"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.