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.

Des Moore's argument is undermined by the Cowra abbatoir worker's case. Employees with up to twenty years service lost their jobs and had to reapply for them under an AWA that would have left them $100-$180 per week worse off. Where is there any justification in that except that the employer just wanted a bigger slice of the pie and that Cowra, like most regional centres, is an area where it is not a job-seekers market. There are and will be many similar cases.

The philosophy behind the legislation is to leave employees relatively powerless except where they are in a location where their profession is in high demand. The benefits of decades of protection for workers through an independent commission and a recognition of union right to collective bargaining is lost. It's only a matter of time before most employees feel the effects.

Looking at the responses on this thread, it is not hard to work out why the Feds are having trouble selling WorkChoices....

I'd call it the Leyland P76 of Australian legislation, except that there are (a few) people who reckon the P76 was a good car.

WorkChoices is a dog.

At least Leyland managed to sell a few P76s.

Even after spending nearly $500 Million on advertising and setting up the new bodies they cannot sell this dud legislation to anyone.

I live in a far different world than the author, yet I am a trade union official.
And one fully aware some reform was needed.
Can it be our author thinks all bosses have halos? that none have so badly used this monster we call workchoices that its nothing less than a crime?
Kim Beazley in his speach, I was only 20 feet away, spoke on behalf of every one who works in Australia not just unionists.
Kim has an understanding of pre workchoices AWAs and the 20 alowable matters.
And the five in the post workchoices act.
He understands the difference between those highly paid ones and the imposed ones post workchoices.
He understands the common law contract will replace AWAs under his goverment, but without the shamefull trade off in holidays and other much needed protections.
Workchoices is wrongly painted as pro small busness yet calls for protection come daily to unions, not from members alone but from small busness owners under threat by firms already begineing a race to the bottom, an unwinable race to use wages cuts to win work.
that will end with lower rates lower wages and lower work standards.

Des is like most of the critics of anyone who opposes this Govt, most of them have never done a hard days work in there lives,and I dont mean sitting in an office pushing a pen

Please check out my previous responses to everything the evil Des Moore prints. This man is as nasty as they come.
The drivel that he has just written exposes him for the neo-con he is.
Des Moore is the true face of your Howard and Costellos.
I will give him credit for that.
He has been waging Jihad against workers for decades along with his beloved HR Nicholls society.
Make no mistake Howard and Costello are his fellow travellers,they are just smarter than him and hide thier views and lack of morals.

The stated purpose of this article was to provide better selling points to the new workplace regulations. Unfortunately Mr. Moor chose to do so by pointing to the benefits to employers - benefits against which thousands of Australians have already protested. Stressing employer benefits does nothing to reduce the fear by workers that such schemes are being put in place in order to promulgate the paternalism and elitist mentality which is increasingly contributing to the ever widening gap between the haves and the have nots.

If indeed the government - and Mr. Moor - want to convince the majority of the advantages accruing to them under such a system then we are in no need of further rhetoric. Simply bullet point or other wise list the ways in which the community of workers will be able better to feed, clothe and educate their children above the subsistence level. These are the reasons most of those who resist this legislation go out to work and of course they will favour legislation which facillitates such advantages.

No selling or persudaing or even coercing is needed if clear statements of fact listing the ways in which not only workers but their dependants' lives will be improved as a result of these reforms can be provided.

A working knowledge - as opposed to a statistical or theoretical knowledge - of the societal and economic conditions which govern the lives of workers would also function as an indicator of how best to present these reforms. Perhaps the inability so far of any proponents of this legislation to provide the above is a clue as to why it is being disputed.

Most Australians are keenly aware of the changed IR landscape because they or their kids have to sign AWAs to get a roster in the local shopping centre or call centre.

The government has lost all credibility with the large segment of the population that knows the unemployment rate is far greater than 5% because they are I of the 500,000 unemployed or 800,000 not working not counted unemployed or the 500,000 under employed persons in this country. On Des Moore's figures the unemployment rate is 18%.

Looking around my suburb in inner Melbourne at all the university trained over 45 year olds who would like to still be in the workforce except the scientific and technical roles which they once did have gone. They may have been pushed out of the workforce by the Kennett changes or their job may have been offshored. Employers regard technical workers who have not worked in their field for 2 years as unskilled labour .

I wonder what pissy little training course Newstart is going to force people to enrol in. I question the effectiveness of retraining to attain a new position. So from my little corner of God's own country I can see absolutely no merit in offshoring Australian jobs.

From my working life experience I assume that those who suck up to the boss have less to fear from AWAs than those who get on with job without showing the boss due reverence. As we all know, brown nosers often aren't actually productive members of the workforce.

"The Coalition needs to argue the case for workplace reform."

- No they don't. They need to crawl into a hole and die.

“Another truth seemingly overlooked is that employees who do not like the conditions provided by a particular employer are, in most cases, able to change jobs...”

- What about the workers in small towns?

”It is surely time for Coalition ministers to grasp the nettle and expose the many fallacies...BlahBlahBlah...”

- The reason they won’t is because the Coalition members are smart enough to realise that the more they debate it, the bigger hole they dig themselves into and, eventually, end up exposing their real agenda.

Howard has always dreamed of hitting the working-class where it hurts the most since they are such an “over-demanding” lot. There used to be a poster that hung on the wall of the Robert Menzies lounge in Parliament House that said “The Working Class: Give ‘en F---ing Nothing”. Apparently Howard used to get a real kick out of this and would chuckle about it all the time.

Oh, and before the rich start messing their pants over these reforms and their new-found glory as Lord and Master, they should remember, it’s only going to take one election win from the ALP to undo it all, after all, the Coalition has attacked what is the heart of the Labor party. Yet it would require the Coalition to gain control of the Senate AGAIN to bring the reforms back in – Something that I’d doubt will happen for a good many years considering the harsh lesson the general public are learning.

But I don’t have much sympathy for the working-class who helped to give these bastards control of the senate. If they didn’t have the brains to realise that these kinds of policies are what Rightwing governments stand for, then they deserve to learn the hard way. Saying that Labor wasn’t providing an alternative is an excuse either because you only have to take a look at the US to see what kind of a society the Coalition want to create for us.

John Howard to the Young Liberal convention just before winning the 1996 election:

”Under no circumstances will a Howard Government create a wages system that will cause the take home pay of Australians to be cut. Under a Howard Government you cannot be worse off, but you can be better off. I give this rock solid guarantee our policy will not cause a cut in the take home pay of Australian workers.”

Yet, employees at Spotlight, the retail chain, have lost the following: all penalty rates including for public holidays, all overtime, rest breaks, shift allowances, sick leave allowances, rostered days off, uniform allowances, meal allowances, and first aid allowances. Furthermore, there will be no restrictions on the number of consecutive days employees can be required to work without a break, and no minimum break between shifts.

In exchange for all this, the employees have received a pay increase of 2c to the hourly rate of $14.30 an hour.

WOW! What a deal!

This is in no way an isolated case either.

Next on the way, is the ability for employers to make all their staff contractors. This could see the end of holiday leave, sick leave and workers compensation. We would be responsible for paying our own taxes and Superannuation.

The next election can’t come soon enough.

Mr Man I think you will find that all the cleaners at Coles and other supermarkets are sub-contractors who are responsible for organising their own tax payments, leave, superannuation.

I think that one of the airlines hires its cabin crew as sub contractors and of course the building industry has been rife with subbies for over 20 years.

Its a sad state of affairs when the most vulnerable members of the work force are offered no protection from unfair work practices.

Please never overlook tails like our authors are while one sided and untrue have an impact.
Just this week a young man stood up in a workers lunch room and pored his dislike of the ALP out hopeing they would never win an elction.
Breathless about his blast I was about to ask questions when he made it clear he thought John Howard lead the Labor party!
Some anti worker views in the authors post are just as uninformed.

Quote Belly:

“Just this week a young man stood up in a workers lunch room and poured his dislike of the ALP out hoping they would never win an election.
Breathless about his blast I was about to ask questions when he made it clear he thought John Howard lead the Labor party!”

Isn’t that scary, Belly? I have often had people ask me which party John Howard is the leader of…and these people vote!

It reminds me of a case I made against compulsory voting on another thread (although I don’t necessarily hold strong views either way). But it could also be said here to expand on your point about the some being uninformed…

We have too many apathetic people with no political nous, voting for/against something they know nothing about. Some classic scenarios:

-I just voted for them ‘cause that’s who my parents voted for;
-I just voted for them ‘cause they’re the evil I know;

…Oh dear, why do I have to take a pay-cut now?

A couple of the many examples of this I know are:

An acquaintance of mine, voted for the coalition because they were the evil they knew. Then, when the IR reform took place, they asked me what it was all about. When I told them, their response was: “But they can’t do that, can they?”

Another example is a girl I know who voted for the coalition because that’s who her boyfriend voted for. She was then forced to sign an AWA and now works for less. She has since said: “But I didn’t realise governments were allowed to do things like THAT!” My initial thoughts were: “Well you shouldn’t be voting then.”

Mr Man, Billie and Belly,

Please include Teachers who are often employed on contract and have no paid income for long stretches. Women with children in particular find it difficult to find work during holidays because of lack of vacation care places ... and there's no child care for teenagers. There's an oversupply of teachers in capital cities, so they're easy to exploite. But come March, the contract offers are flying thick and fast.

Having said the above, I am eternally grateful to my local state Labor representative who put in motion the opportunity for permanency for me in my city after yet another contract position came to an end, and Welfare for Work came looming.

Spare a moment of thought for all those single parents out there who are experiencing the double whammy of welfare to work and 'workchoices'. Oh, and the lack of child care. It's definitely a reality. At my daughter's school the children are dropped off and gather together under a tree until staff arrive. It's stomach churning as a parent to leave your child there unsupervised.

Mr. Moore is complaining that the spin doctors haven't done their job. They have yet to convince us that black is white. The cost, footed by the taxpayer, to be told lies on the Government's behalf, has gone into the pockets of a group of admen to fund their cocaine habits in the name of creativity.

Des Moore talks about casually getting another position if the employer in the current position you hold is trying to rip you off. Which ivory tower does Mr. Moore hail from? Perhaps if you live in Western Australia that may be possible; however, if you reside in a rural area its simply not an option. There are several examples of work places where employers have ripped off employees; Mr. Moore's comments are dismissive of these situations which has the impact of devaluing his comments.

Work Choice type legislation has already been proven to be against the interests of workers when enacted by the Court Government, Kennett Government and former conservative New Zealand Government.

The IR legislation was pushed through Parliament as though there is no tomorrow with a follow up multi-million dollar advertising campaign convincing nobody. Economic rationalism has already done much damage to the social fabric; Work Choices will continue the process of social breakdown. Social break down occurs when one group is given legal sanctions to rip off another group.

Speaking of the ad campaigns. Apparently many of the workers who featured in the TV commercials are suing the government because they were told that they were filming an ad promoting workplace health and saftey.

Every aspect of this whole situation has stunk from the word go.

Liz - Good points. I think one of the problems is that the Australian electorate has demostrated to The Coalition that it dosn't matter what they do, we'll just vote 'em right back in. Call me cynical but a big part of me believes they be in power for a long time to come yet...despite what they do.

I don't know how accurate or inaccurate the polls are, but apparently they indicate that Australians in general aren't really phased by the IR Reforms and also, that The Coalition will still win the next election. Although I'd be surprised if they gained control of the Senate again.

What astounds me most about this Federal term is that the Howard Government has destroyed the old Aussie sentiment of a "Fair go". Something that had been in our culture for over 200 years, in one foul swoop, is now gone. I have also noticed over the past ten years that our whole sentiment of mateship is diminishing as well, we're all becoming such a greedy, self-serving bunch of people (someone please prove me wrong).

But I guess these things move in cycles. If there's anything good that comes out of this, it's that I hope we've learned that you don't give a political party total control.

Mr Man

I generally agree with what you say but the coalition will control the senate again after the next election. This is because it is a half senate election.

If labor win (and that is a big if) we will again have the senate as a house of review

Following up on the post by Liz. 10% of teachers in Victorian classrooms are contract teachers or emergency replacements. These people have studied at university for 3 to 4 years for a degree and have a HECS debt to pay off. Contract teachers are laid off before each holiday. Emergency teachers are hired by the day, generally with a phone call on the morning asking the teacher to be at such and such a school in 30 minutes or an hour. This is absolutely no way to live.

Twenty years ago Victorian schools had a bank of emergency teachers on salary. The emergency teachers played golf in summer, got paid holidays and worked hard in winter.

Twenty years ago the emergency teachers were male, as Liz noted many contract teachers are women.

AWA = Abuse of the Workers of Australia

Mr Moore, in your initial article, you state that Australia has an unemployment rate of some 5%.
I wonder, seeing that you seem to be more of an expert on these matters than I, if you could advise us what the unemployment rate would be if the same parameters were used to measure the unemployment rate 10 years ago?
The media seem to tell us that, nowadays, anyone who works more than 1 (yes, one!) hour per week is statistically shown as "employed".
What was the figure 10 years ago; 5 hours, 10 hours, 20 hours?
Does anyone else know?

I figure to earn a living, one needs to be employed 38 hours per week.

Also, our young, and some older, need a PERMANENT JOB so they can qualify for a home loan, make plans to get married and raise a family, etc, etc.
Having a job and a decent wage means we workers can afford to buy goods and services from other employers - this must be good for the economy, including small and large businesses! I dont think the Howard Government or the business community are looking that far ahead.
If Aussie workers worked for $1 a day, there wouldn't be much retail spending - if any! Think about it.

Mr man its far more than scary, but if we stop such people voteing we stop far more in numbers than most would beleave.
This shamefull sacking in the news, the shamefull inclusion of a sick clause in an AWA that demands 12 hours notice of being sick!
It highlights the dreadfull AWAs that are being signed post workchoices.
John Howard is slipping in the polls ,but how much more would he slip if an ever increaseing pro conservative press printed the news instead of makeing it in factory farming opinion way?
The author must be concerened his post looks further from the truth daily.

Yes Belly, I saw the news article about that young lady expected to give 12 hours notice for sick leave otherwise she'd face a $1200 fine!

I have often wondered about the whole compulsory voting thing. At first I was all for it because I had the impression that the ones who'd be most inclined to show-up on election day would be the Liberal voters. But then you look at many other Western countries who don't have compulsory voting and some of them have had more, shall I say, worker friendly governments in power for quite a while now. I dunno. Whatever happens I just hope we can get rid of The Coalition as soon as possible. But with Beazley as the opposition leader, I'm sceptical it'll happen this election.

One thing that was comforting though, was reception John Howard got at the end of the State of Origin match tonight. I don't know what state you're from or if you watch the State of Origin, but put it this way, at the end, when they were presenting the trophy to QUEENSLAND (WOO HOO), and they introduced the "Honorable" Prime minister John Howard, the entire crowd boo'd the biggest boo I had ever heard in my life!

Yes, it was a beautiful moment.

Mr Man

Hopefully your prediction will not be a reality. But I am afraid, like you, that they will be voted in again. I think most Australians are apathetic. If they bought their houses prior to the housing boom, they're just not experiencing what other Australians who are paying immoderate accommodation costs are experiencing.

I also think, and it's been mentioned in previous posts, that many Australians are politically illiterate. They don't know who belongs to what party, and for many, they have no concept of the link between policy and the impacts it has on their lives.

Billie: I have heard about the exploitation of Victorian teachers. NSW is heading that way. Qld has adopted that model as well. What Deputy Principals usually do these days when offering contracts in disadvantaged schools, is to dangle the carrot of 'possible' permanency, if the teacher will teach on contract first. Of course, student population conveniently decreases just as the contract expires.

In Qld, if they end the 2nd semester contract a few days before school holidays, and not employ them until the 3rd day of the new school year, they do not have to pay the teacher over the Christmas holidays. They frequently arrange oral contracts with teachers, again using the carrot of 'possible' permanency, based on student enrolment numbers, they will have long-suffering teachers agree to these conditions.

I note your comments on the stable of relief teachers and the higher representation of male teachers during that period. The Qld Police Union has organised some great deals for their members. Our union just doesn't have the same power. We obviously have to learn to be more macho, or play golf perhaps.

Mr man I missed that crowd reaction, I am from NSW and was hideing under the bed crying!
What a shame I missed it the one good thing on that night, can I say this is my game? my life, but we never can compete with Queenslands passion.
That fine is $200 but as interest rates rise [twice more by election day] and fuel too we are a chance ,workchoices is on a tight reign for a while if Australia truely understood it post election Howard would never win.
Kim Beazley is my leader and I will stick to him, remember some are so badly informed they will not vote for him because they dislike him but while hateing workchoices wil vote for Howard!

Curioser & curioser,

The Cowra abatoir did not break the law by sacking the staff that would not sign the AWA's and then offering them their jobs back at the same reduced rate, under the AWA they refused to sign in the first place.

That being so, where exactly is the much touted protection of existing employees against employers seeking to use duress in order to make them accept lower pay & conditions? It appears that the way the law was meant to work is precisely the way it does work - if you don't want to sign the AWA you will be dismissed. If you want your job back, you'll have to sign an AWA as a new employee, foregoing all accrued benefits & seniority.

I would appreciate reasoned argument on how this analysis is wrong, trust me, I hope I am, but I do doubt it.

Inshallah

2 bob

2Bob. By George you have got it. Well done.

No joy in saying this unions knew under workchoices no law was broken.
You can find very early predictions this was to be the result in workers online and the ACTU web site.
See I got it wrong again, one law was broken and thrown on the trash heap.
The one about the Aussie fair go.
Risky being honest but this goverment is telling more lies about workchoices than it did about children overboard.
Or the AWB issue, or, you fill in the gaps plenty more can be added to the list.

Workchoices! unions know its not our freind but it gets worse daily.
You would think some self control would be in place given Labors polling untill after the election, but if it is in place it must be going to be bad after it.
One very big internationaly owned construction company is talking to unions about a new agreement.
And saying payroll deductions of union fees can not be done because it would alowe them to know who is in a union?
Yes its not an alowable matter under workchoices but why lie?
This goverment has entrenched lies in our life and in time will regete it.

Just one small story in the workchoices nightmare for rural workers.
An offer of work ,we will fill in the gaps as we go the boss said.
ten hours worked on a Saturday and $88 pay!
A complaint was answered with take it or leave it its all you will get!
Non union and broke it could well be true too, why Mr Howard?