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.