"We will rip up this IR legislation" is very important, however it won't get Beazley over the line. He has to sell innovation of health and education, and the ordinary struggling family budget to do that.

At the very least, it's nice to see a difference in rhetoric between the two parties.

Repeated losses by the Labor party at the Federal level made them keen to adopt what was perceived as a winning stance for the liberals. Yeah it may have gotten them over the line, but a great deal of that has been because Labor hasn't been offering any real alternative except the same lines with a slightly different spin.

It would be nice to have a Federal leadership option that wasn't really a conservative party at heart, but I suppose Australia isn't really ready for that yet.

The stance taken by Labor on this issue is really retarded. What will happen to all those people who are currently on an AWA? Will they be forced into a collective agreement even if it means they will be worse off? I'm currently on an AWA and my work colleagues are all on AWAs and we are worried about Beazley's stance on this issue. Why? Well our AWAs cater to our individual needs - I have a higher cash salary because I don't have kids and can work the normal 38-40 hour week without the need to take time off from work. A colleague of mine has a lower cash salary because she wants the flexibility of taking time off to look after her kids. Another colleague has traded in some of his annual salary in order to have six weeks holiday instead of the regular four weeks holiday. A collective agreement would not work in our place of employment? How is Beazley going to deal with similar situations to ours?

Wasn't it the Labor party that introduced the AWA into this country in the first place? I remember my dad being forced onto an AWA and losing overtime and other benefits when they were first introduced. The unions did sweet FA to help out when he contacted them for help - their advice went something along the lines of "get used to it there's nothing we can do"!

Also, Howards stance on this issue is also retarded. In my case I benefit from AWA's because I am a skilled worker and can find work easily. But I can see how an AWA would screw the unskilled worker who doesn't have any options. Why does he have to force everyone onto an AWA?

Why can't politicians just give employers/employees the choice to work out their own deals without them having to stick their snout in and make things difficult?

My friend, I hink you underestimate how big a number 4% is, sure they may not be useful to 96% of employers (atleast pre-workchoices), but 4% of the 10 million Australians in employment today is 400 thousand. So 400 thousand managers, miners and low skilled workers have found some value in this scheme.

Another important thing to take into consideration is, while AWAs only make up 4% of the total work force, they make up 42% of mining related employment, the very industry that is driving the prosperity we all enjoy.

Please release details of your relationship with the ALP.

BIC,

I'm also a skilled worker on an AWA but my conditions are still inferior to those I work with who are still on an Award.

I had no choice but to accept the "agreement" that was handed to me.

One day our skills won't be in demand and then what do you think will happen to us? Perhaps we will have to go to India or the Phillipines for work?

Also, Labour did introduce AWA's but they were meant to work on a collective basis. This was to stop benefits won for everybody on one award automatically flowing onto other indirectly related awards.

The concept of individual AWA's is something else again.

“First, it makes sense because AWAs simply have little or no impact on productivity. You don’t need facts and figures about productivity to back this up ... if AWAs are such an effective way to improve productivity, then why are so few Australian workers employed under them?”

This is nonsense – AWAs have been picked up first by firms, e.g. miners, which face intense global competition. They have led to better ways of working, higher worker commitment, higher wages and increased competitiveness. Even if that were not so, a significant number of employers and employees perceive AWAs as beneficial. How can removing that option from those who find it valuable possibly help to improve workplace productivity?
David Peetz has long been a member of a strongly left-wing group of labour/IR economists, with e.g. Ron Callus and Roy Green, who advised the Hawke government – he is far from an unbiased commentator.

“Second, it makes sense because it fits in with the Labor’s perspective ... Labor believes that … the interests of workers, of business and the entire economy are most effectively served through an emphasis on collective bargaining at a workplace level ...”
There is a wealth of empirical evidence that this is not the case. In addition, many workers benefiting from AWAs do not agree that collective bargaining is in their interests. It makes no sense from a public policy perspective (rather than a “the ALP holds this as a self-evident truth” perspective) to deprive these workers of the non-collective option.

My own experience of collective bargaining was that my union several times negotiated deals for me which were far worse than those offered by my employer – the employer needed to pay more to skilled employees who were in high demand elsewhere and were moving on, the union demanded a bias towards the lower skilled who were in plentiful supply but dominated the union. I’d have been thousands of dollars a year better off without the union.

Christian, your arguments are those of a party hack rather than a serious policy analyst.