Graeme really does live in a fantasy world He's has constructed it to justify in his own mind that screwing people over is okay. He may believe in this fantasy world he has created so much that he doesn't realise what he has done, after all it is a simular world view that many would be lords and masters, I mean business people have. Unions have won and maintain the basic working conditions that Australians enjoy, Unions are responsible for the current level of wealth distribution in this country. It wasn't the employers that got the kids out of mines. It wasn't them that create the basic wage, it wasn't them that created the 40 hour week. It will be them that force down wages when the economy turn down it will be them pushing for a $4 hr basic wage, and who will be there to try to stop them. Not the likes of Graeme, not the Government but the Unions.

Graham there is no mass confusion out there concerning No Choices. Did u not see the polls Graham?
U and your ilk have been rumbled.
Should we have an investigation into Liberal funding?
I long for a time when capitalist dogs like yourself found your heads missing.
$55 mill has been spent trying to sell this pup.
The diversions have been coming thick and fast-Uranium-Federal control of all economy-flog some more refugees etc etc.
Graham the workers no thier rights at work are worth fighting for.
I would love for all you bosses to keep urging your puppett pollies to keep trying to promote No Choices. You are rumbled labour hire (modern day slave trader) man

Graham Haycroft's essay is basically about assigning (self-interested) motives to the ALP and the union movement in wanting changes to IR laws. He makes no mention of the (self-interested) motives of the Coalition parties in introducing them. No mention of (self-interested) motives of business interests in supporting them. No mention of his own (self-interested) motives in writing the piece.

From that position he proposes "some research [to] quantify Beazley's arguments, in terms of exactly what dollars are coming from what unions, and related to what businesses or industries?"

I'll take his proposal seriously when he suggests some research and quantification into what dallars are coming to the Coalition parties from what businesses and related to what industries. Of course, I'm mindful of the fact that the Coalition has just legislated to make that research more difficult.

Mr Haycroft plunges to the depths of cynicism when he berates the Employment Advocate for revealing to the Senate that a random sample of AWAs showed a majority of them removed most workers' entitlements. "The government should not be encouraging him to publicly report on things he clearly doesn't understand," says Haycroft. Which is code for: "The government should stop the Employment Advocate making politically-awkward public statements."

Spot on Frankgol.
There was no self intrest in the Libs doing thier masters beckoning, by ripping up 100 years of workers rights. It was all done for ulturistic reasons.

Graham the composition of workers' wages DOES matter.

On paper, an extra $1000 looks great - until you realise that it means you lose three weeks of your annual leave. And let's be honest, they're not the kind of "good news" stories we're hearing about the implementation of this system.

The award system, for all of its faults, at least went some way to advising workers and employers of best practice for issues that aren't wage related.

AWAs mean that you are almost completely dependent on your boss to do the right thing: as so many workers have pointed out, they don't have a degree in industrial relations nor a certificate in workplace negotiation, nor even the experience or confidence to do so.

You misrepresent the Senate proceedings to suggest that Peter McIlwain offered a random sample of AWAs to that Committee: it wasn't a "random" sample it was the first 250 lodged with the Employment Advocate. Not "random", but "every"...a big difference there.

For people with families, for people with caring responsibilities for elderly parents, frankly for those who want to have a kick of the footy with their mates occasionally, signing away those other conditions IS a big deal.

It's not all about the wage - it's about conditions too and you can't divorce them from one another.

The removal of the "no disadvantage test" is the reason for a lot of the current anger at the current IR laws.

No matter how you argue the point it means that wages can be reduced at the whim of employers. No arguement fact.

I note Grahams union (The Small Business Union) states "Our role is to develop the strategy, train the management, supervise the implementation of the changes necessary to reduce unit labour costs and then register the documents with the appropriate Government authorities. This process will put real dollars on the Bottom Line."

His whole reason for being is to make money for business at the expense of workers (real people with families not units).

Mr AWA and his Labour Hire Australia are the big winners. He is now looking after his own interests as the largest producer of AWAs on the eastern seaboard. In other words all the shoddy AWAs (that are not mining related) are coming from this guy, it is his business. Producing nothing but slave labour.

Find youself another nipple to feed on

Graeme, the ALP are righttly concerned at the prospect of a decrease in their funding level. We could also argue that this is the sole motivating factor for their introduction rather than the economic nirvana promised by Howard and Andrews. The corner shop certainly does not have the bargaining power of Woolies and unless it becomes Corner shop Pty Ltd it won't have access to these new laws anyway. If Howard really wants to level the playing field because he thinks workers have a strong position, lets make the corporate tax rate the same as workers and put the shareholder's assets up for grabs in the event of liquidation.

I am an elected Councillor. This morning, unaware of this post at the time, I was informed that in the 4 weeks since the Council adopted a policy to enter into AWA agreements with existing staff there has been a rush of employees, both internal and external, who want to negotiate their own AWA.

The union involved with the external staff has been implacibly opposed to staff going onto AWA's, but is effectively being given the "saulute" by the workers.

The HR manager informed me that the prime reason for the interest is flexibility in working arrangements that AWA's provide.

If labourers, plant operators and clerical staff can see the benefits in the flexibility AWA's offer, despite the campaign against them, it does not bode well for the ALP to maintain their present stand against AWA's.

The unions could become even more irrelevant.

wd.

More info please, your experience is not common.

Workers at Onkaparinga Council in South Australia have staged a protest outside tonight's council meeting over a stand-off about a new workplace agreement (AWA).

The Australian Services Union (ASU) claims that about 100 employees are affected by the dispute.

Branch secretary of the ASU, Andy Dennard, says the workers are worried they will lose conditions and put their jobs at risk if they sign the agreement council has put forward.

"They want to stay under their existing collective agreement," he said.

"And they don't want to make a new collective agreement under the new industrial relations laws because of the problems associated with that, and it will disadvantage them in the short and long term."

What magic formula has your council found to make people clamour for there AWAs ?

I am glad you are being informed about this but without credable facts anecdotal evidence is not good enough.

Which council, how many employees, how are they employed before AWA, are you affiliated with a political party?

I doubt you are correct but I am willing to stand corrected. Facts please.

Finally, the Tories have created a poisoned chalice for themselves and the fallout from this will haunt them for a very long time.

Their arrogance in believing that the majority will swallow and celebrate this regressive concept is breathtaking.

By the time of the next election, I'm sure everybody will be touched by this in some way - directly or indirectly - and not in a good way.

Until then, it will be the slow "death of a thousand cuts" with new examples of employer abuse emerging every week.

The government has left itself with no way of backing out of this legislation either, unless they try to absolve themselves by shifting the blame onto the employers and penalising them in some way. Not a good look for a conservative government.

The old saying that "we live in a society, not an economy" has never been more profound.

When the NSW ALP government, with a stroke of the pen, closed the Orange Grove retail district a reported 400 retail jobs were lost. You couldn't find one union heavy. Even the union heavy with the broad UK accent was nowhere to be found. About 400 people tossed on the scrap-heap and the unions didn't want to know.

Here we are today with the unions parading Helen Hard-done-by up and down the country 'cause she can't drive mine machinery.

Don't you love this country and its drama queens.

I am surprised by all of this. Individuals will still be able to collectively bargain if they wish. It is illegal to fire someone for refusing an AWA, and of course there will be a small number of employers who break the rules. They used to do it before, and they will continue to do it in the future. Why would anyone wish to work for such a dishonest organisation anyway? Ultimately, if an employee wishes to have someone else make their employment decisions, they can stick with the union, or remain on an award (they will still exist), if, like many rational people, they wish to be involved in their own employment future, and take some responsibility, they can negotiate their own employment conditions. I know I would prefer to be in control of my future, rather than an anonymous union official with vested interests. If you were an employer, would you fire a competent employee for no reason?

"Our role is to develop the strategy, train the management, supervise the IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGES NECESSARY TO REDUCE UNIT LABOUR COSTS and then register the documents with the appropriate Government authorities. This process will put real dollars on the Bottom Line."

Candid admission Mr. Haycroft. It staggers belief that individuals such as yourself continue to equate productivity improvements with lower wages. Tell me, how do you honestly justify such an untenable position? Lowering wages in order to put real dollars on the corporate bottom line is hardly a stroke of innovation. However, I suspect innovation has never been one of your business attributes.

Graeme Haycroft says that unions "are no longer necessary and their presence simply adds another layer of cost." But one could equally argue that people like him are not necessary - certainly his organisation's fee-charging for implementing workplace changes is a cost we could well do without. And what about the "layer of cost" represented by the vastly-inflated remuneration packages that are paid to company executives?

Is it good to see that most contributors to the forum have not been conned by the specious arguments of the reactionary forces that Hayward represents. And it is also good to see that in the wider community that most people also see John Howard's so-called "Work Choices" as the rank, antediluvian measures that they are.

"I know I would prefer to be in control of my future, rather than an anonymous union official with vested interests."

Alex: I suspect you'd be one of the few. We are a nation of sheep after all.

"If you were an employer, would you fire a competent employee for no reason?"

Alex: Oh come on, don't be silly, everyone's having a good old-fashioned irrational whinge here!

Personally, I think everyone's in this for personal power and I wouldn't trust the Libs, ALP or unions about as far as I could kick any of them. I think these laws may indeed backfire on the Liberals, but it won't matter anyway because when the ALP gets in, it and the unions will do their best to make sure there are no jobs left in this country and that such jobs move off shore. Of course, that won't stop such people from still having their noses deep in the trough. Call me a cynic but the last thing anyone with power (but especially the ALP and unions) actually wants is to help improve people's lives and make any sort of impact on poverty. Otherwise, without a dependent, docile and dumbed-down poor, they'd be out of a job. Am I just really jaded or do I think we'll end up with another "Recession We Had To Have Party" for a decade, followed by a re-vamped Liberal party for ten years after that (and this same conversation) followed by more of the same into infinity? Am I really cynical or are people just too lazy and stupid to ever try something different? Wait, don't answer that.

I think it's not so much that the sheep doesn't like being shorn, it's that the Liberal Party had the discourtesy not to pull the wool over its eyes (to mix metaphors) whilst doing so.

The parable of the Good Samaritan reminds me of "Work Choices" except in reverse; those promoting "Work Choices" are metaphorically kicking the unfortunate of the parable. Those on high incomes have either no comprehension as to how families live on the minimum wage, or simply don't care.

As indicated to the Senate the AWAs formulated since the mean "Work Choices " legislation was established were not in the interests of workers. The evidence is clear cut as outlined by Mr. McIllwain.

The article is deeply insulting to a decent man, without a shred of evidence. It is also deply insulting to workers. Sure, having enough money matters, and having a secure job does too. (And both security of income and security of job tenure are being undermined by the Government's prrogramme.) But employees also want reliable time to be with their families and their friends. They need time for recreation and education. AWA's are designed to rob them of these necessities.

If this is the best that Liberal party supporters can come up with they are in for a drubbing.

We are fast approaching a harsh reality.We either try to curtail our $400 billion balance of payments deficit or put up tarrif barriers to protect existing industries.Barriers mean an insular society that will not progress with the world's discoveries.

The IR reforms are about making Australia more competitive internationally to attract investment.It is a double edged sword.Our Govt is telling us that in order to go forward we have to go back to lower wages and work conditions.I just see big business swallowing up all in their path as tarrifs are lowered.

We seem to have a mentality of the puppy dog that loves to have it's belly scratched.You cannot for example export second hand manufactured items to China without paying 110% duty on the value of the new item.It is just inequitable insanity.

I am astounded by the content in many of these posts. Are you worried on behalf of someone else or do you have first hand experience with a workplace agreement? To rail against employers is arrant nonsense as there would be no employees & no government support for individuals without the contribution of business, let alone products and services. We are experiencing major change in Australia, now & into the future, as the population ages and it becomes increasingly more difficult to attract & retain staff. This staffing challenge is not because of AWAs, it’s because of choice like the opportunity to move on to another position where something is more appealing. Employers therefore are concerned with workplace conditions including salaries and wages so that they can maintain a suitable workforce. The fixed costs of staff create an enormous burden that may well lead to the business becoming uncompetitive and then everyone associated suffers so it makes sense for employers to continually seek methods of managing costs, but rest assured most would not even think of trying to dud their workers. Why? It’s simple. Staff will leave and work with a company that does the right thing by them, whether that be pay or conditions. There will always be some ‘bad’ employers, just like ‘bad’ workers, & no legislative change will fix that. If only we could find out what % of signatories to AWAs are satisfied in comparison to those who are not. I suspect those bad news stories in the press are a minority.

Is that Scob or scab? I suggest you read WorkChoices and the regulations before posting the dribble you just have.After you have read the 1,331 pages of the 'ACT', the 293 pages of the Regulations and the 176 page Explanatory Statement and still wish to participate in the debate you are welcome.
However having read the above documents, you still hold the same naive views, u are clearly very slow, or just a nasty employer supporter.
If u are a worker skilled or unskilled, you would just be stupid, stupid , stupid.

Arjay, you like these IR reforms because you want to employ and bully low payed employees. Moreover, you're concern for the national economy is just b**llsh**t writ large and only thinly disguises your selfish & greedy desire to rip vulnerable people off (i.e., those who work for your Scrooge McDuck business and those who unwittingly buy your dodgy products or services). You’re so UN Australian it’s not funny.

hedgehog: Yours being such reasoned and measured responses.

The great irony I find here is that a lot of the people claiming bosses, their supporters or anyone who isn't rabidly against these IR laws are the bad guys so often resort to playing the man and not the ball yet still want to claim the moral high ground. Hypocrisy? Never!

scob there are some ironies about about "Work Choices", there is quite a lot of ambiguity about the documents surrounding AWAs, so much that many employers are not creating AWAs.
There are practical examples of where similar legislation has been employed. Its possible to get information through Google in relation to Western Australia, Victoria and New Zealand. It was very clear that low skilled workers were severely damaged by similar legislation. Nothing academic about that scob. Not all employers are bad but there have been a number of cases brought to our attention such as Spotlight where workers are being ripped off. So while some employers are good, others are scoundrels.

Another obscene feature to quote a Union source is "after only three months in the job, members of the Howard Govt's new Fair Pay Commission will get a pay rise tomorrow (1 July) while low paid workers are suffering an 18 month wage freeze as they wait for the Commission to decide the next increase in the federal minimum wage."

The minimum wage at present is $484.40 per week, how many posters supporting "Work Choices" could survive on that income?

Good employers or bad employers? What many fail to acknowledge is that the standards of work and pay have always been historically set by the worst employers.

You could be the best employee of the best employer in the whole country but in order to compete, the employer has to keep his costs as close as possible to his competitors or simply go out of business.The easiest cost to manage is now wages, enhanced by the ability to hire-and-fire at will.

The current influx of skilled workers from overseas (now at 150 per day) is actually a way of keeping wage pressure down while there is a perceived local skills shortage.

Once the "crisis" is over and the overseas workers leave, then there will be an oversupply of skilled workers and wages will move downward.

Then, when the economy slows down, the burden will now move to the employees so that profit levels can be maintained.

Some of you seem to think that this is some sort of elaborate scheme to pay workers more money but the reality is much simpler.

Shorbe, your point being? Read Workchoices. Its intent and purpose is clear.No point mincing words about it. Sometimes the truth hurts. Wear it.

Rainer you miss my point.We have a choice of either putting up tarrifs as China does on imported manufactured goods,or we reduce wages so industries will remain in Australia.We have to at some stage address our balance of payments deficit of $400 billion.

The Coalition are not being truthful with the intent of their IR reforms.Yes we need to work harder to pay for our cheap imported goods,but they[The Coalition] need to be more honest and fair so Australians will understand the need for change.

If we put up tarrifs,our cars and electrical goods will cost twice as much and we may not be better off.Don't forget tarrifs also mean we cut ourselves out of the scientific knowledge pool and for every smart Australian,China has six hundred and fifty.The rate of change this century will be 250 times greater than the last century.

I don't like the way that the share market just loops money back to the rich,but also I don't like Govt pissing our taxes against the latrine in the guise of social justice ideals that are merely a front for public service self interest.

Can we afford to be an Albanian backwater?
How about engaging in some constructive debate?

Arjay if people are meant to be aiming for the common good as you suggested then the Prime Minister, his Ministers, CEOs of major companys should be setting an example. It’s a bit obscene when the increase in Salary of the Prime Minister is greater than some people see in a year under the circumstances you suggest. It’s pretty disgusting when Commissioners involved with the Fair Pay Commission have also received a pay rise when they have achieved what? Oughtn't they be showing restraint?

Let’s be a bit honest about "Work Choices" it's based on ideology and is being utilized to break down Unions and stymie the Labor Party.

Could you live on the minimum wage of $484.40 per week? The idea of a “fair go” is fast receding with the new attitude of “I’m alright Jack” now becoming dominant.

Far too many views on workchoices are from poorly informed people.
A great deal more are from people who let self interest rule their views.
Still more are aware of the real impact and use that over used federal goverment tool, lies to cover up reality.
Fact 25% no more of Australian workers are unionists.
And equally true a far bigger percentage are victims of workchoices.
I want our posters of conservative bent to remember this day.
See its the very start of a decline that will put you on the opersition benchs for a very long time.
A mark of the continueing miss use of control of both houses and a decline into spitefull actions and unwise ones.
Workchoices is no choice and unfairly aimed at all who work.

I have viewed with interest a number of commentaries on the introduction of AWA's in the country and the effects they will have on ordinary workers, unions and business. I work as a cleaner, and have been a union activist for 17 years. The introduction of AWA's does not concern me in either capacity. The Court Liberal government in Western Australia during the late 1990's introduced similar legislation. Not surprising cleaner contractors took advantage of them, slashing wages to the levels that many people fear will now occur nationally. My experience during this time suggests that rather than see the demise of my union, these changes will ultimately work in my favour. The LHMU is not the SDA, we don't have sweet heart deals with bosses. The majority of our members and workers in this industry are migrant, and many female. When these workers organise and work together, and this is inevetiable based on the W.A. experience, we not only will have a strong, leaglly militant union (as opposed to those involved in manufacturing and construction) ensuring decent wages and conditions but also a template for workers in other industries for the new 'playing field' of human resource management. Once workers start to rely on their own industry knowledge and skills and not government intervention to ensure that their human rights are respected, then unsustainable, unethic businesses have reason to fear. The reelection of the ALP and the removal of AWA's may be the only way that business can disrupt this inevitable worker enpowerment.

Oh yes, WorkChoices is all about choices, for sure. Choices for EMPLOYERS.

MORE choices to dismiss people
MORE choices to extract more hours for less pay
MORE choices to emasculate unions
MORE choices to intimidate workers
MORE choices to lower work conditions
MORE choices to cut penalty rates
MORE choices to cut holiday loading
MORE choices to cut long service leave

For WORKERS and their families, THERE IS ONLY ONE CHOICE:

Vote Liberals last in 2007. Treat them with the same contempt these laws treat you.

Hooray, by George you have got it.