"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.