"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.

The government cannot FORCE anybody NOT to remain on AWA if that is their preferred option. However, for those forced onto AWA's they will be given back their ability to return to collective agreements. This is not about removing individual choice, but, is aimed at returning a degree of choice back to those who have none whatever under the new IR package. The only side with policies aimed squarely it would seem at causing radicalization of workplaces and a return to closed shop employment is the Liberal Party.

Unfortunately, what is next, the rights that you trade for extra wages now, will not exist at all in the future, then what will you trade? Will you be forced to accept lower wages? What of the estimated 1+ million Australians currently on welfare that will be returned to work? As they are currently not counted as unemployed, what effect will this have on employment rates? What effect will it have on your bargaining position?

The only choice, if you value your own and your children's ability to earn a fair days pay for a fair days work is Labour.... Otherwise we will embark on possibly the worst option for many, direct competition with China & India for wages (good for Corporations but).

Christian,

Your argument might make sense if you incorporate another form of wage restraint and the creation of incentives in the tax system. Any serious discussion of ALP incomes policy must start with an assessment of wage-tax-trade-offs, and why it is superior to Howard's less fair method of redistribution up the scale.

Read: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4644

Labor must seriously consider how it will get unemployment to Full Employment levels at higher rates of participation. The letter of the five-economists to JWH in 1998 is still the logical starting point in my view.

High minimum wages can be a cause of poverty as well as an alleviator - Labor must be honest in its assessments.

You do your position credit if you can consider this in depth.

Corin

Current mininum wage Australia $Oz 12-80 / hr
Current min imun wage U S A $Oz 6-42 / hr , unchanged since 1996, while U S politicians salary rose by $OZ 30,000-00 in the same period. Anybody got a list of directors who have salary sacrificed "for the good of the country"?

Aspro, your view is articluate and the spirit is right. I accept that the W-T-T-O policy has that limitation if management don't also accept responsibility.

The point of good IR policy is for people to move off awards to more tailored arrangement to the workplace in question ("enterprise arrangements") but for appropriate safeguards to exist (i.e. holidays, maternity L, union representation if requested, etc).

Part of the problem with Labor's "classical" approach to IR is it gets the second part right but not the first. The flipside could summarise the problem with the Liberal approach - mind that their success in getting AWA's off the ground has been poor til now.

Also what is worth considering in detail are the disemployment effects of high minimum wages (highest in OECD), and indeed single parent families are shown to be worse off often because of high rates in Australia.

Put simply Australia has one of the lowest workforce participation rates in the OECD and this has contributed to poverty existing: Draw your own conclusion as to why it has happened??

Lastly - I don't think many would now disagree with a view that education and skills create the basis for wealth, rather than collectrive bargaining: not that this is an argument against collective bargaining - simply that "progressives" would do better arguing about the ladder of opportunity being predominantly about education rather than explicitly about IR. Labor is failing to consider long-term needs by simply assuming that the under-skilled simply want awards rather than a proper investment of skills creating value for the less skilled.

If award recipients only want to sit on awards for the rest of their lives - if they keep a job - they will be very vulnerable as the early 90's showed - oh yeah great! people should want more.

If we counted differently would Australia have a low workforce participation rate, NO.
In my experience there is no work for people over 50 with any level of education, limited skilled work for educated refugees, reduced work in the manufacturing sector. Anecdotally there are shortages of seasonal workers as fruit pickers, labourers, meat workers. Backpackers work in office jobs that skilled Australians have not even been considered for. On trams in St Kilda Rd you see Indians bought into do IT jobs sneering at the shabbily dressed lazy white trash who used to work in IT and pay off their mortgages and pay their kids school fees.

Labour hire firms like Hudson and Julia Ross, claiming a skills shortage often gain far more by importing workers rather than hiring locals.

Anecdotally, again because statistics are not collected, 80% of Australian university graduates scratch around on a cocktail of part time work for about 7 years to establish themselves in a meaningful job on sufficient salary to live.

These are the workers who are adversely affected by AWAs, who have to sign the agreements to get a foot on the employment ladder. The conditions they work under are not sufficient to live on. My experience as a casual after school carer was I would be rung each day for shifts of up to 4 hours. One day I appeared and because children had withdrawn at the last minute I was sent home without a shift. My experience as an emergency teacher is I am rung at 7:30 am to be at work of 8:15am. There is limited work outside winter.

I have watched a single mother train at TAFE as a nurse then start work for a church aged care facility that was notorious for offering new hires week end shifts when they were understaffed – lifting distressed patients. The new hires weren’t rostered on enough shifts to earn more than $500 per fortnight, so the taxpayer continues to support this household that had incurred extra debt of TAFE fees, nurse registration fees and running a car to get to work.

Maybe Beazley would not have a difficult time if the first line was put in the positive instead of the negative:
"Kim Beazley has had a difficult time trying to sell his plan to abolish AWAs to business groups."
Would be better as:
"Business groups have had a difficult time trying to accept Kim Beazley's plan to abolish AWAs"
Christian Seibert is an economist, not a humanist.

Agreed Glenwriter

Beazley has yet to offer a real alternative to AWA's - just saying they will be abolished is just a big negative. What is he offering?

Choice between individual AWA's or collective?
Standards for work conditions - such as safety, training, holidays, overtime?
Sustainable future for Australia?
Rebuilding infrastructure that Libs have allowed to degrade?
Some backbone when dealing with other countries such as USA, Indonesia?

When Beazley actually provides

A) An effective opposition - a government is only as good as its opposition.

and

B) Some substantial policies,

then maybe Labor will be ready to take back the reins, until then we have the government we deserve.

Lie 1 “AWAs simply have little or no impact on productivity. You don’t need facts and figures about productivity to back this up”

Delusion 2 “it makes sense because it fits in with the Labor’s perspective on workplace relations… most effectively served through an emphasis on collective bargaining”

Delusion 3 “Labor will need to provide a decent alternative to the federal government's reforms, an alternative which delivers both productivity and which fits in with Labor’s perspective on workplace relations.”

At last a fact “Assuming that Labor provides this alternative, the ultimate decision about the fate of AWAs and WorkChoices won’t be made by the John Howard, or Kim Beazley, but by the Australian voters.”

Lie 1 - something is impacting employment and productivity, hence the remarkable turnaround in employment statistics since AWA’s and other tools used to deregulate the labour market have reduced unemployment to under 5%.
That compared to the days when Keating was declaring “the recession we had to have”.
I remember those days and the gross incompetence and subservience which the elected labor government played as they danced for their union masters. Note ignoring facts and figures is a cop-out.

Delusion 2 Suggesting collective bargaining is “beneficial” ignores the reality that every employee is responsible for their own level of productivity. Why should the productive be paid, under a collective agreement, equal to the unproductive?

Delusion 3 Labor is incapable of providing a decent idea, their best reforms only deform human relationships as they force people into a straight jacket of compliance and conformity by denying us the right to make our own agreements.

At last a fact – deferment to the voter. Yep I can agree with that. I can also identify that the past 10 years of coalition government have made the best of our opportunities rather than trying to pander to the demands of vested interest groups like the big-unions of the public service and publicly run institutions and the union bullies of the BLF who blackmail their way through every publicly funded construction project (MCG light towers, WA commuter rail etc)

Yeah right Col - far right.

Johny Howard and co are pandering to the far right.

Big business and the US rule Howard, not to mention the Indonesians.

I don't know where you live but there is a lot of hidden unemployment around. People are put on casual and if the work drops of for a few weeks they are expected to live on SFA.

It is easy to rig the unemployment figures if people who work for 1 hour are deemed to be employed.

When a worker can be fined $28000 for going on strike, bearing in mind that the right to withhold ones labour is an international human right, the IR laws are downright evil.

I would like to know why little johnny appears to hate the average Aussie so much.

Aka – “the right to withhold ones labour is an international human right”

the thugs who have taken strike action to the detriment of the construction of the rail line in WA have a choice.

Do the job

or

Resign from the job.

They do not have the right to stop others from working and they do not have the right to blackmail the project managers / owners into paying their extortion demands. The exact same thing happens (mostly on government funded building projects, where the government is the lackey of trades hall) all the time, here in Victoria.

I have been faced with matters of conscience or dilemmas when working for some “employers” and “clients” in the past, I have expressed my view by resigning or withdrawing from the contract.

Oh, I am an accountant by profession, I chose to migrate to Melbourne, the only alternative from a career perspective, was Sydney, anywhere else would have been professional stupidity.

As for your view to my political leaning, you are correct, I am right of centre, someof us find it worthy to balance the banal stupidity of the “left”.

As for “rigging” employment figures, just a leftie excuse and sour grapes which evolves from a profound misunderstanding of the real world.

Check GDP and Average incomes, they have grown significantly and yet your theory would suggest they have gone backwards but like Christian Seibert you will likely be claiming “You don’t need facts and figures about productivity to back this up”

I suggest your capacity for ideas is as barren as the labor party, which leaves you at a natural disadvantage, not that I care, I will always negotiate for my self and to my own benefit (too important to leave to government or unions).

Sounds like I hit a raw nerve there Col.

The workers in WA had returned to work and their employer did not want to - nor did they- take the action of evoking the fines. Johnny Howards cowards did.

In your attempt to sound educated, you did not address the issue of people being on casual wages and being hung on a hook for weeks on end when there is no work. For the people I know, in the major industry im this area, they earn a basic wage (casual) and therefore no dole which is fair enough. However, if work is unavailable for weeks, or if only 1 or 2 days work is available, they cannot get income support to feed themselves, pay rent etc. They are some of the precariously employed.

As an educated person you would be able to know as I do that 1 hours work is all that it takes for this government to count you as employed.

Also as one of the faithful, can you please answer my question as to why Johnny Howard appears to hate the average Aussie so much?

Aka – I have no nerves, that does not mean I will turn a blind eye to stupidity.

“Also as one of the faithful, can you please answer my question as to why Johnny Howard appears to hate the average Aussie so much?”

Answer – as someone who relies on “average aussie” voters for all his power and authority, I would speculate he does not. That said, no one can be held accountable for your sense of victimhood.

As for your expedient excuse regarding those non-“construction workers” in WA, they are bludgers who wanted to be paid for doing nothing and are behaving as toe-rags for their union bosses, they deserve to be fined for their breach of contract.

If AWAs only represent 4% of the workforce then how will abolishing them help? It just sounds like an attack on a minority group.

Rather than let the voters decide through the ballot box how the rest of us conduct our affairs, why not let individual employees decide for themselves.

Pt1

Oh poor Christian, please get some ‘real world’ experience.

Firstly, the real reason Beazley made his “no AWAs” call: John Robertson of UnionsNSW was making very loud and very public calls for Beazley’s head. Beazley played his card to buy himself some time, guarantee a clear run at the election, and left the hapless Steve Smith to try and convince business his impractical IR policy isn’t all that ridiculous.

Let me start by saying I possess something incredibly rare in this IR debate – experience in participating in union negotiations, talking to employers and shop stewards about what they want in their agreements and analysing what works best for ‘blue collar workers’. Your argument that the Australian economy can easily tick along happily without the need for any form of individualised agreement making might sound OK in the Caf at Uni, but in ultra-competitive industries such as mining, construction, and parts, food and clothing manufacturing this argument is simplistic and quite simply wrong.

Productivity lies at the heart of AWAs; employers can reward productivity through contribution, an alien feature to collective agreements. If A is a gun employee and works his butt off, B is OK and C is woeful, surely in an incentivised community we want to reward A the most, and give C less, in the hope he might work harder, and match A in effort and reward. This incentivisation cannot be achieved under cushy union deals where flat collective incentives apply, regardless of how much the employees contribute. No wonder enterprising, hard working young workers, particularly in construction and mining have flocked to AWAs.

“Flocked” I hear you mock. You say it’s a paltry 4% and therefore not worth considering. “Therefore, Beazley can abolish them when he wins, no worries” your argument goes. Let’s look at the figures. There were 41,000 AWAs filed with the OEA in the first three months of Work Choices (22,000 in June). When the election looms in October/November next year at the same rate there would be almost 250,000 employees who have chosen to seek their own tailored individual working arrangements

Pt 2

What will Labor promise these employees: “despite the fact you have chosen to be union-free, we’re going to cancel your agreement and stick you back in under a collective deal. Goodbye tailoring your leave, goodbye flexible working arrangements, goodbye productivity recognition bonuses” the list goes on.

Employees have chosen? Yes, lets understand AWAs before we heap scorn on them, and note that under WorkChoices (I know we “don’t need facts and figures” Christian, but its s.400 of the WRA if you’re interested) an employer cannot coerce, or attempt to coerce, the employee in relation to moving onto individual employment. The employee must request he/she move from a collective agreement to an AWA. So much for being forced! Yes, new employees can be offered “take it or leave it” conditions, but surely it’s up to a business to decide on how they pay someone. If the applicant doesn’t like it, they can go down the street. Sooner or later the market will decide if the employer is offering pay too low and, thus, cannot get any employees and his factory/store/shop cannot operate

Your intuitive reasoning of “obviously AWAs aren’t good for productivity because so few employers are utilising them” is again perplexing. Is it possible businesses might be a little terrified that any creative arrangements they try will get picked up and manipulated by the ACTU, and employer then gets the fun of being roasted on Lateline, their reputation sullied and made a pariah in the market for suppliers and would be employees?

MarkBlog I have had experience with AWA's when I had to sign one prior to gaining work as an after school care assistant.

What annoyed me was

- My copy of the contract was an abbreviated version of the AWA that covered conditions for full time employees, I was employed casually and my copy of the agreement did not cover my conditions like minimum call out time

- The only full copy of the agreement was filed with the employer - no government agency could oversee or advise me of its fairness.

- I am unsure whether I could have been sued if a child was badly injured whilst in my care, irrespective of whether the child was being wilfully naughty or it was a freak accident

The company would have had 2000 casual employees and about 10 office staff and was geared to employing university students who would stay for a school term.

I have worked in ununionised industries and have found that working conditions were inferior to those offered by unionised workplaces. The ununionised work force work has all been offshored.

Glenwriter, as an economist I'm appalled at your comment that "Christian Seibert is an economist, not a humanist." Economists understand such things as opportunity cost, incentives, competition, regulatory costs ... I'm sure that my description of Christian as a "political hack" is much more accurate!

Tell me please! how an so many posters claim Beazley has not offered an alternative to AWAs?
6 Meters away from me at the launch of this policy I was taken by supprise but not deaf I carefully heard every word.
Common law contracts are to remain, in fact to be the new AWA in my view used by those we hear are very well paid and on AWAs in posts here.
However those who under workchoices , and its big numbers, who have had choiceless AWAs imposed on them.
And others who could not include things now removed by workchoices will have rights and choices again.
Now I am well aware of the nonsence that a high low minimum rate of pay is bad for job creation ,and reject it!
Australia once thought about things like the Columbo plan to help the worlds poor, now we creat a very real poor in our country and say its for the good of the country?

Belly - on what grounds do you reject it? Clearly almost all research that is credible says that tax credits are a far better method of income uplift for the low paid for the health of the economy than big uplifts in the minimum wage. Also how are unions relevant if the minimum wage means that no-one wants to bargain in an enterprise bargain because the award is already high enough. Unions only have a reason to exist if they have a reason to deliver.

QUOTE: Now I am well aware of the nonsence that a high low minimum rate of pay is bad for job creation ,and reject it!

RESPONSE: Why not make the minimum wage $100 per hour so we can all get rich? The reason is obviously that such a high rate would create massive unemployment. To suggest that there is no trade off is naive. A more mature position would be to accept that there is a trade off and that at some level you are willing to tolerate the trade off.

Col Rouge , I fail to see how attacking AKA for his point of veiw and having his own opinion is constructive or if indeed it makes you any more credible.

I would say that what we have here is a class distinction, based on the stratification principles that this whole country is founded.You are an accountant you say and AKA an ordinary working man quite removed from your circle.

You need to do a little study of Society and Culture buddy and see just how and why stratification came into existence and your place in it.

You are condescending and and insufferably stupid to attack your fellow man this way simply because you believe you are superior.

You somehow believe you are in charge of your destiny, but you are not.Society exists for the wealthy to support the wealthy ie:the goverment and the high end of town,the Packers and others of that ilk.
Stratification, will see to it that you never rise above your station, you are just an accountant, a public servant,one of millions of worker ants filling up Govt. coffers so they can rape and pillage our country and all the while they smile and patronise us further with more lies and arrogance.They only care about their gravy train, and people like AKA are the working class,the Prolettariat in other words, on which the whole nation runs.

I study Society and Culture at uni.You need to as well then you would realise the damage and exactly what the hell is going on in this pathetic Liberal Govt..AWAs are cruel oppressive and John Howard is little better than Hitler himself, the only difference is Hitler actually declared his hand.

AKA is not your enemy, far from it..you have much more in common than you think.