strange but highly rewarding experience. We negotiated payment plans, working conditions, clear expecations and other entitlements. I work on the mantra that you have to give a little to make a alot. I may, as some may feel, have given away my 'workers rights' but I have gained flexibility, an understanding of my role in the business and an opportunity to grow in the future.

I am employed for one reason- to produce income and grow the business. I work for one reason- to generate income, develop skills and gain from that growth. I am under no illusion that I will be pushed to perform but have confidence that I will be able to demonstrate value to the business.

People need to move past the whole employee vs employer relationship. Employees are not static units of production but valuable capital assets. For every dollar the employer spends on an employee he gets a business benefit.

I don't feel dominated by the new reforms, I feel empowered. Do I feel 'stable' in my employement? You can bet on it, because I have the skills, the drive and my employer knows it.

A persons job should only be as secure as the output they produce. Providing incentives to work harder should not be viewed negatively because it benenfits both the employer AND employee. If I don't want to take compulsory two weeks holiday I don't have to. If I do it is my choice. If the employer puts the screws on me- I can walk, and so will his business: risk flows both ways. There may be cases where employees are treated unfairly but the vast majority of managers see value in investing in human capital.

My suggestion to anyone who feels 'insecure' in their job is to evaluate their own skills, look at their worth to the business and negotiate accordingly. It is your job -own it, and I am sure you and your employer will see the benefit.

Marlo, thats great for you, and I'm sure many people will benefit from these laws. I rather expect to be one of them. But I really worry about people like my younger brother - he has skills that are in demand (he is an apprentice builder), but he does not have a great deal of confidence, and had learning difficulties, meaning that he is not very good at understanding legalistic terminology, and would be quite lost trying to negotiate what sort of leave he should be entitled to etc.

I also worry that some of the really wonderful gains that have been made in recent years with regards to things like maternity and paternity leave will be lost- who, starting a job at 19 (as my brother is), will think "ooh, better make sure I include paternity leave in my agreement"- by the time he gets around to needing it, it will have been off the negotiating table for so long, he probably won't even realise he should be able to access such entitlements

Laurie's point is well made; and I am glad for Marlo - I have spoken to a few employers and depending on their individual circumstances some are committed to their staff and recognise the interdependancy - others don't give a flying act of copulation; however where there may be some winners and losers at the smaller enterprise level it is the potential impact of larger operators that will truly test our patience.

Some where out there will be a Chris Corrigan type - the BCA probably have him in training now brushing up on media skills, dog handling, listening to endless tapes of the proceedings of the H R Nicholls Society, learning how to accessorise with a balaclava and baton - the usual stuff.

It will invariably be a larger organisation, well supported by outfits like the Farmers Federation who were so instrumental in backing Corrigan on the water front ( they've already got stuck into Barbaby Joyce )- that is where the steady downward pressure on conditions will be initiated. It might be some one like Quantas, possibly larger health care conglomerates or even some of the larger hotel chains.

One off self mad man stuff for all the joy they bring to our collective hearts will soon be outnumbered by large scale structural adjustments in wages and conditions;

Sneekeepete,

Would we need Chris Corrigan types if a well structured industrial relations plan was in operation? The only reason that such drastic action was required was because wharf union workers held a monopoly over the employment of workers on Australian docks. While the old wharfies may be held up by union supporters as the battle between workers and the establishment, indeed it highlights the inequities in labour monopolies - and promotes the very need for the suggested reforms.

Laurie,

No where in the current IR format has it been suggested that contracts can't be renogotiated, whether that is for maternity leave or any other entitlement. That is a great opportunity of the reforms, is that they allow workers to change working arrangements as their own circumstances change. In regards to your brother- union officials may still advise and negotiate contracts for employees. This I believe is another benefit of the system because now union officials are aimed at maximising employee conditions and not simply about entrenching the power of belligerent union structures. For anyone who has had anything to do with Building Construction unions you will understand this problem.

Laurie, I will ask you a question: would you prefer your brother going to work on a building site where he is intimidated by union officials to join a union or else, forced to partake in illegal industrial action and be rewarded not for his skills but his alligiance to his union, or give him the choice to make his own decisions on his own future and employment conditions which is regulated by an accountable and efficient government structure?

I dislike politicians and government burecrats but they beat the hell out of trying to negotiate with a union officials.

No, Marlo, what I am saying is, say he does not think about kids until he is 35 (quite likely really)- that is a long way off. I worry that the gains made in these areas will be forgotten by the vast majority of people, simply because they will no longer be expected. I worry he will not even know to ask for that sort of entitlement, because it wouldn't be thought of as a 'standard' condition anymore.

Also, the workplace he is currently at is not in any way unionised, it is a small private company. But they rely on the award rates as a way of ensuring they are paying the correct rates, and giving the correct conditions. My brother finds this reassuring, as he knows he is not being stuffed around. How with everyone on individual contracts could he have any confidence that he is being paid on par with others in his industry? That is where the anxiety that this article brings up really comes in. There is nothing more unsettling than the sneaking suspicion that you are being paid less than someone doing the same job- it is such a disincentive to producitivity. (I mean less in terms of standard base rate, not in terms of 'oh, that person has done great, give them a bonus').

I just worry where all this will take us.

Like I mentioned, I think I will do well from these laws- I am highly qualified, fairly confident, and quite articulate. And I have good language skills, I can actually read contracts. But what about people who do not read well? Who don't have english as their first language? I really worry about them, and I really worry that our society is basically saying that these people do not deserve to have a decent wages/conditions base, that their lack of opportunity in life is somehow entirely their fault.

while renegoatiation is not embargoed there is no obligation to do so;

workers can be offered an AWA with all the bells and whistles you like - except for those provisions outlawed - when the period of the AWA lapses and after 90 days have passed with no requirement to renegotiate at all, the minimum conditions kick in automtically.

Now there are some who argue workers will vote with their feet but the notion of worker mobility is some what of a myth.

you can ask for the terms to be rolled over or ask to negotiate adjustments but there is no obligation on the employer to do that - even in the united states in most jurisdictions the old conditions stay in place until revisions can be agreed on - here it is a slide straight to the bottom.

This provision could be used to secure long term gains or short term cash objectives; some one will try it on.

the corrigan vs union abuse is a chicken and egg argument - you could equally say unions sprung up due to managerial excesses and exploitation.

All I am saying is there are firms that will test the law and the market and see how far they can go and under these laws they can go a very long way.

As I said, I wish marlo well and good luck to any one who can exploit the new way - some may be deserving, or lucky, or over valued due to the vagaries of the market as is often the case - they will trumpet the success of the system - but others through no fault of their own who work as hard as the next lad or lassie are at risk of being screwed.

Laurie, sneekepete and Marlo, I look on with relief that two of the three of you actually do care about employees who will be unable to negotiate a contract on their own behalf, and I am also concerned that maternity/paternity leave along with other family friendly conditions will disappear completely. If this happens, it will change our whole social fabric, and deny parents family time with their children, who will then be left to their own devices, to run wild, increasing the crime rate. Unfortunately this new IR policy seems to be sckewed toward the employer, without proper consideration of our society in general, which could lead to a disasterous situation socially, I hope this does not happen, but am unable to see anything to prevent it. Could you please give your opinions on this aspect, as these children will be our future, and if left to run wild, while their parents work, as a society we may find the benefits are outweighed by the disadvantages.

To Shonga:
this legislatin has the potential to effect families in several ways - firstly it will make employment less secure. You will be exposed to dismissal with no or limited redress even if your performance is satisfactory. This will be the case irrespective of the business size - the 100 employees plimsol line is a furphy and easily manipulated.

Your take home pay can be reduced ; labour hire firms are already signaling penalty rates are a thing of the past; so if you have structured your budget - mortgage, schoold costs, food, health insurance based on the assumption of a bit of over time and may be some weekend work you might get a bit of a shock particularly in retail and hospitality.

Current agreements can be abandoned a firm can restructure, dissolving the employing company and re hiring the same staff under renewed and lesser conditions - or you can be transferred to a subsidiary - conditions can be altered and redundnacy provisoin could for example be lost.

If you work in an industry where shift work is common you might have your shifts altered - maybe you are directed to work on weekends or do night duty - those arrangements might clash with your child care or your partners work patterns. You might refuse and you might be sacked. Or you might want to negotiate a compromise - you could still be sacked

Will this kind of thing be wide spread? I doubt it at first. But if one company does it and creates a competetive edge others will follow at the expense of the worker.

Will these measures create new jobs - no; if you are in the widget making business and can make widgets cheaper you will - you will only employ more people if your market expands not becuase you can hire and fire easier or you can pay those left less money.

Will workers get a cut of the gains made - no

I am ashamed to admit that despite my university degrees I will be adversely affected by the IR legislation.

Currently I work as a casual and get called an hour before the shift so I was called 3 times in November. The pay is great supposedly $204 for 6 hours but I see about $150.

I look with horror at the single mother I know, who trained as a nurse, but was unable to get enough shifts to live on, so she started work as a cleaner for a large supermarket chain. She works 7 nights per week as a subcontractor, earns $500 per week and was told if she marched on Nov 15th she would be sacked.

Question for the forum - What's the advantage of cleaners working as subcontractors? No holiday, sick, super or tax problems for employer

Why is it so important for the grunts of society to be able to plan their next exercise in poor capital allocation? If a worker is good at his job and the economy is strong then he should have nothing to worry about. I dare say the only cause of anxiety in the work place is union scare campaigns.

In response to the widget example. Say Larry, the owner of the widget concern does increase his company's profitiblity by 25% by sacking various workers.

What does he do with the money? Does he place it in a bank? Does he hide it under his pillow? No, he invests it in capital producing projects such as a dog house factory or a company hoping to build locally produced cars.

You see there are secondary effects to efficency.

I believe that the new IR reforms do have some merit. Both sides of the political divide have attempted to move the majority of IR powers to the Federal arena, because of its capacity to simplify wages, awards and conditions etc, and also the savings which could be realised through this reform (ie only one system, not several).

However, the current reforms remove all of the beneficial provisions, ncluded in the original system because of the IR disputes of the 1890's. These were agreed upon by both sides of parliament, because they could prevent a repeat of the crippling industrial disputes of that time.

Removal of these provisions will inevitably cause these problems to reappear. They also remove the protection of employees' from arbitrary, unfair dismissal and treatment, therefore the reforms do not benefit the employees on the whole.

What is needed is a means of protecting the employees from the few irresponsible employers that would otherwise seek to enslave the (particularly) unskilled, unqualified, general labour they employ.

I have just completed the first draft of my proposal to do just this, any comments gratefully accepted (however be reasonable).

http://jezreelvalley.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_jezreelvalley_archive.html

DLC, if only workers were sacked for being incompetent, but often workers are retrenched / sacked because the board of directors has decided that their work is not part of core business.

A famous case in point was the NAB wanted to outsource their comms staff to Telstra, assuming that Telstra would keep the staff servicing the NAB comms, Telstra couldn't guarantee this and the highly skilled staff looked around for alternate employment to discover they were so specialised they had no alternative employers.

In Victoria in 1992 many Victorian public servants were sacked /retrenched when Kennett got into power - 55% of these people never worked again and in many cases suffered nervous breakdowns because of the manner of their retrenchment and loss of status.

The cleaner is working for the supermarket chain that took a general manager to court for $6 million of home renovations. No one who has worked in head office of that organisation has any illusions as to its efficiency or visionary thinking.

I think the social contract expects us to look after those below us as well as those ahead of us but if employers are free to act like an unprincipled private school bullies then Australia is a sadder place.

If you are silly enough to believe that good workers always are treated fairly, then good on ya! Why do we so often hear of staff fired then rehired - although now at 25% less than their leaving salaries?

If you look at the average Australian enterpreneurs performance they are inclined to invest in land after they have made their fortune. australia started car manufacturing in 1947 using debentures raised in Australia guaranteed by the government. Australia's high tech industries like bio tech and IT were seeded by government initiatives. An unlikely prospect for the foreseeable future

Previously workplace legislation allowed under-performing employees to roam the workplace... now there will instead be both under-competent employers able to hire and fire due to their own mistakes and whims, and under-competent self-employeds.

Worker mobility? Maybe a more viable option for some of us if we could transport entitlements between jobs as well. As a working parent in my 40's I have some leave saved up to help with the difference between accrual rate and the years ahead while my son will want to spend school holiday taime with me. I have significant sick leave accrued - might be useful as I get older. If I leave my work my leave entitlements get cashed out and accrued sick leave disappears in a puff of nothing. If the government wants worker mobility it needs to bring in entitlement mobility as well.

I have enough job stability that I can maintain some kind of balance between my job, my parenting and some me time. Trying to maintain that balance is hard enough without adding in unnecessary changes of employer. I stayed with the same employer during the times when there was a big worker shortage in my industry and I could have got more elsewhere because that balance is important, I'm not real excited about moving on when the demand has lessened somewhat.

R0bert

For those out there that support the AWA & Work Choices under the missaprehension that they do not significantly disadvantage workers, please read the following submissions to the Senate Committee into AWA's;
(LHMU Submission)
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/indust_agreements/submissions/sub020.pdf

CFMEU Submission
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/indust_agreements/submissions/sub016.pdf

Professor Andrew Stewarts Submission
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/indust_agreements/submissions/sub012.pdf

These spell out a disturbing trend, being that some employers have purported to have a registered agreement, when they did not, and could not have for the agreement does not comply with the minima. They also provide evidence of employers' registering AWA's that are neither signed, nor agreed to, on behalf of employees' who are unaware of this fact.

They also spell out that the Office of the Employment Advocate is incapable of intervening in such a dispute, only parties to the AWA may discuss the AWA, thereby preventing employees' seeking or gaining legal advice prior to agreeing to it.

All I can say is that none of the supporters of this have ever had to work hard, or they would realise what some employers are like.

DLC - What a man you are, you tell it like it is mate, robb the employees, and increase your profits by 25%, and you can go on to buy/establish another seatshop with more employees earning starvation wages, to produce even more profit for the employer, at the expense of the employee. What a kid and generous person you are, if I knew your name I would nominate you for the Nobel Peace Prise, in the compassionate section.

Worth noteing FIRM gathered by the river at Taree yesterday to question the need for this reform.
Zero medea turned up yet by this time next year the very real suffering this bill brings will see medea flood these meetings.
Already some little more than children have signed work contracts for less than $4 an hour and can work for 12 months on trial before starting first year of aprentice ship.
Well done John Howard ,your love of Battlers can be seen in the numbers you create.

It is widely recognized by most observers that the new Industrial relations changes will hurt most those who can least afford it – Australia’s working poor. Reduced wages and conditions arising out of these changes will erode the standard of living of working men and women and their families who are the backbone of our nation.

Whilst it is true that these laws (at least in the short term) will not affect all workers because of the current skill shortage crisis.

It will however effect your members, as we believe that they will cause a lot of industrial relations tensions and wage inflation, as more and more employies realise that their companies by backing these new laws have absolutely no loyalty to their workforce.

Your representative in this process one Peter Hendy the head of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has been very outspoken in his support of this process. There is a reason for this – it was after all his brainchild!

As former chief-of-staff to the Howard Governments Workplace Relations Minister Peter Reith, Peter Hendy was largely responsible for the development of the policy formulations that have now become the controversial Workplace Relations Bill.

Further Hendy's main focus since becoming CEO of the ACCI has been to push the governments (and his own warped ideological barrow ‘the Workplace Relations Bill’ (sic) and the oxymoron ‘Work Choices’ campaign.

My strong suggestion is that as affiliates of the ACCI either quickly replace Hendy with a CEO who has a more humane outlook ie. One that actually has a business background and is not a politician or one of their lackies. Or if that proves not to be possible then you should take the honorable path and just leave the ACCI and form a more ‘ethical’ peak business body.

Or they will find that the ACCI membership may as well as the Howard Government will be held responsible for the current 'IR' shambles by the Australian public.