SHONGA,

It's a shame you aren't able to engage in a debate without resorting to name calling and ad hominem attacks. You failed to address any of the substantive points made in my original post. Instead you have claimed the massive benefits of unionism are self-evident. I disagree, there is a stronger correlation between growth of the economy as a whole and the real wages of Australians than there is with union strength. In fact, in the last 15 years, union memberships have fallen yet real wages have increased. In continental Europe, unions are incredibly strong yet real wages are stagnant.

diver dan,

Kevin Andrews suggested that whether the actions of the company were or were not illegal is matter for the courts. It would be inappropriate for him to say otherwise as this would compromise any judicial proceeding.

However, you do raise a legitimate point. In the short term, some workers will be worse off under the new IR regime and there are some bad employers out there (although I maintain most are not). But the loss to these workers needs to be weighed against the gain to the long-term unemployed who are more likely to get a chance at a job under the new regime and the gains to the economy as a whole which eventually trickle down to all Australians. On balance, the new regime will be positive for Australians, especially in the long run. Surveys of workers in France and Germany (both heavily regulated labour markets) show that they have greater job insecurity than workers in Australia and even the United States. This demonstrates that regulation is not the key to job security but rather a strong economy and laws that encourage recruitment of employees.

Monash,
I react to pomposity that way, nothing personal, you really haven't got a clue have you. Reality to some is more than surveys and theories. The A.C.T.U. has fronted the A.I.R.C for 100 years putting a case for the increase in the minimum wage for we low income souls, bumping along on the bottom of society. Employers don't actually give workers a pay increase just for the fun of it, without unions putting a case on behalf of employees. In other words if unions had not done so the minimum wage would be a lot less than it is now.

Perhaps you are one of those who believe we should go back down the mines with a canary on the shoulder, you make me sick, don't take it personally all pompus, bombastic, arogant, conceited people do.

SHONGA
>Monash Libiterian.
>You are of course quite wrong mate, the rich would have been much richer if not for the union
>movement making and sustaining a case fot the producers of wealth {the workers} to have a tiny
>share in the prosperity.

What a load of garbage. The union movement has done nothing but cause unemployment. They have never increased the workers' share. Value is subjective, and this includes the value of labour. Nobody can change this - either an employer can get workers at a maximum cost of X or he doesn't employ them at all.

The only employment that can guarantee high pay is a job with high value.

>Are you another educated idiot? Who can see theories, but is unable to apply them in practise,
>unless it is to a set of figures. Life is a lot more "real" to some of us, especially those who have
>found themselves through no fault of their own in the bottom 20% of poverty stricken Australians,
>for whom it would seem you have no feelings, or compassion, sell, sell, sell, greed, greed, greed.

Are you going to dispute actual theory, or just discard all theories as academic and not "real"? Believe it or not, there is a logical reason for everything that can be explained with a theory.

Your argument is empty and emotional.

>You should be ashamed of yourself.

No, you should be ashamed of yourself for having the audacity to tell someone they should be ashamed of themselves simply because they disagree with your selfish entitlement philosophy. To suggest that others should be ashamed of themselves for not providing YOU with wealth and employment on YOUR terms, or for keeping their wealth, is a despicble and blatantly spoiled attitude.

Nobody has the right to be paid, to be employed by someone else, or to anyone else's wealth. These things must be earned through the provision and free trade of valuable products or services.

But Monash. You’re exhausting. You miss so much of the point as to be unbelievable. I mean , your name gives it away . Out here is a desperate world. The IR legislation is a "dogs breakfast" for lawyers. Don’t you think this may be the point of the exercise. To me, its about fornication of the bottom end by the top end. But, I would really love you to know, people on the bottom end suffer the real pain of abuse and depravation, and very quickly at any minor change to conditions. So do their families.Their women, children , all of them part of it. Why do they have a need for more persecution through such instruments as Howard’s new IR legislation that will bring less, not more. That is Monash, less money, less security, less chance for them and their families to (and here is a word you would be well acquainted with, I feel sure) “prosper”. So Monash, as elements of Australia prosper, a larger element of the workforce will not. The example of the Abattoir workers(nearly) sacking makes my point. Obviously your fine with this. Am I correct, the John Howard QC way .

diver dan,

With respect, I believe it is you who have missed the point. In my earlier post I conceded that there would be some short term losers out of the government's IR "reforms". (I also concede the point that the legislation is very poorly drafted and has added complexity in some areas). However, I also believe (and overseas experience tells us) that IR reform is the most effective way to decrease unemployment and facilitate social mobility.

Opponents of IR reform make much of the apparent suffering of the low paid yet say nothing of the actual suffering of the long-term unemployed. Nor do opponents of reform suggest any alternative stategies to lower unemployment and grow the economy beyond resurrecting discredited policies. I dont consider the double-digit unemployment of continental Europe to be just or fair. Overregulation of the labour market creates the greatest kind of inequity: between insiders (those currently employed under awards) and outsiders (the unemployed). Yet the stories of unemployed people locked out of the workforce didn't feature in any ACTU ads. Nor did any include small business owners unable to take a chance on a long-term unemployed candiadate because of the threat of a spurious unfair dismissal claim if it doesn't work out.

This reality isn't changed by the fact that I come from a middle-class family (who worked their way up the ladder from humble beginnings) nor by the fact that I am a university student whose only "real" knowledge is a degree in economics. So rather than distort my argument and call me names, challenge the logic of what I am saying.

SHONGA
>Employers don't actually give workers a pay increase just for the fun of it, without unions putting a
>case on behalf of employees. In other words if unions had not done so the minimum wage would
>be a lot less than it is now.

No amount of pressure from labour unions and no amount of legislation can change wages. Wages are set according to the market. Minimum wage, minimum conditions and so on do not increase wages, they just cause unemployment.

Wages go up because of this little thing called "competition". When wages are below the value of their productivity, businesses see this as an oppourtunity to make extra profit, and so COMPETE for workers, bidding up their wages. If you are an employer who wants to take advantage of cheap labour, would it not be in your best interest to offer a higher wage (but no so high as to cost more than the productivity you gain from them) than competing employers, in order to attract workers? This is exactly what happens, and it's not the work of unions.

When wages drop, it is because there is an excessive supply of labour or because it is in low demand. Implementing minimum conditions will simply cause unemployment as less employers are willing to pay the costs. Unfair dismissal is also a cost that employers have to weigh up before they employ workers. Such factors effectively price labour out of the market.