The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Does high employment require high social inequality? > Comments

Does high employment require high social inequality? : Comments

By Fred Argy, published 3/8/2006

Northern European countries have been able to deliver low levels of inequality with strong employment outcomes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Just in my lifetime conservatives have gone from pork barreling to workchoices ,once in Queensland drought or flood saw sugar cane farmers hired to work in local council jobs while income was not good.
Now we speak of lower income makeing new jobs without thinking for a second how wrong it is to condem some to lower liveing standards.
Some where some day we must make up our mind if standard of liveing is not of concern if its not us who suffer.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 7 August 2006 9:13:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The current phenomena of labour being hired through labour hire companies rather than being hired directly by the employer is insidious.

the employer doesn't have to worry about compensation payments
the employer isn't responsible for sick leave, annual leave or superannuation
the employer isn't responsible for hiring apprentices that's now the microbusinesses responsibility

the employer isn't responsible for training

This might be OK for people earning $400+ per day, but this mode of employment is also being used to hire the most vulnerable members of the workforce like the cleaners in Coles Supermarkets who gross $500 pw and every other grade of worker in between.

As a matter of principle why should a person or company be paid an ongoing commission for giving you a job. Effectively when the Federal government used Hudson to hire ASIO agents they were paying a third party a premium. Why is this not considered corrupt? Why is this considered more efficient that a public service HR department?

We used to be apalled at the shenigans of the Russian court as depicted by Tolstoy in War and Peace but its here in Australia now.

And Persus when I calculated how much direct tax + GST + recommended superannuation top up of 15% of salary, my disposable income was a lower % than it would have been in Sweden.
Posted by billie, Monday, 7 August 2006 4:31:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Admiral Von Schnider,

Interesting measure, the misery index, I have analysed the correlation between life-satisfaction and levels of taxation per nationmaster website and guess what, a negative .3 result, yep – the more tax the less satisfaction.

I would also observe, the interference by the state in matters which are better left to individuals to decide, results in far less “satisfaction” in a society which endeavours to make all things “equal” for the sake of it.

This is partly because bureaucrats cost money and add nothing to the commonwealth. Managing “equality” at the government level demands the appointment of non-productive bureaucrats and generates a demand for greater taxes without achieving anything, except a greater sense of an individual’s impotence against the power of the state.

Fred
The Nordic model, Australia lacks the fjords, the snow, northern lights and sufficient numbers of saabs and volvos to make it happen, you see, a “viable social model” is far more a matter of historic practice (experienced culture) than it is about (unexperienced) idealistic notions.

Billie
employers were never really “responsible” for training, no Australian employer trained me because I was “trained” before I migrated here, it is up to the individual to “get trained”.

The “employer” will get the quality of staff he is prepared to pay for, he is not forced to continue to pay someone who is not worth the minimum wage.

Re sick leave, annual leave or superannuation, these are merely direct labour costs provided and deferred over time. At least employees cannot lose their accrued “benefits” if they have none accrued with the employer – that is a good thing.

Apprentices are a source of future skilled staff, no employer who wants to sustain his business will forego the development of his future source of productive labour.

I have done a number of jobs with Hudsons (when it was called Morgan and Banks) believe me, compared to the dross which is most civil servants, contractors are worth every cent the get.
Nowadays I supply specialist consultative services to government. I negotiate direct with them, no agent required
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 7 August 2006 10:59:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Billie, as a former VP of the Qld Employment Agents assoc, I can advise that the main reason job seekers worked with agencies was continuity mixed with flexibility. They worked for the agency not the company and most really liked being part of the workplace but they also liked being slightly removed from the office politics. If they ended up with a turkey for an on-site supervisor they could simply call the agency and request another position. And this had a remarkable sobering effect on all but the most psychopathic employers. It was not for every kind of job seeker and those who wanted a more stable situation simply stayed on the assignment until they found a better job.

But it also didn't take long to work out who was delivering and who was pissing about and extra effort was always made to keep the best in continuous work. Consequently, employers increasingly recognised where the most contributive people were and switched to using agency people.

And I can also state quite categorically that any employer who thinks the way to fixing their bottom line is to shaft their own work team will not be there for too long anyway. So all these union inspired fears of rapacious managements screwing workers are based on the actions of the small minority of employers who will most likely be out of business anyway in a year or two.

And that is my advice to anyone who is presented with a predatory contract. You don't need that job, it won't last anyway, so put your effort into finding a better employer. And if you must have a job immediately then put up with the conditions for only as long as it takes to find a better job. The employer will soon get the message as it costs a lot of money to replace someone.
Posted by Perseus, Monday, 7 August 2006 11:50:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge you can not become a Chartered Accountant until you had completed your university studies, completed 2 years of professional practice and then passed the exam.

At the moment in Australia more than 80% of ICT university graduates are being passed over for graduate jobs in favour of graduates from India.

Each year in June you would see stunned Telstra employees wondering how they were going to pay the mortgage, school fees wondering what they had done wrong. These poor saps had the misfortune to work in a department that an arrogant pom or yank decided to trim because priorities had changed.

30 odd years ago before you arrived in Australia, large employers [the large organisations] saw at their civic duty to train up large numbers of apprentices and ICT graduates. In fact government departments used to take on 200 ICT trainees or 500 apprentices. In 2004 Telstra hired 5 ICT graduates and outsources or offshores its ICT to India. The Taxation office offshores to India, etc.

In some years all of Australia graduates in particular disciplines migrate to get a job. For example in 1992 [as a result of Kennett] no Victorian graduates from any discipline were hired in Victoria.

Col Rouge if you had studied macro economics more than adding up columns you might be aware that when you cut disposable income then you will drive demand down. Remember that the battlers always spend a higher proportion of their income than the fat cats who can save. So forcing down the wages of the weakest members of the labour market is not only unfair but overall reduces domestic demand thus makes it harder for a business to sell its product unless it can export. But being a pom you are familiar with corporate wealth coming from an export market [the empire] rather than from domestic consumers.

Col, 85% of Australians earn less than $80,000 per annum and the adult median income is $26,000 with $1 in $7 of household expenditure coming from social security payments. Government consultants really should have an idea of how most people live.
Posted by billie, Monday, 7 August 2006 11:56:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Billie “Col Rouge you can not become a Chartered Accountant until you had completed your university studies, completed 2 years of professional practice and then passed the exam.”

In the UK, Accounting Examinations and qualifications are managed by the Accountancy profession, not the Universities. A university degree will give partial credits toward (the lower papers of) professional examinations but not replace them.

Similarly, my Australian Professional qualifications will be partially exempted by a university degree, how much depending on the level, Ordinary, Honours or MBA etc.
Whilst you might have parochial knowledge to what happens in Australia the practices you refer to are not “universal”.

As for your suggestions, regarding macro-economics, I would speculate, any study of yours has never erred to that side of social analysis, however, for myself, it was but one of the 20 papers which I sat on the way to acquiring my professional accreditation.

Very few people were “employed” by Kennett in 1992. At that time the state government were shedding public service parasites off the public purse in droves, following the Cain / Kirner years of incompetence. Doubtless, when the liberals regain power in this state, a similar “Spring (Street) Clean” will be well overdue.

As for “So forcing down the wages of the weakest members of the labour market…”
Artificially inflating the wages of the lower paid reduces their opportunity for employment – simple macro and micro economics principal, no point in employing anyone where the cost of employment exceeds the benefits derived from their labour.

“Government consultants really should have an idea of how most people live.”

If “government” expected me to comment on living standards, you would be right. However, the “niche” in which I supply service is in a totally different arena and thus, such particular knowledge to living conditions would be pointless, unwelcome and seen as interfering.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 2:41:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy