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...