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?