Who are the winners and losers?
Pru Goward's long monologue could have been editored down to two of her sentences:
"Allowing employers to make employment conditional on an employee taking up an AWA, for example, means that the choice of employment arrangements, especially for those on minimum wages, is extremely limited. The consequences are felt not only by workers but by their children and families."
That above is exactly what the Federal Labor government and the ACTU are saying.
Who are the winners and losers?
The winners are the employers. The losers are families.
If anyone else can interpret Pru's sentences any other way please write in on just how you interpret the heavy sentence on families. Isn't the last catchcry; "Put Family First". The families did and gave the Howard government toatl power of the Senate.
Pru's last line is:
"A society is only as stable and strong as its most fragile."
Does Pru really, and truly believe that sentence as Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner.
Therefore this nation Australia is no stronger than an Aboriginal baby of one minute old at birth.
When Pru Goward believes that Australia's human rights are so weak and no stronger as a Third World Country we need a new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and a new Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Australia was a lot stronger under a Federal Labor government with a strong and virile ACTU.

I reckon there's a really easy solution to all the political argy bargy. Let's call it the End of WorkChoices Plan (or the Peter Reith Was a Wuss Plan).

Basically it is the end-game for the plan proposed by John Howard and all his ilk on the right-wing end of politics. I reckon we should skip all the bull, because this is what John Howard REALLY WANTS (the REAL agenda) is;

1. Abolish all benefits to all workers immediately. (John Howard is working on this one as I write).
2. Those who object to this, should be sacked immediately. They can try to find the money to fight a court case for "unlawful dismissal".
3. Immediately coerce (did I say that!) remaining employees into signing Australian Workplace Agreements that are internationally competitive; where pay rates will be matched with, and pegged to, those equivalent workers in India (and paid in Rupees) or China (and paid in Yuan).
4. Anyone who doesn't sign an AWA will be sacked, and referred to point 2 above.
5. Offer jobs to any/all of the following:
(a) sacked workers who have since applied to Centrelink (who will be refused unemployment benefits unless they take the job at the internationally competitive pay rates on offer);
(b) migrants who aren't used to prior working conditions
(c) Single parents or disabled people who can't afford not to accept work, since they will have to work for a pittance or get nothing.
(d) any other worker in the world who will work for the internationally competitive pay rates on offer.
6. Use the highest and lowest wages differential of the Americas (i.e. between large corporate CEO salary and Guatamalan peasant) as a benchmark. Aim to quadruple the spread by 2008.
7. Anyone who complains about the government will be imprisoned for sedition or as a suspected terrorist.

As a result of the above HOWARD Plan, those who are left will:

1. Be referred to Centrelink who will refer them to 5(a) above.
2. If unsuccessful, apply to nearest Charity (Smith Family/ St Vincent de Paul/ Salvation Army) who will be overwhelmed and under funded.
3. Sell children to business owner who wants to provide employment for "youth unemployed" or Work for Lower than the Dole Scheme. Promised to provide food (bread and water) & board (straw mattress in the Toilet block)in exchange for 7 days work a week.
4. Take up residence in nearest cardboard box (Kings Cross is full now).
5. Wonder whether it is worth continuing to live.

Exclusions to this plan are:

1. Sick, injured, infirm, old or mentally ill. They are not economically viable "production units" (see Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged; speech by John Galt) and should be eliminated immediately. Suggest they be "released into the community" and/or incarcerated in a prison. Another possible alternative is the Auschwitz solution (Arbeit Macht Frei rule) for all.
2. Executives. They supply the capital and need to concentrate is at much as possible in the hands of the fewest. Hence the need to lower wages and conditions.
3. Politicians. These guys help re-engineer the society which will keep all the production units in full production.

Cheers,
Have a Merry Christmas

BOAZ_David,

I have written the proposal for the approval of the ACTU, and as such I have had to identify the aims of, and issues affecting that council, and have directed the ‘draft’ proposal toward these. The reason for failing to include non-union employees’ (and employer’s thereof), is that thanks to the latest round of amendment the ACTU and constituent unions, no longer have any standing to represent their interests. This has resulted in a somewhat divisive response, however this is inevitable when faced with a divisive policy. I would welcome suggestions on how to avoid this divide, however significant legislative provisions hamper this (nb divide & conquer).

I am interested however in gaining further information as to what would be required in order to gain support from Mr Fielding, as this approach would harness a considerable market force, with the capacity to influence policy irrespective of the colour of the Government of the day.

PS Workplace Relations Amendment (Better Bargaining) Act 2005, s.170MM
This section precludes those who are not party to a protected action taking part in a protected action (and precludes any action by those not actually party to the AWA [including unions] being involved at all, prior to its being signed).

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/Repository/Legis/Bills/Linked/08090502.pdf

{This looks almost above board, however according to the Senate Committee into AWA’s was provided with evidence of the effect of similar provisions in the Victorian and WA versions}

Also see submissions to the Senate investigation 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

PPS I also invite you to read, mainly for the religious and academic viewpoints (which for once almost concur);

Anglican Diocese of Sydney;
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/wr_workchoices05/submissions/sub202.pdf

Uniting Church, NSW Synod;
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/wr_workchoices05/submissions/sub130.pdf

Joint Submission from 151 Legal Academics;
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/wr_workchoices05/submissions/sub175.pdf

Catholic Church;

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/wr_workchoices05/submissions/sub110.pdf
&
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/wr_workchoices05/submissions/sub110a.pdf

I know it is a lot of reading, however it does illustrate my point.

Terje,
The remark about less money in the system I presume means if you lower people's wages, or frighten them into thinking their wages may be lowered, or their jobs less secure, they will cut their spending. If they cut their spending that will have an impact on the economy, on the very businesses who are negotiating lower wages or less job security, causing them to put more downward pressure on employees wages and conditions - becoming a self fulfilling downward cycle.
As for the throw away about if you can't afford kids don't have them; an economy without future purchasers, or with a shrinking number of future buyers is not going to be a healthy one. It is in all our interests -including businesses - that women continue to have children. If we make it too hard for them to do so, they will either stop altogether or limit the size of their families. We live in a whole society and everything we do in it impacts on everything else. Confident customers with money they are happy to spend is the first pre-requisite for any healthy economy, without that, we have nothing.

Terje,

”I am not sure why paid maternity leave is regarded by some as some type of sacred human right. If you can't afford to have kids then don't.”

If this was 1975 and not 2005 then I would have agreed with you - but it's not. There’s this theory that our population is aging – you may have heard of it.

If child bearing is reserved for only those who can afford to live off one wage then our society and economy would crumble. I don’t think that small businesses should have to grant payed maternity leave, but as for the larger businesses who can afford it - think of payed maternity leave as an investment in the future.

Besides, I don’t see why the rich should be the only ones with the right to bear children. They already have everything that money can buy. Sometimes family is the only thing the less-fortunate-in-life have in this world. Take that away and what have they got?

...Nothing.