Chris you have articulated for one so young a very good point, one being that what ALP has against the IR laws and what is being reported in the mainstream media is another.

I tend to look at what Professor Ron McCallum says about Workchoices and he has recently come out and said that in 6-8yrs that Workchoices will become non-existent because of the 'wall of law' in the 1500 pages. He also said the following in which I think, he sums up for me what workchoices means to me, my family and workers in Australia.

Professor Ron McCallum on ABC Sunday Profile

'I came from the other side of the tracks, from the poor side of the tracks. I look at it from the plight of the individual. I think once you move law away from the individual you lose its humanity. We might want to say, “Okay, it’s nice for businesses who have a hundred or less employees not to worry about their unfair behaviour if they dismiss someone unfairly,” what about the individual who’s felt injustice? You know, we can all remember from childhood something that went wrong in our lives when we were unjustly dealt with. We may have been unjustly punished at school or our parents may have misconstrued something. Dickens wrote that every child has an innate sense of justice and I think we have it and we can all remember injustice. If the law means anything, if it’s not going to clang like an empty symbol it has to have justice at the core and justice and must be centred in the individual worth of individual human beings'.

Congratulations Chris on a very accurate article. I was a little surprised that Andrew Bolt got caught up in all the pro IR nonsense before thinking it through properly, but Piers Ackerman is just a puppet for the Howard Government. For some reason, he gets more than his fair share of air time on ABC's "The Insiders" on Sunday morning. I've now gotten to the stage where by when I see him being introduced, I switch off the TV as I realise what will follow. I couldn't stand another half hour of Ackerman dribbling Howard rhetoric and shouting down the other participants to the point of being totally obnoxious. It really makes me wonder who's paying for his time on the show.
As someone who works in the field of nursing, I've seen first hand what the ogre of (non) Workchoices can do to a group of overworked and over stressed people. It was like poking a stick in an ants nest as they scrambled to receive updates from their union officials, but the news wasn't good, security being the main issue. Around my workplace and I'm sure it's no different anywhere else, is a foreboding spector of loss of income and way of life. The Brack's Government has at least promised the nursing fraternity that they will not lose out under his Government, but what about the next? Worse still to come should Howard get control of the Senate in his next term.

True, no mass sackings but remember, while we are supposed to be riding on the crest of an economic boom there are already endless tales of individual exploitation taking place.

Imagine what's going to happen when the economy invariably turns.

Lets see what our minimum price for labour is then, when we have a "skills surplus".

Let's see what "mateship" delivers when we are all fighting over the same bowl of rice.

This will be the true legacy of what this legislation has provided. I'm interested to see what Andrew Bolt and Rupert's dancing bear will be saying then.

Wobbles said "Imagine what's going to happen when the economy invariably turns". Like the article, this is a very one-sided viewpoint that perhaps needs a little nuancing.

Net entrants to the workforce is the difference between how many people enter the workforce minus how many leave it. Basically, how many kids starting versus how many retirees. Of course it's much more complex than that as women especially leave and re-enter the workforce but that's the basic equation.

Net entrants peaked in 2002 at about 220,000 people. Now it's down to about 170,000 a year and by 2020 it'll be down to about 14,000 a year. And while 14,000 sounds like a lot of people, an economy that creates about 180,000 full-time jobs each year can't be satisfied with just 12,000 warm bodies to fill the jobs.

That trend is why unemployment is going down. That's why the government is trying to force every warm body it can off welfare and into work. That's why Wobbles is wrong and the economy is not about to turn anytime in the forseeable future. That's why every skill, trade and profession in Australia is in demand and is going to stay in demand.

Do I like Workchoices? No, but I liked the old system just as little. Do I like forcing people off welfare into low paid work? Not particularly, but since we haven't seen any other earlier scheme make the work-shy face up to their social obligations, this is probably no worse than just letting them starve.

Bottom line, AWAs are only a problem for the uninspired, the unambitious or the work-shy.

Learn saleable skills and you will be in demand for the future and able to negotiate reasonable conditions. And I for one am quite happy to be able to negotiate without the dead hand of Government telling me how many public holidays and sick leave days I have to have.

Kevin
I thought low unemployment was an economic miracle brought about by the policies of the Howard Govt. thank you for educating me. :)

AWAs in my view are fine for some industries where skills are in short supply (i.e. the mining industry) but my problem is with the scrapping of the no disadvantage test. There is a vast difference between AWAs pre work choices and after.

I was talking to the “check out chick” at my local supermarket on the weekend, she no longer gets penalties for working at night or on weekends resulting in a reduction in take home pay of $40 per week. She works just as hard as she did before.

She is not uninspired, unambitious or work-shy she just gets less for the same work.

I believe in a fair society not one where “I’m all right Jack and you dole bludgers can starve” is the prevailing wisdom.

Having noted the statements about “chronic anxiety about the certainty of your continued employment is a major cause of stress” rather than actually being fired. He said, "It’s the continuous worry that kills you". According to Hugh Mackay, “anticipation of redundancy is at least as distressing as the experience of unemployment itself”,

I find it interesting what organisations are guilty of this.

One may immediately think of Westpac or Pepsi but what about the lap dog of unionism NSW TAFE? Casuals out number permanent employees at an astonishing ratio, retiring employees are NOT replaced by a permanent. Employees are NEVER counselled about falling student numbers and how it relates to their economic security.

The NSW Labour government obviously thinks it reasonble to respond to a changing market when their budget is on the line. However, they seem to be posturing that ONLY the Libs would behave in such a way. The bottom line is that we are governed by politicians who are opportunistic, hypocritical and untrustworthy.