Well the coalition has argued the case = they put up a multi million dollar arguement that would seem to have fallen on deaf ears - particularly employers - who in a recent Australina Institute of Management survey expressd a prfound lack of awareness of the legislation.

They have also failed to prove the assertion that the capacity to more readily sack employees be any more benefical to the economy than the myth that the GST will eradicate the black economy - there are provisions to sack employees - I do it regularly based on poor performance - in a highly unionised industry.

Mr Moore also over estimates the ease at which employees can relocate - skilled, professinal and semi professionals may well be a highly fluid part of the work force - but those lesser skilled workers who will proably fall foul of this legisaltion does not have that sort of flexibility -

Most poor performance is born out of lousy management and poor job design any way. The new rules have there basis in a desire to reassert management prerogative not economics and will (have been).
be exploited.

And the last round of arguement that asserts that overturning these laws will crush the economy - is weird as well - these laws have done nothing for an economy that the coalition is rightfully proud of - we have had decades one and a half decades of growth under the old regime - how is that explained? The government sings the praises of the workers of this land and their prooductivity on its export orientated web pages in text that predates these reforms

They cant have it both ways.

Most people do believe reform is necessary and needs to be ongoing - but these reforms are rooted in sense of revenge, are unproven as effective methods to maintain prosperity and are even at odds with recent OECD utterances.

John Stone accuses the Coalition government of having "almost forgotten about the rights of employers..." This is ludicrous - the whole premiss of Work Choices is to enhance the rights and privileges of employers while reducing their responsibilities.

At least you can't accuse Stone of pussy-footing around. He asks, "As one of the objects of Work Choices was to make it easier to...[change the conditions of employment or sack the offenders], why isn't the Government promoting this as a desirable feature of the legislation?" The answer is obvious: it is indefensible morally and unpalatable politically. The Coalition cannot trumpet this key intention of its own legislation, so it must be masked as it was in its recent failed multi-million dollar advertising campaign.

Stone draws a picture of a labour market with less than 5 per cent unemployment and more than one million employers competing with each other for labour. In this market, he argues, employers exercise no monopoly powers over levels of wages or conditions of employment.

He then undermines his (and the Coalition's) argument by pointing to ABS surveys that show that, in addition to the 500,000 or so unemployed, there are over 800,000 who say they would like a job but who do not qualify as officially unemployed and over another 500,000 who are working part time but would like to work more hours. Hardly a labour-seller's market, Mr Stone.

But that's not the end of Stone's contradictions. He points out that because "many of these are unskilled, their capacity to obtain jobs is primarily dependent on employers being legally able to offer working conditions commensurate with their lower productivity". What government is going to come out and publicly defend that proposition, even if they think it defensible on economic or social grounds?

Stone gives us all a belly laugh to end with: "Unions opposed to employers offering less costly employment should be exposed as unemployment creators." Don't you love the neo-speak: "less costly employment", "unemployment creators"?

"It is surely time for Coalition ministers to grasp the nettle and expose the many fallacies being promulgated in the Work Choice debate."

Unfortunately they cannot do this because of the lies they have already told.

Penalty rates - protected by law.
Overtime - protected by law.
Public Holidays - protected by law.

Rubbish we now know they can be removed by one sentance in an agreement.

Unfair Dismissal, you can now be sacked because your boss does not like your socks.

Every speech Kevin Andrews gives in parliament is an anti union tirade and to me this reveals the reason for this legislation.

But these are trade unions, what about farmers unions (NFF, Agforce) or Doctors unions (Royal colleges etc) or Lawyers or Accountants etc. etc.

It really does not matter, Kevin has shot himself in the foot and will lose the Coalition the next election.

If the Govt. came clean and did not try to bullsh*t the community these laws can be fairly argued, but they chose in their normal way to be tricky and mean.

“But surely our ministers are capable of answering such a claim?”

The ineffectual Kevin Andrews certainly isn’t; one of the Governments big mistakes was to use him to get the message across.

I vote Liberal - federally only - because a Coalition government is the lesser of two evils. But, the Government has made a dog’s breakfast out of IR, helped by the plastic Mr. Andrews.

I am retired and don’t have to worry about IR laws, but I can fully appreciate the worries of workers today. The sneaky withdrawal of the no-worker-will-be-worse-off provision put me right off.

Of course employers should be able to hire and fire at will – most are not going to get rid of good employees. And, most employers are not bad. But, the figure we should be looking at is the number of employees at the mercy of the ‘few’ bad employers. Take government departments for starters: a lot of employees there!

If the Government is not able to get its message across it is because it has a bad reputation in many domestic areas, including relations with Australia’s work force. It refuses to train, then, whining about lack of skills, allows employers to import foreign workers with only nominal, if any, regulation or investigation.

Frankly, I think Beazley and the ALP are no friendlier to workers than is the Coalition. But, in the case of IR, John Howard and friends deserve all the resistance and trouble the labour (not Labor) movement can throw at them

Of course the government is having trouble defending the indefencible I R changes. There is no 'choice' in Workchoice. There is no room for negotiation with AWAs.There is a huge financial cost if an employee feels he has been unfairly dismissed. Even if an employee wins an unfair dismissal case,it can be overturned by the Federal Government. I haven't heard of any politicians or company directors taking a pay cut 'for the good of the economy'. Obviously its a case of 'do what I say,not what I do'.In America, where this crap legislation comes from, the minimum wage is currently $OZ 6-43/hr and its been that way for ten years.In the same period,American politicians have added $US30,000 to their annual salaries. A 'fair go' has been the catch cry of Australians for decades.I can't see any fairness in this legislation. If anyone needs evidence of the adverse effects of this legislation, trawl through the 'Your rights at work' website.When do the federal politicians workplace contracts come up for renewal? I'd like some input into them.

Par four of Mr Moore's article reveals what is really at the heart of the new industiral laws. It is not workplace reform but greater workplace control to managers who need to be able to punish workers. Mr Moore says "Employers operate businesses (which depend) on the satisfactory performance of its employees. If employers judge such performance to be unsatisfactory, they should have the right either to change the conditions of employment or sack the offenders." The presumption is that poor performing businesses are caused by employees who fail to perform as their managers demand. There is no consideration of the manager's capacity and abilities, poor administrative or operational organisation or other management issues. Workplace reform requires an equal power relationship between workers and employers and fewer, rather than more, supervisors and managers. The Government's legislation, written by the employers, simply provides employers and managers with increased powers of control, not workplace reform.