Graham.
Odd that even the HR Nichols society has been on the ABC today berating these laws, along with everyone else. Of course you have a vested interest here, maximising your profits, on the back of some lowly paid workers.

How you people can sleep at night really defies belief, and it is your job to supply suitable labour for the jobs, are you saying that it is really you, who are incompetent, not the employees, it sounds that way to me.

Ok now that I have had my say, you may go back to your red and bickies.

If the IR reform was underpinned by skills training, on the job training and removal of HECS and other fees in relation to higher education, it would not be radical.
If Australia is "rolling in it" as this morning's editorials suggest, then it can afford training policies, a proper long term analysis of the quality of and appropriateness of shifting to immigrant skills and a moratorium on whether Australian citizens can constitutionally be written off by a short sightedness in Government that is one part spitefulness and 2 parts CPA bean counting.

The radicality here is that in 10 years Australia could become the next Fiji where:
* Indian workers in particular are sought after because ITS government provides the training Howard won't,
* Companies will find lame excuses to sack Aussies so they can get more Indians to bolster easy profits
*Indians will find equal opportunity in government as was done in Fiji
*We will lose our culture and the resentment will lead to political and social revolutions as is happening on a regular basis in Fiji.
* At least we'll still play cricket .. If they'll let us.

PS in 10 years time the architects of this Clayton's 'non radical' change will all be dead and buried. What do they care?

A hardly surprising summary from a well-known small business peddeler who has obviously never really had to negotiate from the powerless bargaining position most australian workers find themselves in. The fact is that these needless, over-complicated, blatantly employer biased reforms ARE going to change things for Australian workers. To think otherwise is to live in some utopian dream world where all bosses love their workers and Hitler was a saint. What crap. The real outcome is that employees no longer will have to be paid overtime or penalty rates (eg shift allowance). Measures to limit replacing full-time workers with casuals and contractors have been outlawed. Any reference to employee training is illegal. Industrial Action is effectively also illegal given the obviously excessive secret ballot requirements. And let us not even mention the fact that someone who has slogged their guts out for a business for 10 years can now be sacked the day before he would have got his long service leave due to the unfair dismissal changes.

No difference? What a joke. The fact is there is no possible justification for these changes and the only casualties will be already marginalised, low paid Australian employees

ACTU Media Release 27 March 2006

New ACTU polling shows the Australian public is overwhelmingly opposed to the Government's new IR laws.

New research conducted by the Australian Council of Trade Unions shows that the public are deeply opposed to the Howard Government's new IR laws, and that the community believe the laws show the Government is acting in the interests of big business over the rights of Australian working families.

The ACTU conducted the polling of 1,000 voters in 24 key coalition held marginal seats in late February, early March as part of the union movement's ongoing campaign against the new IR laws which commence today.

The research shows that less than one in four Australians support the laws, and that almost 70% believe that while the laws will benefit big corporations and CEOs they will hurt ordinary families.

Key findings include:

72% of voters support unfair dismissal laws that protect workers.

59% of voters believe that the Government's new IR laws alone are
a strong reason to vote against the Government at the next federal
election.

70% believe that individual contracts give too much power to the
employer.

68% agree that the new laws are strong evidence that John Howard
governs more for corporate Australian than for ordinary working
families.

60% agree that collective bargaining means better job security for
workers.

66% believe that the laws are a threat to every working family.

ACTU President Sharan Burrow said:

Today, Australian working families lose unfair dismissal laws, the strong award system, the safety net, the right to a minimum wage...
The public are asking why the Government would introduce laws that are so obviously designed to take working families wages and conditions backwards, and to remove basic rights for workers at the workplace.

Despite $50 million of Government advertising and a year of spin, the public is aware that the Government is introducing these laws to benefit big business at the expense of ordinary working families.

Haycroft - You are a short sighted idiot. Screw 80% of the population because business is too thick to work out the answer to pigeon holing 20%

People don't exist merely as a factor of production, to suit the whims of business. Pick up a history book and read about 'Freedom of Contract' during the 1890's. It lead to recession and almost revolution.

Your statement "For instance, given the choice, 99 out of 100 workers would take the cash value for sick pay and 100 out of 100 employers would jump at the opportunity to offer it" is absolute crap.

I can just imagine the workplace that denies sick leave to someone with the flu - just to have the whole workplace come down with this debiliating illness. Two weeks was the average that a human being is expected to be sick in any given year. But in your fairyland capitalist utopia, factors of production don't get viruses and disease.

Your grandchildren will be a generation of "Billy" of the original Workchoices Booklet fame. No penalty rates, no rest breaks, timed or no toilet breaks and no ability to withdraw their labour. Sign or don't work!

You are nothing but a unionists for spoilt fat cat unproductive and uncreative business. I doubt you would have produced any *thing* in your life. Your attitude disgusts me.

So the rich are trying to justify ripping off the poor to make themselves richer. These labor hire companies are a rort. They are designed to isolate the employer from its responsibilitis. They are formed as shelf companies and can close down and resurface on a whim. I know a young tradesperson who was being paid $22 ph by a labor hire mob. 2 years later after working interstate and gaining considerably more experience and knowledge, the same mob offered him $18 for the same job.
If India and poorer countries had a social security system the workers there would be getting a fairer wage. In India and Asia the rich are just rorting the poor. My Indian neighbours tell me that they moved here because even being rich in India does not mean safety. Life is so cheap over there. I suggest that if you are talking to an overseas call centre person you try to encourage them to join a union and fight for social security within their country.

Globalism of the workforce is simply global exploitation of the poor by the very rich.

"More than 20 per cent of workers called "permanent casuals" now work flexible and continuous rosters, many for more than 40-hours a week. Another 20 per cent or so are so-called "contractors" or "enterprise workers". In a strict sense, the legal status of all these arrangements has been problematic. Yet everybody had ignored this fact because the arrangements suit the parties"
There is a big assumption here that these workers prefer these arrangements when it is just as likely that workers have to accept these arrangements just to ensure they have a job. From my experience many workers hate the uncertainty of casual employment (even if it is "permanent" ) because they can't make commitments and plans for the future - if offered the chance of a permanent job they jump at it.
Of course under Howard's brave new world we are all essentially casual so wages and conditions can be driven down to the bottom of the pool. No wonder employers think it is great.

For the record, the young man I spoke of, got a permanent job at a starting rate of $25 ph.
The profit made by these labor hire companies is outrageous exploitation.
Maybe we should all be more open to our work colleagues on how much we are paid.

Got to hand it to you for chutzpah, Mr Haycroft.

>>I am an employer of between 800 and 900 workers<<

No you are not.

You have built a niche where you clip the ticket of 800 or 900 honest workers who work for real employers. Nice work if you can get it, of course, but essentially parasitical.

You persuade small businesses that they are unable to cope with the management of their labour supply themselves, so it is unsurprising that you should be in favour of both increased legislation and increased complexity.

Quite how that qualifies you to lecture the rest of us, I haven't a clue, but I just thought I'd let you know that I resent your patronising tone.

As a genuine small businessman with a team that actually produces real work, the new laws put me in danger of having my intellectual capital seduced by larger companies, who can offer them greater security.

My company's size gives us the right to fire at will; how do I explain to my people that I do not intend to make use of it?

Larger companies are envious of our people's skills, and are often sniffing around, trying to poach them. Now they are able to force me to implement salary levels higher than theirs, simply to compensate for the insecurity factor. Double whammy.

Unintended consequence? Probably.

Stupid, thoughtless and unnecessary legislation? Definitely.

Well we have more spin from a 'dedicated and typical employer' . I.R. CHANGES - WORK CHOICES - NO WORRIES !

Work choices for whom?

Work choices timed to REALLY click in WHEN?? (why - thanks to the rat cunning polititician's politician little Johnnie - that's who - ) legislatively not until AFTER THE 2007 FED. ELECTION.

Now that's cunning! Just as everyone's lapping up their WORK CHOICES WINDFALL - just like Hitler's German people greedily and blindly lapped his few crumbs - WHAMMO - COME THE POST 2007 ELECTIONS AND - P0WER TO THE (small group of top corporations) PEOPLE REALLY SHIFTS INTO GEAR - REALLY TAKES HOLD!!

Gone - job security
Gone - family time
Gone - paid holidays
Gone - sick leave
Gone - study/ professional devleopment
Gone - right to negotiate work entitlements

The number of benevolent employers who are pre-disposed to 'do the right thing by their workers ie. be FAIRMINDED ' comprises a diminishing percentage of the national corporations. MOst employers are interested in only getting more biff from their dollars. Hang the workers - profits is their God. Ask Mr Woolworths (CEO) and Telstra's Sol. Downsizing - is the name of their 'productivity gains' game .

Judith Sheehan

Graeme Haycroft have you got any relatives that only household income comes from unskilled or semiskilled work?
These changes have been made to enable the reduction of wages for almost all Australian workers it is a simple as that. With the Government wanting to have free trade with everyone the only way to compete is to reduce costs. In Australia often the biggest cost is labour so join the dots. The US has a living wage that is one third of ours and they want to reduce it so they can compete with China. Only fat cats like Graeme benefit from these measures our country doesn't. Let's just hope that the fools that keep voting the Howard Government back in. They can't see past the good times let's things don't get to bad before they see sense. Remember people it wasn’t the slave owners and industries that stop slavery or got the kids out of the mines or brought in the 8 hour day

The IR changes are an end to the Aussie fair go mate, in fact in some workplaces the end of mateship.
But they are the birth place of a new responsive unionism that will grow from contempt for this goverment and its big busness unions like AIG and others not threatened.
And fear not its the start of a build up that will lead to a long term ALP goverment.
Only one party will bring true just reform to IR and its not this mob.

I am dissappointed with these watered down "industrial reforms" of Howard's. They don't go far enough. Look workers in poorly paid jobs have only themselves to blame. Why didn't they pull their fingers out at school, so they could get decent jobs, instead of smoking dope and shirking responsibility their whole lives?

I was made redundant from full-time work after 30 years. I then spent 2 years "forced" to be a casual and found that it was completely expoitative.
Work as much as or whenever you want? - Not likely. You work whenever the employer wants.
No penalty rates, no holidays- just a flat hourly rate with no guarantee of any work the following day.

I'm now back working for my former employer but now under an AWA which I was forced to sign.
Despite the Government rhetoric, I now do the same work but for more hours and for less pay that my full-time equivalents.
This is fairer?

If I stayed as a casual, how many other "McJobs" would I need to maintain a decent income?

Workers have struggled and fought for generations (and some have even died) to gain the benefits enjoyed by many, only to have them stolen with the stroke of a pen.

Maybe National wealth has increased (mainly due to real estate values) but then so have suicides, homelessness, bankruptcies and violent crime.

It's true that this will boost parts of the economy but what will it do to society?

Maybe Howard's heroine Margaret Thatcher was right when she said "There's no such thing as society - it's everyone for themselves."

To all posters. I am amazed that you all understood this crap??!! I read it three times and still don't see what Graeme was getting at??! I must be amazingly vague as I didn’t seem to grasp any thing specific. In fact I can't seem to find a fact. If I am to get this right the new laws are very cool and John Howard is a brilliant bloke. How does that all relate to the IR reforms again??

Graeme maybe you could try again and give some intelligent commentary that supports your notion that this is all so very good for us all.

There is an idea that if workers are retrenched (formerly with varying compensation and now apparently with nothing(?)) retraining is the key to finding a new job in a new and fulfilling occupation.

This is not always true here (I was retrenched in 2003, am still unemployed and no longer even bother to look for work). It is certainly not true in the US.

At http://www.ethics.org.au/ethics_forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1483&PN=1 is discussion of aircraft maintenance engineers who were retrenched by United Airlines in early 2003: more than a year later, even of the 800 who went through retraining, just 185 had found jobs and only 15 of those paid as well or better than their jobs at United.

This is not necessarily the epitome of all evil.

Workers retrenched from a GM factory in Detroit who get a job at half the hourly rate at a Honda plant in Alabama may find that with cheaper housing, a less congested urban environment and better weather, they are as well off (or even better off) than before.

However some of the former engineers who had found jobs were working for as little as $10 an hour (down from $55).

Graeme Haycroft may indeed see a glass that is three quarters full that to the rest of us looks three quarters empty. But the eerie development today was an op-ed piece in The Australian Financial Review by employment minister Kevin Andrews, "Work Choices builds on Keating's start".

So Work Choices is actually the Labor Party's plan?

Is that why the majority of us vote for the Coalition?

People need to keep in mind that without regulation, wages will tend to be as high as they possibly can be without causing unemployment. Obviously, labour would need to cost less if there is a high supply of it, since there are not as many employers who are willing to pay a lot for it. Increasing this cost through minimum conditions or minimum wage will result in unemployment until more competing employers enter the market. They would be less inclined to compete for labour with excessive regulation, however.

Graeme, you’re an employer, so am I.

However, most of what you assert is as arrogant as it’s inaccurate, like your criticism of Barnaby Joyce. (All major parties support deregulation and globalism)

You state this legislation will simply legalise what’s already there and assume that makes it ok?

Case 1: Night & Day Manager of local cinema work six-month contracts.

Contracts are for six months, necessitating taking six months off for holidays and re-applying accordingly…not practical for most and likely to affect your re-employment then.

‘Solution’ - day manager spends Christmas Day with his family - he has children…Night Manager works a double-shift - no overtime.

New Year’s Eve-Day the Night Manager has time off – he’s young…the Day Manager works a double-shift - no overtime…

This is the only ‘holiday’ they can effectively take if they wish to retain their jobs. Their employer has indeed been awaiting this legislation to legitimize HIS workplace contracts…that doesn’t make them morally or ethically just, nor does it benefit workers.

Case 2: Public servant works on six month contract – same applies and he-she has to toe the party-line of the government-of-the-day rather than take the most appropriate action, in order to renew his-her six-monthly contract.

Politicising and dumbing down of the public service is already rampant and the negative effects, glaringly apparent…

Case 3: Shopping in Woolies, I frequently hear the staff discuss ‘how many hours they were able to get this week’…no idea what hours from one week to the next…so much for ‘permanent casuals’…and the arrangements are not satisfactory according to the staff discussions I hear. How do these staff confidently make any financial commitments, buy a car, buy a house? These staff vary from young workers through to the sole income providers for families.

You state: ‘I predict that almost universally small businesses will move to…set flat rates for every day of the year because it’s simpler and cost-effective for both parties.’

So how’s no penalty rates for working on public holidays better for the worker, when he-she will earn less to meet his-her commitments?

tbc...

(Cont...)

You fantasize with statements like: “Employers can better predict their costs. Workers can either earn more or work when it suits them. They can also get better regularity of income.”

There is NO provision in the legislation for workers to have a greater say on either earning more, getting work when it suits them or better regularity of income.

I’ll predict the chasm that’s developing between the grossly over-paid and increasingly under-performing corporate executives and the remainder of the population will grow rapidly wider and deeper, supported by this legislation.

In Fairyland all may be cooperation, reality poses a very different picture when the corporate bottom line pits the remuneration of workers against the corporate purse and shareholders…America presents a less than pretty picture of the future for Australian workers.

Abysmal health system, workers forced to work two to three jobs to simply pay the bills. The inequity of gratuitous over-indulgence and abhorrent poverty…

You ‘employ between 800 and 900 workers’ and ‘charge other businesses lots of money to help them implement’ what you see as ‘practical workplace changes that will put dollars on their bottom line’.

Perhaps board and executive staff would be better advised to save themselves ‘lots of money’ by running the companies more efficiently and effectively themselves – what are they being paid for?

‘My perspective is necessarily different from an employee of an institution about to lose their career because their services are soon to become extraneous.’

I’ll bet, but let’s tell it straight…you’re making lot’s of money by sacking others to free up more money for those under-performing corporate executives I mentioned earlier…

A recent article in “the Australian” stated that Australian corporate executives had a higher failure rate than most others in the developed world…at a whopping 29%.

A worker with a performance like that wouldn’t expect reward…

Instead, executives have provisions for ‘release’ that see them paid for their failures by the tens of millions.

A reversal of the status quo would be no bad thing…let the deregulated workplace START at the top…in REAL terms and on individual productivity

On the north coast of NSW yesterday a new labour provider told his new crew toilets 2klm away would not be used, lunch shed too would not be used use the bush he said!
one joined the union and was told he must re apply for his job, we are a non union firm.
Bad boss is already cutting rates and conditions, how long before good boss must follow?
This is not reform its murder as many bosses will fall victim as workers, and will the newly rich bad boss spend enought to stop local comunitys suffering from lost wages income?

Meg1, you are making the mistake of taking this piece seriously - for which you should be applauded, since it is a serious issue - but you are in danger of giving the article legitimacy that it doesn't deserve.

Woodyblues, it doesn't matter how many times you read it, it is still going to be a smug recap of how the legislation benefits the author, rather than an examination of the new laws in their own right. If you ran a parasitical business that relies on legal complexities to allow you to exploit small business, you would applaud it too.

wobbles, bringing margaret Thatcher into the argument doesn't help, especially if you fall into the trap of misquoting her. I know that millions of others have done the same, but it actually devalues an argument if you support it with a quotation that is both incorrect and poorly interpreted.

What Thatcher actually said, verbatim, was "And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."

The bit that everyone ignores is that what she said immediately before this .... "too many children and people have been given to understand 'I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it'"

What she is drawing attention to is the willingness of "society" to lay its problems at the feet of government, and expect them to be resolved. This leads to a form of cargo-cultism, where we sit back and wait for the government to "do something" - which unfortunately results in exactly the sort of legislation we are discussing here.

Government has few roles to play in the workplace, and whenever it does interfere, it is necessarily to the benefit of one constituency or another. That is because the interference is by definition political, not economic - witness the fact that there isn't a front-bencher on either side of politics that has had any experience running a real business.

Perhaps Paul Keating's opinion in the Financial Review today (Mar 28) pg 63 summarised why it is not a 'choice' at all.

Pericles,
I stand both humbled and corrected.
Thanks for the clarification and my apologies for being so reckless.
Your User Name is an excellent choice.

Why would you pay this guy for advice ? Seems all he would say is "pay everyone a flat hourly rate".

As he goes on he realises that what he meant to say was a flat hourly rate plus maybe some holidays, and maybe some termination arrangements. I wonder if he wrote a longer article would he decide there were other things that workers might want as well ?

Maybe he might have gone on to recognise that workers may want a say in these things and not just be treated like another piece of company property.

Then again I would guess that he views employees as disposable chattels for which he can set the price and determine their shelf life. He is likely setting "If you don't like it you can leave" to music for increased entertainment value .

Interesting how he uses one of Howard's earliest phrases about the sky falling in, used again recently by Kevin Andrews. Only the conservatives have been mentioning falling skys. Unions and others have only been pointing out what is possible and probable under the new laws.

This guy just proves the unions point.

These new IR laws are evil.

In the 1970s I worked in an un-unionised industry and the standard arrangement was that we took time in lieu when we were called in to fix something at night - people never took their time in lieu. A colleague marked his card when he asked for 3 months off, being the time in lieu that he was owed. It was a great relief when the industry went to paid overtime and minimum call out rates.

Last year I signed an AWA that covered conditions for full time employees - pay rate, hours per week. Unfortunately the AWA didn't cover the casual employee conditions - which was negligent really because all employees were casuals. I was asked to work at 2 hours notice and when I got to the site I was told I wasn't needed. I said that wasn't fair then I discovered there was no minimum pay for being called out, so I had wasted petrol getting to a job that wasn't. This was a low paid job and people who need that money can't afford to mucked around and these IR laws do not protect the low paid worker.

The government's desire to reduce the wages of Australian workers will reduce the worker's disposable income so that demand for non-essential goods and services will fall. Companies that supply non-essential goods and services will see their Australian market disappear and will be forced to find export markets or go out of business. Most Australian firms are too small to break into the American market.

Keven Andrews metioned last night on the ABC that you can be sacked for not having the right personality. Small bussiness is going to suffer from these laws. People will have less money to spend on there products and services and I for one wont chose to work for a small bussiness, I would rather work for a large company that will provide more security and wont sack me because I dont have the right personality.

It is good that Graeme Haycroft employs lots of people. That way lots of people have jobs.

There is this implication in some of the comments that bad employers will cause good employers to lower their standards. I am inclined to think that it is almost always the opposite case.

Stuff you other workers-we building workers have been treated like this for the last thirty years,no super,no long sevice leave,no penalty rates.
When times are good we do OK,when times are bad we are screwed.
You people voted for these jerks,not me.
Welcome to the real world.

Graham,
You can't make your Explanation point until you learn to write.
Is this a sentence?
"After months of dire warnings, gnashing of teeth, and impassioned wailing largely by the self-interested, the morally vain, assorted do-gooders and myriad professional worriers; well - it’s finally all happening."
Does it mean we have all gone to the dentist?
Seems so by gum. The sentence doesn't have any meaning and mouths subjectivity.
Here is an objective sentence for all those who will get it:
"Unemployment!"
That is quite a sentence isn't it.

marklatham
Now you will get screwed in the good times as well as the bad, and no union will be there to protect you. Just who did vote for this mob anyway?

Pericles, articles like this achieve ‘legitimacy’ only if left unchallenged…they’re totally discredited when facts are presented to disprove them…not difficult in this case, I concur.

…brw44, didn’t Paul Keating introduce a deregulated workplace proposal?

It was certainly the Federal ALP who deregulated the dairy industry…now there’s an example of what the workers can look forward to…count the suicides in the deregulated primary industries, when people are left with no market power and little income…

…take a look at the demise of small businesses like newsagents, independent liquor stores and fuel outlets…all wrecked by the same ‘competition’ policies.

The transnationals shell out millions of dollars across ALL of the major parties in ELECTION DONATIONS arrogantly ‘guiding’ government policy and quieting the opposition while they do it…

…marklatham?, not I, my friend and I disagree that those already affected should sit back smugly while others are herded along the same path of destruction that has affected you or I.

RE: waiting for the effects…take a look around at the transnational companies who are already importing cheap labour (have done illegally for years) on so-called work visas, paid cheap ‘contract’ rates and sent back from whence they came when their visa expires for more replacements (or left to become illegal ‘residents’).

This scenario applies across most industries, also amongst unskilled workers and some ‘professions’ (for want of a better word)…

RE: chattels…I’d say with the debt level on this country we’ve been regarded as that long ago…and our demise (in whatever form it takes) is regarded by most in the political arena and the chardonnay set as ‘acceptable collateral damage’.

Marklatham and others should reconsider and ask if it is time to stand together – workers, across industry and small business, farmers, whoever has been affected by all this so-called competition policy and globalism and tell both sides of politics that enough is enough…and bring some sanity and fair play back into this country’s ethos…

It may be easier now, down the track a generation or two we may well be passing our children’s children a far greater burden

Hi Meg1, the dairy industry de-regulation came in July 2000 and they were planned and ntroduced in 1997 ot 1998 so they are the work of the current government.

But I agree with you that workers have been bought in from overseas to erode the working conditions of Aussies. I particularly noticed the Indian security guards hired in Delhi for the Commonwealth Games, they were paid one third of the Australian pay rate, didn't understand colloquial Aussie like "home time!", didn't like searching women - watch that Granny bomber! To be fair they were hired by a two bit company set up for the games so it couldn't offer permanent work. Company might be a part of Chubb. The international media nick named them "Al-Quaeda".

Indian prgrammers and IT professionals replacing Australian public servants.

Expect that your tax return will be prepared in India shortly, after all that's where the ATO computer staff are.

Hey, where are the Howard Huggers in this debate. Are they too busy looking for a job? Or are they busy sacking people and employing others (or the same workers) at a cheaper rate?
We live in interesting times and as well as negatively affecting the economy, this IR law will see the rise of long and painful industrial disputes. Never mind that Peter Reith isn't in govt now, I am sure that the likes of Chris Corrigan will be able to round up some more Alsation attack dogs to harry stiking workers.
There is worse to come my friends.

...billie, much further than IT too. Borthwicks, Mackay-Queensland has contracted Brazilian meatworkers - guess the contracted prices...it's widespread and has been for years.

Check the hospitality industry in Cairns - same applies.

RE: Dairy industry, Gavan O'Connor (ALP MP-Corio, Victoria)assisted around 1995, in preparation (Federally) and implementation of dairy industry deregulation...John Kerin was Federal Agriculture Minister. Gavan outlined his involvement to me himself and indicated that his only problem with dairy deregulation was that it didn't go far enough... Gavan lived on his father's dairy farm around Colac, Victoria in his youth.

Keith Hamilton (Vic.Ag.Minister,ALP) introduced into the Parliament of Victoria, legislation to deregulate the Victorian Dairy industry. It was passed and supported by both the Vic. Liberals and Vic. National Party...undisputed proof they are all in bed on National Competition Policy and deregulation...check the numerous speeches in hansard from both sides to confirm their commitment.

Peter Beattie (Qld ALP) has recently deregulated the sugar industry, with disastrous consequences...including the loss of Austoft, Bundaberg (harvester manufacturers) to Brazil - how's Braztoft sound? The loss of jobs and infrastructure has impacted on Bundaberg severely.

Unquestionably and statistically the most efficient sugar producers in the world, (more efficient and productive than ALL, including Brazil) the Queensland canefarmers have been crippled by the Beattie government working hand-in-glove with the Howard government's National Competition Policy, signing Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) to do so...as they have in other deregulated industries.

In the sugar industry the winners are the transnational corporations like CSR and Bundaberg Sugar...the consumer has continued to pay higher prices for sugar-based products and the farmers are being sent to the wall, walking off or suiciding through payment of below-cost returns.

ABARE's statistics quote that Australian farmers (generally) have an average realisable income of $15000pa. Considering capital investment in farms, machinery, etc., (as other small businesses)- that's a poor return on investment. Government policy then refuses subdivision of farm land despite demand existing for housing blocks, removing all financial options...catch 22.

You have debts, therefore you have no choice but to work for nothing...or fall victim to one of the other tragic alternatives.

I used to be what this article would call a 'permanent casual' at a clothing retailer. For two and a half years I worked three days a week, had my own set of keys to the shop, and was essentially the weekend manager, for all I did not get any extra pay for the role. I enjoyed it, and appreciated the responsibility etc. Change of store manager however, who did not like knowing less about the place than her staff, and suddenly I was only working one day on a weekend, never sure if it would be the Saturday or the Sunday, so I could not plan my life more than a couple of days in advance. What power did I have? None- my extra responsibilities and expecations of hours were never recorded anywhere formally, so they meant nothing.

"permanent casual" is a stupid term, and the only person who would assume there is any degree of "permanency" about such arrangements, or any desirability in those arrangements, has obviously not been in such a situation in their recent memory. It is stressful, demeaning, and undermines your sense of self to know that the hard work you have put in mean exactly nothing because you are not a permanent full-time or part-timer.

Well said all................Give us another of your neo-liberal rants Haycroft!

This is by far the most sick and twisted piece of legislation this country has ever seen.

The minister for finance is pushing for MORE sweeping IR reforms to be taken to the next election and guess what...even if they are, we (present company excluded) are all so dumb that we're just gonna vote 'em right back in again - possibly with another overwhelming majority.

Wake up Australia!

Can't anyone see that Howard has done this with a sadistic and sinister advantage in mind. Sure it might be good for the economy but the added bonus, as far as Howard is concerned, is that he can hit the working class were it hurts the most. For those of us who obviously don't know this yet, Howard has always resented the working class and has worked his entire political life for this kind of legislation so that the over-demanding working-class can be "put back in their place".

...Again, present company excluded.

I am very frustrated with IR changes, It is plan to see these changes will overtime lower take home pay for most Australians.

In a time of record household debt there could not be a worse time
for these damaging changes to occur. I plan on starting my own business soon so I don't have an agenda, but these laws will hurt our kids and grand kids (fact)

This work choices bill is about Big Business and there influence within the coalition. Yes it should be a bit easier for a small business to sack a bad employee (10 or less employee's)100 employees is a large business.

Crime will rise and a new class of working poor will emerge within 10-15 years. Im serious, mark my words. I have closely followed
this issue and listened to both sides and I can not believe this government would put our good people in this position.
How dare they not listen to the people and lie to us as well.

We have a new welfare for work bill that forces disabled to work
and at the same time overseas workers coming in by the tens of thousands to be exploited and drive down wages.

Understand this if workers earn less they pay less tax, but the companies new found weath is not taxed as high especially big business so the government gets less taxes. We also will get less superanuation. Big businesses are to smart to implement there new found power staight away. To a bright note I do think this bill is illegal as it abuses the corporations power.

There are some very intellegent people discussing this topic here I
hope you speak up loudly.

Have a good day

I fully agree with someone earlier saying that the IR Reforms have had the worst promotion ever seen in Australia. For me it ranks with Keating’s recession we had to have. Look what happened to him.

As long as we want to be part of this globalised community with the benefits of shared intelligence and technology,we have to face the reality of global competition and all it's rewards,as well as global rationalism with it's harsh realities.

Face it ,we are living off the sweat of third world poverty that provides us with cheap products beyond our wildest dreams,yet refuse to admit that ultimately we have to pay the price of competing and paying our own way.

We can only sell off a finite portion of our country in terms of resources before we have to bite the bullet and invest more in human resources which will provide Australia with a more secure future.

The reality is that wages will fall,the rich will profit even more from the share market,and Govts will keep their snouts in the trough.

There is a better way,we simply make workers shareholders in the companies for which they work.Aye,there's the rub,since workers have no capital and only a left wing education to console them in poverty .

Arjay

I'm not sure what to make of your claim that workers have only a left wing education and no capital. So I will just ignore that as another of your less inspired moments.

However you have made a good point with your suggestion of making workers shareholders.

This is motivational. It also leads to greater productivity when workers have a stake in their work.

It is arrant nonsense to expect Australian workers to earn the same as their third world counterparts, it is turning the clock back 200 years.

Another way to counter this is to raise the standard for third world workers; I believe that this will happen eventually - but don't expect it in my lifetime.

Global corporations cannot exploit these workers indefinitely.

Both China and India are not only developing their technologies but they are educating their workers at a massive rate. This holds a great deal of competition for the West - such as cheaper engineers. This also means that not only will low-skilled workers in the West be affected but also the higher skilled workers will feel the pinch.

Interesting times.

Scout ,it is indeed the rub,since our education system does not deal with investments or the necessity of having the discipline to achieve long term goals.Our education system is based on a socialist philosophy whereby the lowest common denominator determines the level of wealth and how it will be distributed.

We are the society of instantaneous self gratification who practise punishing the achievers in the name of social equality.Just look at our progressive tax system that creates enormous bureaucracies to pay millions not to work.

Globalisation has a lot of negatives.When our small businesses are shut down by cheap imports,this means that large corporations just take up the slack and the small entrenpreneur with little capital has no way of breaking into the market.Where will be our freedom of spirit be when ordinary folk cannot achieve wealth?

I think we are making China powerful too quickly,since their political system is still totalitarian in nature,with no mechanism to restrain it's excesses.

What I find offensive in the IR laws is the unfairness and bias given to one side over the other.

Companies are made up of shareholders and they are required to operate collectively - through their boards and management.

If we were "fair" and logical and apply the same thinking as the IR laws to corporate law we would either require all shareholders to negotiate separately on issues or give them the choice of opting out of the collective arrangement.

Alternatively applying the thinking of corporate law to labour laws we would require employees to bargain collectively as we now require shareholders to bargain collectively and we would not allow individual contracts. We would also put restrictions on the cross company collectivisation of labour as we now put restrictions on the operation of shareholders across companies through competition policies and the like.

Hmmmm, good points Fickle Pickle.

Perhaps Australia's fair go image will now be known as the 'fair go but some are fairer than others' image or a new image altogether - the 'fair-dinkum shake down', equally applied on all income-earners below the $1 million bracket...

It would be great if the politicians who passed the new IR laws were also employed under the same laws.
How many employers would put up with employee behaviour such as we see during question time?
How many of the offending employees be out of a job by lunchtime of the first day?
As the pm says let us make things simpler.
Let us do away with salaries tribunals and have one authority for awarding pay increases and let us have one set of industrial relations laws for all employees (including pollies and ceo's)

Well Peace that would simplify things nicely…when there’s a pay increase…make it across the board…or NONE! Why not put restrictions on rates of profit earned too? The big corporations shouldn’t be able to put mark-ups of 170%plus on the backs of workers who are earning a pittance…fair go? Sounds fair to me…

If the CEO’s or directors or pollies get a pay rise … so do my workers. Doesn’t that fit with the SIMPLE IR policy?

Well it fits with what they say, just not with what they DO.

There are certainly workers who need to pull their weight better…but with a 29% failure rate in the corporate sector…no one can argue that they don’t deserve an overhaul of their ‘salary and benefits scheme’ too…they could do with a comparative analysis of corporates here against corporates around the world…now, there’s an exercise for the unions to fund on behalf of their workers interests.

Sadly the general public don’t see and use the opportunity for an overhaul of our pollies every few years…they seem to be glued to the party system rather than evaluate each candidate individually, irrespective of their party affiliations…or lack thereof…the unions would be able have more impact too, if they were prepared to cut the umbilical cord from the ALP unless they started to represent them effectively.

Read the Hansard records, the major pollies are all tied with the same brush on deregulation and National Competition Policy…irrespective of their responsibilities to the electorate and the nation.

If they’ve sold out to corporate electoral donations, the electors are the only ones who can individually make a difference and tell them they demand representation or dismiss them at the polls.

…or they can wait until all but the ‘elite’ are dragged down to the lowest common denominator and are just struggling to survive…like so many in America today.

…it all starts by pricing people out of a home, high rents and having to have more than one wage earner in the house…oops, we’re there already…let’s see who votes the same way next election without canvassing their candidates…

I am proud to say I have never voted for Howard and the other so called leaders of this country. The main problem with our leaders is that they are a mainly solicitors, accountants and self funding weathy businessmen ect. Politics is attracting the wrong people and this is a huge problem. I dont have a problem with lawyers and rich people I hope to be an entreupener myself but they are over represented in parliment.

I am furious with this governments new IR laws and there yet to be proved AWB involvement. Did you people know this government is going to force disabiled people to work in the knew Welfare To Work legislation and yes, force.

The new IR laws were created to lower wages for all workers and if you think it was'nt then why would the Howard government scrap the no disadvantage test? which means anyone on a AWA before could not get less than the award over the year. These IR laws were created by big business and the Howard government for there own iterests and if anyone cant see that is either a liar or a pea brain and this current government is not the later.

This country has really changed for the worse in the last 10 years and if this Howard so called leader gets re-elected I will seriously consider leaving this country I love and was born in.

I urge all you good people to speak to your friends and colleges regarding this issue and inform them of the serious damage Howard is doing to this country. If The high court rules against these IR laws my faith in this countries courts will be upheld. I wish we had a real leader that I could look up to and admire. Any replys

The French would have Haycrofts head on a spike by now. Aussie battlers my arse.

Sly the other major parties are over-represented with academics too...

The IR laws, like most other deregulation in this country was set up to drag most of the country down to the lowest common denominator...and make the transnationals and company executives richer.

After all 'he who pays the piper, calls the tune...'

...and the transnationals are certainly paying plenty in election donations to ALL the major parties. Of course there are plenty of LARGE taxpayer funded grants to those corporations too...I guess that means that you and I are indirectly paying the election donations THROUGH the corporations to the major parties...or is that TOO simplistic?

National Competition Policy has promised so-called 'competitiveness' for Australia but instead it has meant that the corporations can dictate price on everything and Australians go begging...now it's the workers turn. If the intention is not to lower real wages for workers then why were the present laws enacted at the behest of big business?

You are right about the choices amongst parliamentarians...from all the major parties, the genuine ones who are there for the good of Australia and Australians FIRST and FOREMOST, are thin on the ground.

Thanks for your reply Meg1, all I can say is Howard is destroying this country in many ways. IR, AWB , WELFARE TO WORK, NEW ID CARD,
ANTI TERROR AND MANY MORE CASES.

I have the inside word on the AWB story...at a meeting last week a retired barrister told me that he knew who was aware of the everything and therefore responsible for everything as no one else was...he's convinced it will all come out in the end...it's the postal clerk! After all he-she delivered or posted all the correspondence out and sorted all inward correspondence...guilty surely!

He also said something about passing the buck and scapegoats, but I'm assuming that was unimportant as bureaucrats and politicians wouldn't do that sort of thing, would they?

Knowing the amount of red tape the bureaucrats wrap around everything, you'd have to be pretty obtuse to think that either the previous ALP or this government's bureaucrats were unaware of the AWB board's initial concerns about the payments.

If I was cynical of both the bureaucrats and the politicians...I'd say that this was all a great set-up to get rid of the Single Desk for selling wheat...the AWB, and discredit them...who suffers? The farmers who had NOTHING to do with it.

Who gains? the transnationals who can then beat down the price to the farmers as they have in other primary industries like dairy, etc...etc...

When Australians learn to stand together - workers, farmers, independent fuel retailers, newsagents, manufacturers, liquor stores...etc...we'll have better government acting in the interests of us and our country.

What's the penalty for treason again?

The French the French, look to the french you downtrodden ozzie battlers.

I am far from a battler. This is about right and wrong, black and white. The IR laws were created to drive down wages. AWB was known
all the way to the top and if Mr Cole does not ask for broader powers
to investagate the government he will unfortunatly loss much credibility within the law society. I hope to have a PM in the future I can respect.

Mr Howard has small man syndrome and is a pawn in big businesses
plans to control all. He sells all public assets and then boasts how much money the government has spare and then bribes voters near poll date.

All Liberal senators should be ashamed about there lack of leadership and guts on the IR reforms. They got walked all over and are embarrassments to this countries parliament.

My hopes for a bright future are fading but if the high court rules against the aggressive IR laws that would cheer me up.
Mr Cole, I hope your not just another tail between the legs puppet.

Oddly, industrial relations have been running pretty smoothly in recent years compared with the 1980s. Furthermore the industrial practices that most need to be shaken up - state government union employees - are entirely immune from the IR changes. (Electrical workers in Queensland and NSW come to mind, as do school teachers and government transport workers.)

Brad Norington in The Australian on 25/2:

QUOTE
From bowser boy to IR reform

THE inspiration for John Howard's dramatic overhaul of Australia's workplace laws can be traced back to his childhood, pumping petrol for no pay at his father's Dulwich Hill service station in Sydney's inner west [in the 1950s].

Providing the strongest clue to his little-explored personal motivation, the Prime Minister has revealed his chief influence was his first unpaid job where he learned that life was "not a five-days-a-week existence". It is a key to understanding the philosophy behind Mr Howard's workplace changes...

In his quest to promote private enterprise, individual initiative and a strong work ethic, he believes employment should be based on the market with little or no role for unions.

During an interview with The Australian for a book to mark his 10 years in power, he harked back to his beginnings as the son of a small businessman to explain his views.

"I didn't grow up in a home where unions were, sort of, routinely denigrated," Mr Howard said.

"I mean, (my parents) didn't entertain the idea that unions are bad, but they didn't talk about unions.

"The whole idea of doing something with your life was about personal achievement, and starting a business...

"I remember as a child, the first unpaid job I had was serving petrol on Saturday and Sunday mornings.

"So this idea that life is not quite a five-days-a-week existence was with me at a very early stage. I guess working for yourself, working for private enterprise... was something I was brought up to believe in."
END QUOTE

So Howard wanted to share his start in life, enabling many of us to work in unpaid jobs for small businessmen.

It is both the glory and the damnation of the market economy that badly managed companies sometimes survive for a long time, while well managed companies can sink for no fault of their own.

As a consequence we have seen a trickle of reports from badly managed small companies that have sacked people for inconsequential reasons, sometimes to offer them their jobs back at a lower wage. There may be others that never hit the news headlines because no union is involved or because workers are afraid to speak to the press. Such managers never imagine that they are putting their company at risk. Unfortunately, sometimes they aren't.

Pericles wrote, "My company's size gives us the right to fire at will; how do I explain to my people that I do not intend to make use of it?

"Larger companies are envious of our people's skills, and are often sniffing around, trying to poach them. Now they are able to force me to implement salary levels higher than theirs, simply to compensate for the insecurity factor. Double whammy."

Well, you could start by discussing it with your people, putting your integrity on the line and explaining (perhaps reiterating) the rare circumstances in which you would instantly sack someone, and promising measures you will take to help someone whose performance is lagging, before, if all else fails, letting them go. You could also share with them your company's cash flow and P&L, and discuss whether it is growing or shrinking. If you suffer a downturn and your people trust you, they will not head straight for the hills, but will work their butts off to put it right. Get them to understand it's your job on the line too.

People rarely make decisions about jobs on the basis of a few thousand bucks a year. If your people trust you, they'll stay. If they don't, they won't. The new IR laws don't alter this a whole lot. A couple of thousand bucks more in their pockets won't either.

As we wait for the safe rescue of the miners trapped underground I suggest readers of this forum look at the article in www.crikey.com that states that Macquarie Bank bought all the mine's debt and placed the bank in receivership. The receiver gets all operating profits. The article also discussed the November safety report that was commissioned after the October 2005 seismological activity.

Also try to get the Radio National transcript of Mr Comerford's eye witness description of police firing in miners striking at the Rutherford Colliery lock out in 1929, note carefully his description of the government minister who ordered the police to fire.

Kim Beazley is correct to claim that union activity has made the australian workplace safer and we all know that if the mine was in China production wouldn't have stopped when 3 miners we trapped in a rock fall. The new IR legislation stops unions entering workplaces so we can expect workplaces to be a lot less safer in the future.

On the ball Billie boy. Note the crap coming from Howards attack dogs.
This Govt. is starting to get embarrased on a daily basis by this heinous IR law. They continually deny that it allows employers to do, exactly what it allows them to do. Poor employers must be getting confused. LET ME ASSIST THEM.
Employers--- wait till after the next election, then you can start treating workers like disposable commodities. Please wait.

Billie…you’re right in saying that ‘in China production wouldn't have stopped when 3 miners we trapped in a rock fall.’

…that’s the difference in a value system that regards individual human life as a priority and of infinite value…each and every human life…God bless Australia…may it always be so in the land of the Southern Cross.

As for Macquarie Bank...they are also buying up large cotton properties in Northern New South Wales...to lease back to cotton growers on the Bank's terms...who owns Australia now?

This is all part of National Competition Policy and supported by both the ALP and Liberal parties...NPA and other prominent parties too. Cripple individual ownership of land and assets of middle and low income Australians with it...hand it to the transnationals.

Check the electoral donations list to see where policy decisions of government and opposition parties come from...they're not hard to predict.

I'm told reliably that there are influences on the union movement also from softdrink manufacturers who 'donate' profits from sales on mine sites to mining unions with 'strings attached'...sounding more like a banana republic every day.

Beazley has a point here despite the media hype to try to discredit him...and not surprisingly he probably WAS trying to score political points, like the rest of the political spectrum - if we want media scrutiny of politicians we can hardly complain when they are prepared to speak to media if questioned on issues. If we like or don't like what they say we can then judge them on that...It's important that they have the opportunity to speak to media nonetheless.