People here seem to be in agreement about the negative aspects of what is happening to ordinary people and especially to the people at the bottom, but many of you seem to believe the government and media propaganda that there is no alternative. Take a look at the Scandinavian countries in the CIA World Factbook, the UN Human Development figures, and elsewhere. Realist seems to think wealth won't be created without massive inequality, but Finland is number one on the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index, even though the ratio of the income of the top 10% to that of the bottom 10% is only 5. It is 12.7 in Australia. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes comparisons of unemployment rates for 9 countries, after correcting so that apples are compared with apples. There is very little difference between Sweden's unemployment rate and Australia's, and for some years Sweden's was lower.

The Nordic countries are just as good as the Anglosphere countries in creating wealth and jobs. They have stable populations and are streets ahead on social cohesion, environmental management, and the welfare of the people at the bottom. See the Jan. 11, 2005 column in the Guardian by George Monbiot (in Monbiot archive on the Web) for a really devastating comparison of the UK to Sweden in terms of poverty, illiteracy, social mobility and social inequality. Perhaps we should become part of the Danish Commonwealth?

contd.

The next question is what to do if you don't like what is happening and agree that a better way exists. There are obviously some very powerful groups profiting from the existing situation. Protests, well reasoned or otherwise, end up in the circular file or its electronic equivalent, apart from some token letters to the editor. Voting for the other major party just gives you more of the same. A politician who does offer a genuine alternative on some aspect of the globalist agenda is likely to be jailed on some pretext.

Nevertheless, the politicians can't force you to vote for them. If you don't like the ways the major parties are representing you, you can just put them both last, with the sitting member last of all. You can do the same with incumbent senators. The next local member will undoubtedly betray you as well, but you can put him last at the following election. Once the politicians see the gravy train leaving the station without large numbers of their colleagues, some beneficial change might start to occur.

My 15yo son's boss stated that he could not afford to pay public holiday rates. He put a document in front of my son to sign agreeing to this. My son was given no choice.

Two laws were broken
1. Kids under 18 need a parents consent to sign - this was never requested
2. In Qld. that agreement was not legal.

We don't want trouble for the boss, he employs our son, but we also don't want our son signing his rights away.

For 3 weeks my son had to do the work of 2 people as the boss couldn't find anyone. Was there any extra in my sons pay by way of saying thanks?...No! And yet the boss saved one persons salary on those days.

The boss paid exactly what my son was due. So why would a young kid sign away his rights when it is a one way street.

In the future this boss may have to give my son a reference... What happens if my son were to leave over not signing the document. What could the boss say when phoned for a reference?

Kids are at a great disadvantage when bosses use this new legislation bluffing around existing laws.

My son is never late, he is always enthusiastic (the boss said he is one of the best workers he's seen) and yet this is how kids can be treated.

The boss wanted my son to re-train in another area of the business for 6 hours with no pay for that time. So we checked up on that... that too is illegal.

Many bosses are getting kids to try out for 3 hours and not paying them. This too is illegal but the kids are still doing it.

In Qld. the boss is liable for those unpaid hours for up to six years... so when my son leaves we may make the claim. But again this will effect any references that boss gives in the future.

How does a young person deal with the boss on a reasonable footing?

Opinionated 2,
Your son has three choices as I see it:

1. Go along and be exploited as he is now.

2. Join a Union and fight with the help of the law, and don't use this boss as a future reference.

3. Ring the Dept of Industrial Relations, and ask for an Industrial Inspector to be sent around to your son's workplace to inspect the books, under current law. Do it quickly before workchoices takes effect. Get your son out of there whatever happens, and try for an industrial job, where people stand up for themselves, and stand together.

I am concerned that my daughter will face this crap when she is old enough to work, I hope to keep her in study for as long as possible.

If she works at 17 and faces this discrimination, she won't sign, as I didn't when faced with the same situation with an EBA which stated that employees had been in the bargining process, which was a lie that the other 2,000 employees signed up to but not me. I took them to the Industrial Relations Commission with the help of my Union and won back pay of over $1,000. They can be beaten, you need to be resolute.

Realist,
C.E.O's may be the cream of the crop however in my book with business looking to cut wages and overheads, it is unfathomable that C.E.O.'s whose pay makes up part of those wages and overheads are not under pressure to produce more for less like everyone else. Can you name me a trade or profession who have increased their remuneration from 4 times the average weekly earnings, to 63 times the a.w.e. since the 1970's.

Why are the costs involved with paying an employee 63 times what average workers are supposed to get {a little joke there} not taken into consideration, along with the rest of the workforce? When they were General Managers they were still the head of the organisation. It defies the laws of gravity that the rest should fall, whilst one employee remains supported to such an increadible level. No it is not envy, just plain old common sense.

Making a CEO poorer does not make anyone richer, nor does government regulation which discourages employment.

The best way of improving wages and conditions for working people – a ridiculously obnoxious term in itself – is by encouraging trade, commerce and investment through low taxation and minimal government interference.

The idea that the state can somehow create a perfect society through prescribing and proscribing behaviour is a furphy that just refuses to die. In the ‘80s it was industry policy and tariffs, in the noughties it is industrial relations.

The skills shortage is a cyclical problem: ten years of growth have left employers short of skilled workers. In 1996 no one was talking about a skills shortage! Bringing in migrants is simply a way of allowing production to continue to rise with demand and thus avoid inflation.

Comments in the article about unemployment highlight the inevitable problem with any social science: lack of a controlled-variable laboratory environment. Yes we’re bringing in foreign workers when there are Australian unemployed, but these Australian unemployed may be in a different state, not have appropriate skills or simply be unwilling to work for the pay offered. Not to mention that with its high minimum wages, generous welfare and highly-regulated economy, Australia is always going to have a reasonable level of unemployment.

The IR changes will not have too great an impact on any of these issues. Repeal the whole damn Act, then something may happen.