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.

For Steve Madden.

The check out chick will now be working under the same conditions that existed in the United States 30 years ago.

Her solution, save her money, get educated, buy a business and then see how little she gets paid per hour.

By legislating that people can now be dismissed for practically any reason, even unfair - or even NO REASON AT ALL - the Liberals have practically abolished job security in Australia.

Remember that when you vote in the Federal election in 2007. JOB SECURITY EFFECTIVELY ABOLISHED by the Liberal Party.

Vote Liberals last in 2007. Spread the word to everyone you can...

Kevin,

My opinion that economic growth will eventually turn downward is based on the fact that we are in a boom primarily resulting from China's current demand for our resources.

This demand is unsustainable and it would not take much to turn it around.

A drop in consumer confidence is also possible and it was only the lowering of petrol prices that eased the current drop. Another spike in interest rates will also leave many vulnerable.

Another "correction" in the stock market can also happen at any time, historically there has always been a bust following a war, and potential economic problems from the burgeoning US deficit will eventually materialise in our economy too.

I'm not trying to appear pessimistic but nothing in nature (or anywhere else) keeps on growing forever.

Workchoices was created to insulate employers from such effects by allowing them to cut labour costs when demand drops while trying to remain competitive in a world economy. (And also to put an end to collective bargaining).

It's got little to do with creating jobs that weren't needed in the first place.

The inherent problem is that by reducing wages, employers are also reducing the spending power of their own customers in a market that cannot keep growing without limits.

If you want to see how healthy a society really is, as well as unemployment rates, maybe you should look at bankruptcies, violent crime, homelessness and suicide rates.

Valuable or valueless?

Before I knew I was getting seriously lost in the "fair-go" Australia thing, but now I am even loster... then ever just lost!

How can we justify 160 or so... Australian workers being put off by Telstra(as announced) yesterday, as Telstra plans to shift their workload off-shore to India or China .... so as to capitalise on reduced wage costs... for the benefit of it's own Telstra shareholders?

Is this how the Australian government, with it's associated partnership with high flyers in corporational capitalisms values people?

"How many regional jobs is the Government prepared to sacrifice in order to improve Telstra's flagging share price?

Is this the trendy long-term gift we are to expect with new telecommnication and technology?

What on earth is happening here?

In rural areas we have a substantial population of farmers in server drought, against the wall, heart-broken and many suicidal.

In regional cities we have workers on mass being bullied seriously by IR's with the government selling us, Australia's valueable 'human capital" (along with our valuable public assets) out... like lab rats used and abused randomly to test drugs....

What for ..... more unjust money?

This is shocking socio-economic unsustainable demographic pressure. A unsparingly harsh and burdensome condition of physical, mental, social, or economic distress being placed on Australian peoples in rural, regional areas at large.

How can this kind of thing given-away and lost... ever be valued as progressive?

Wake up Australia, we need to do something about this!

To Miacat, Wobbles, Ex-lib-voter and Steve, good posts which state the obvious. I work in a particular field of nursing in which most of my clients have been discarded by society. Sometimes, it takes a very long time and repeated treatment and assistance to get the root of their problems. Guess what pops up most? Lack of security! Lack of security quickly give way to all kinds of health conditions from obesity (poorer people eat poorer diets), heart disease (same reason), drugs & alcoholism and don't even get me started on mental health issues.
Kevin, I hope your sirname isn't "Andrews" but even so, surely you too must see that insecurity in your chosen field of work leads to insecurity about taking out a loan which in turn stifles investment. I would love to extend my education, but Uni means hecs fees and my lack of job security means I won't be going down that path. My large rural city is full of unemployed nurses, teachers and accountants. Many people are casual workers unable to find full time employment. No wonder they buy so much junk produce from China. It's cheap and they can afford it without risk. I really believe that job insecurity might be the very thing that turns the screws on National prosperity and will hasten the inevitable crunch that follows a long growth cycle. Throw in a war, climate change or oil supply problems and there goes the neighbourhood.

The IR 'reforms' are basically lowering our safety net. Ultimately the result will be a larger pool of lower paid workers. Not all are privy to an equitable bargaining process with an employer - it's often a matter of "take it or leave it" - educated or not. The American system of poverty low wages in many service industries, with tipping to make up the short fall, would seem an almost nasty adoption for 'Aussie' culture. The huge gap between the fewer 'haves' and far greater 'have-nots' is also more predominant within a less protected system. Undoubtedly, there is a financial cost to some 'evening' out of profit levels - but's there's a greater social cost in not doing so. Our ‘mate’, Sol Trujillo, is merely giving the Howard Government a bit of its own curry - now there's an enterprise bargainor, if ever I've seen one.

Employers will generally (if not, without exception) maximise profit and reduce their cost - that's the game. Good, efficient workers = profit. "Happy" workers are only affordable when there isn’t enough labour to go around.

A very good article accurately exsposing the spin of the shameless Lib Govt.
Remember posters, your rights at work are worth voting for. Tell your friends.

To Kevin
you failed to say that some of the people you are forcing off welfare into low paid work are elderly and quite unwell. But centrelink is using their own assesors who by the way arent doctors to override independant doctors reports. Centrelink does have their own doctors but you have to be pretty dam near dead or blind to see them .

Genetics arent equal at 60years of age and if you read the funerals in the local papers every day, yes, there are a lot of people who make it to eighty and over but there are also as many people dying in their 50s,60s and early 70s every week

It is government propaganda and also superannuations funds propoganda that we are all now livng to 79years for women and 77years for men. ALL? Judging by the huge percentage of people who die much earlier than that in the funeral pages all year, 77years and 79years is more like a maximum and not an average. It's my guess that the average life span is around 73years and you get people dying 10 to 15years earlier and people living 5, 10, 15years later.

It was noted in biblical times that the average lifespan for humans was 3score years and ten and I think the average is probably still around that age.

Of course everybody wishes to live until they are ninety and so they are quite happy to be told that we are ALL? going to live much longer.

Some people at late fifty or sixty are exeriencing a lot of body meltdown whereas some people wont experience or understand this for another decade or more.

“Job security” is a myth. It has always been a myth and will always be a myth.

“Job Security”, the notion that someone cannot be “de-employed”, suffers or reflects a single problem, Private industry is based on an economic model in which there is a critical need to pay for the capital needed to fund the speculative venture being undertaken. That being a fact, private industry has never and will never offer absolute “job security” to anyone, at the expense of return on capital.

That leaves public or nationalized industry. Well what happens there, any inspection of the post WWII industrial and commercial environment will expose inefficiency and incompetence throughout the nationalised industries of western economies and even greater incompetence, inefficiency and corruption throughout the “institutionalized” countries of the former communist block, where “job security” was mandated by decree.

The only form of “work-security” anyone can ever expect, is to focus on the continued development of skills, hence, brain surgeons tend to have good work-security and opportunity to move with shifting demand, not because they are brain surgeons but because they have an attitude and commitment to continuous professional development.

Such “attitudes” of "continuous development" are common among many professions, my own included.

So anyone who looks to government to legislate for wanna-be notions of job security I guess, to use the vernacular, “Just don’t get it”.

Develop your own skills and market those skills to possible user / clients, that works for me.

Oh and “mass-sackings”, with even a rudimentary comprehension of economics, anyone will understand, removing the economic potential from consumers in a “consumer-economy” will cause a general recession, hardly the actions of a liberal government, more the sort of negative outflow of the previous Keating model, the one which brought us the “recession we had to have”

relda “"Happy" workers are only affordable when there isn’t enough labour to go around.”

And with unemployment at record lows, it suggests there is “less labour to go around” than there was under Hawke /Keating when unemployment was in double digits.

Col R,
Currently we're experiencing good economic times - consumer spending and inflation are still at the point where the RBA will raise interest rates yet another notch. Workers, generally, have never had it so good - the current resources boom is carrying us, with China basically paying our way.

My point is, as has been mentioned elsewhere, we need to underwrite our basic wage and bargaining structure - before a downward free-fall and inevitable tightening of the economy.

Job security, true enough, is a myth - no one is owed employment in a meritocracy. Puritan economics suggests, however, "let the market forces reign" - perhaps merely a perfect lever for the powerful to exploit the weak? Capitalism is a proven horse but, where is it shown our corporate 'masters' and their CEO's will exercise fair conscience? Our Global economy means less profit will remain in Australia - shareholdings are increasingly foreign. Shareholders are paid from profit - those providing the profit are as deserving and not to be merely delegated a second class stakeholder.

Hey Col, we know 'your allright Jack' no need to tell us once again.
How about commenting on the article itself? Are your political heroes engaging in outrageous 'spin' or not

Relda “we need to underwrite our basic wage and bargaining structure - before a downward free-fall and inevitable tightening of the economy.”

Before I reply let me assure you, I find no comfort in the export of jobs to India and China. However, the world can work in one of two ways, either the “rollercoaster” and potential “freefall” of a free-trade, non-interventionist system or the tariff protected, embargo and quota system of a protected economy – but not both ways at the same time.

The risk of the free trade model is “job-migration”, however, that works in both directions and should ultimately result in better overall economic performance for everyone around the world.

The risk of protectionist models - higher consumer prices, inferior products and services due to protected local producers who are sheltered from the realities of free trade and competition.

The benefits of freetrade – cheaper, better products

The benefits of protectionism – apparently more secure jobs. I say “apparently”, apparitions are only “apparitions”.

Having been privileged to have lived through both styles of “economic model” and seen, the disaster of supposed “regulated economies”, I support the free trade (and potentially freefall) model.

The only thing which can underwrite any “bargaining structure” is the market and the ability to accept and accommodate “Change”. That applies not only to employees but also (and possibly more so) to employers.

As for “corporate masters and their CEO’s”, a minority of people actually work for big corporations. Like USA, Japan and most other western economies, most people work for small to medium enterprises where the CEO / corporate master is on first name terms with the other people who “work” there.

The point with increasing corporate executive incomes is another “myth” where, with the possible exception of Sol Trujillo, most executives are earning what they are probably worth. That what they are worth might be a huge amount just does not matter, private companies are not ruled by the workforce or the union movement and are free to negotiate what they want.

Hedgehog, the debate is obviously beyond your reasoning skills.

In every major country, corporate chiefs unashamedly enrich themselves while overseeing the wholesale destruction of jobs, wages and working conditions of ordinary working people, and demanding governments axe essential social programs to fund huge tax cuts for the wealthy few.

That Australia is no exception to the rule can be seen in the results of research by Dr John Shields of the University of Sydney economics department published in the Journal of Australian Political Economy. His paper reviews the movement in the CEO salaries paid by 51 corporations that are members of the Business Council of Australia (BCA).

Shields points out that the BCA, comprised of the country’s 100 largest corporations, “aggressively champions the cause of greater labour market ‘flexibility’ and ‘labour cost competitiveness’...” In fact, in many cases the large pay packets commanded by the CEOs are determined by their ability to drive down the conditions of employees, so as to enhance profits.

Shields’ research shows that the average annual CEO pay climbed by 564 percent over 15 years, rising from $514,433 in 1989-90 to $3.42 million in 2004-05. The average compounded yearly rise was 13.5 percent, or five times the inflation rate of 2.8 percent.

Over the same period, the average wage of full-time adult workers rose just 85 percent, or by 4.2 percent a year, from $29,198 to $54,080. In 1989-90 the total salary of a CEO, including base pay and bonuses, was 18 times that of an average worker; today it is 63 times higher.

Translated into weekly earnings, an average CEO is paid $65,000 a week, or around $11,000 more than the annual wage of an average worker or nearly $40,000 more than the annual earnings of the 1.6 million basic wage workers who make up 20 percent of the Australian workforce. These workers struggle to make ends meet on just $25,188 a year, or $484 a week.

More Porkies Col. :)

Steve Madden – executive remuneration packages

I will repeat, what I said above

“private companies are not ruled by the workforce or the union movement and are free to negotiate what they want.”

If I buy a car, I will decide how much I will pay for it, I will not consult with unions or other self-appointed trolls as to how much.

If I buy a house I will decide how much I will pay for it and compete with others who may want to buy it, without reference to some self-appointed opinion troll who insists on telling me what is a “fair and reasonable” price.

If I recruit staff, I will pay them according to the agreement we make and not based on some self-appointed union monger’s opinion. At the moment that means I have sub-contracted out the manning needs of one of my interests and have, for instance, engaged the sales staff through an third party organization which has a separate contract with my company, just to keep things “simple”.

If I am recruited by an organization, I negotiate what rate to charge and the terms of engagement. They can either accept that rate and terms or find an alternative source of the skills I offer, it is up to them. Recently one organization rejected a project but then came back later to engage my services for something else.

None of this has anything to do with self appointed union official or wage fixing tribunals or wages legislation or anyone else.
It has everything to do with private people negotiating with one another based on what they believe they are worth.

As for your snide aside regarding “porkies”. Pursue your cheap shots as far was you want, it is about all you can muster but you are deluding yourself if you think I have produced any, the nearest to a lie here is your inane insistent that I have made some, that is the lie Steve, your continual harping on at something which has not happened, if you were not so self-important and malevolent, you would be tragic.

"Collective Securities" is the new revamped question we need to debate widely now if we are to re-state our knowledge jointly, with our connected live-experience in this modern time.

We need to adopt a "No Wrong Door" policy throughout Australia, everywhere. It can't happen without the awareness of government, and individuals working in government through administrations that engage their capacity with that inside the Australian community.

I stand strong behind the unifying voice coming from community. We need more voices to stand for peace, partnership, and renewal.

Without a consolidated sustainable paradigm towards a national employment plan, we loose a quality of life, which will effectively be transfered as a burden, to generations to come.

Fair Go for "who" is the question facing present day Australia.

http://www.miacat.com

Col

At last you have outed yourself and finally admitted you are an employer and company director. Now we can put your posts on IR matters in the correct context.

If you and the other "political troglodytes and economic lunatics" wish to continue to tear the fabric of our society apart fair enough, but don’t expect me to remain silent.

Steve Madden, “At last you have outed yourself and finally admitted you are an employer and company director.”

Nothing to out there,

I have been a “company director for the past 12 years, since single director companies were allowed under Australian Corporation law. (I think) it was the 11 December 1995 that legislation was enacted and I incorporated the day after.

That entity is registered with an ABN to collect and pay GST and what amounts to provisional tax. It is also necessary because as an “independent contractor” to government and other commercial enterprises, I need to organize workcover, which, along with ASIC fees, I pay.

Earlier this year I incorporated a second entity of which I own half the shares and someone else the other half. This entity is the one for which I have chosen to subcontract out the sales staffing and which has cost me around $20,000 in development funding in the past 6 months and will have cost me about $100,000++++ before I see a positive cash flow and for which I am entitled to a “return for risk”.

As far as your asserting I am an employer, you are wrong. Whilst the other shareholder is not a director, he is not an employee either.

As for other ventures, I also own, through my single director entity, half a mortgage franchise, for which bought and pay PI and computer services for.

As for “If you and the other "political troglodytes and economic lunatics" wish to continue to tear the fabric of our society apart fair enough, but don’t expect me to remain silent.”

Steve Madden, Talk is CHEAP but it is not “talk” which creates jobs, jobs come from “action”.

Whilst my business will not have any employees immediately, I will still employ salesmen through the sub-contract arrangement and that creates income for those salesmen. Far from “tearing the fabric of society apart”, I am in fact “weaving” the fabric.

It is the “know-all and do nothing” like you who actually tear and degrade the fabric which you feel so precious and self-righteous about you hypocrite.

There are two types of young people, those who understand the system and those who do not. Regardless of this, all young people know that our parents and grandparents lived under a different employment structure, even a different economy, than we do now.

Everyone has to stop pretending that the campaigning against the workchoices legislation is for the benefit of the "children." We know what we are up against, wishing it was 1955 isn't going to change the world economic system. Even if it could I would prefer to compete for my job, have incentives to work to the best of my ability, be able to negotiate my own employment agreement, be fired if I cant do the job as good as someone else, and be rewarded for the great job I do in order to maintain the standard of living I have today. Since when did Australia become a nation of people to lazy to have to work for their job.

I, and most other young people, couldn't care less about the loss of telemarketing and shoe making jobs to other countries, they are not the positions we aspire to. Complaining against work choices is for 40 - 50 year olds who are to set in their ways to change the way they think about employment. There is no "Australian Fair Go Way of Life" protecting our jobs and our families. Anyone who thinks there is now, or will be in the future if the labour party is elected is deluded. The rise of the third world is a fantastic thing, millions of people have been lifted out of poverty, and if that means I wont have a job making car parts, and I can buy a television for $100, who am I to complain?

Choice is the key, it is worth more than you can imagine, and we have it more than anyone else ever has. The last thing young people want is to give that up for some "job security"

on ya Col

Col R,
“…the world can work in one of two ways, either the “rollercoaster” and potential “freefall” of a free-trade, non-interventionist system or the tariff protected, embargo and quota system of a protected economy – but not both ways at the same time.” A stark choice of black and white - but not necessarily so.

Most professional disciplines appear to operate within a regulatory framework, whether it is in the financial service area, accounting profession or building industry etc. A dichotomy between non-regulatory/interference ‘systems’ vs the achieving of perfect autonomy emanates from pre-pubescence into adult hood. We all prefer autonomy, but often not its implied responsibility. Intrinsic to the idea of autonomy, at any level, is the maturity relating to the values implicit within either family or society. Implied is a certain ethical base or morality, if you like. In our Western culture, we can neither separate society from government, nor society from it s values, but ironically and deservedly so, ‘Church from State’.

Historically, over regulation is shown to be counterproductive; it encourages the corruption and societal injustices it seeks to eliminate. The over regulatory and repressive social agenda as found within the failed Communistic experiment stifles not only political and economic growth but personal freedom.

The amount of Government intervention applied within a democracy is always going to be contentious. Minimalist Government intervention, often taken as merely a philosophical standpoint, is nevertheless the ideal. The moral authority given to Government by society will always need to inform our ‘social-capitalism’. If institutions, corporations or businesses, however, are given full autonomy and regulated only by an amoral market place our function will become ‘valueless’

Alex, You are absolutely correct, “some understand and some do not”

That much has not changed but the work place has changed in the past 50 years from one “model” to another model or operation. Doubtless it will change as much in the future as it has in the past.

As for “Choice is the key, it is worth more than you can imagine, and we have it more than anyone else ever has. The last thing young people want is to give that up for some "job security"”

Absolutely, choice to negotiate our own terms; choice to decide where to put our superannuation (and not somewhere where either an employer or union can control it); choice to decide when to move on and not be tied into a system which expects 30 years of continuous employment before you die.

Alex, go for it and make the best for yourself, you are not responsible for the bad choices others will make and want to tie you down with. You are responsible only for your self.
By growing as an individual, your personally developed sense of philanthropy and compassion will determine who you then decide to help in life, not those who government have decided to “help” with the fruit of your effort.

Relda “Most professional disciplines appear to operate within a regulatory framework, whether it is in the financial service area, accounting profession or building industry etc.”

Agree absolutely Relda, my own being highly regulated and governed.
Similarly, “markets” have grown and existed since beginning of civilization.

The point, most professions, trades and markets are “Self-Regulatory”.
The notion that we need legislation or government to control labor wage negotiations as a “non self-regulatory” process is nonsense. With government interventionism and paternalism the vested interest and we have seen the way unions have pressured their minions in socialist governments is corrupt, for a process which should be “self-regulatory”.

With the shortage of workers at present, now is the time that “workers” can negotiate best terms, not when Keating was running with 12%.

I reckon we agree.

Thanks Bruce.

Hello again Col,

Markets have certainly grown since the dawn of civilisation, but do we desire the same market place as existing in ancient times or those of around the industrial revolution. Point being, we have evolved with structures containing certain values, anciently held, but spasmodically applied.

“…most professions, trades and markets are “Self-Regulatory”.” - Yes, but underpinned by Gov’t authority (e.g. ASIC).

Increases in award wages do not necessarily increase unemployment - as is demonstrated, they have actually increased by over $100 per week in nominal terms and by over $40 in real terms since 1996. According to Neo-Classical economics, these increases in award wages should have resulted in a fall in employment especially for award reliant workers. However, Australia has experienced strong employment growth since 1996. A minimum standard pays people what they’re worth without sacrificing employer bids for skills in demand.

Allowing employers to remove their ‘dead-wood’ is important, this however has little to do with basic wage or working conditions. A rise in the basic wage, for example, may cause manufacturers to dismiss some of their least efficient hands. As a result the efficiency of the average worker in employment is raised.

I’m unable to find anything to fault in section 88B(2) of the Work Relations Act, which specifically states (in relation to Australian Industrial Relations Commission):

In performing its functions under this Part, the Commission must ensure that a safety
net of fair minimum wages and conditions of employment is established and maintained, having regard to the following:
(a) the need to provide fair minimum standards for employees in the context of living
standards generally prevailing in the Australian community;
(b) economic factors, including levels of productivity and inflation, and the desirability of attaining a high level of employment; and
(c) when adjusting the safety net, the needs of the low paid.

CR,

You're on a safe bet there; you need never to provide proof of the merits of a self regulatory market because no one has.

Your belief in this appears to me more ideologically driven more than anything else. (as are all your OLO pronouncements)

You may recall Adam Smith’s ‘hidden hand theory’ that apparently matched supply to demand - therefore allowing markets to become self-regulatory.

But even Smith could not extrapolate and provide empirical proof that this hidden hand was real.

It's interesting to note that the current economic boom has been generated through a regulatory framework of labour mixed with deregulatory choices.

I for one don't thinks you can claim one side or the other is the most efficient.

More spin from the employers on OLO. What additional choices does Work Choices give to workers? Apart from the ability to “trade in” 2 weeks annual leave I can see none of the magical choices.

Reward for effort has always been there, over award payments were common. If I thought I was worth more pay for my efforts I would say so to my boss. Nothing has changed in this area by the introduction of Work Choices.

Individual agreements were available if you wanted, collective agreements were available if you wanted.

What we have now in fact reduces choices.

It really does not matter because Work Choices will be found to be unconstitutional as was Justice Higgins “Harvester Judgement” which established a minimum wage in 1907.

“The High Court found Higgins's decision constitutionally invalid because the legislation was essentially concerned with the regulation of employment conditions, a power not held by the Commonwealth Parliament and not capable of being supported by the excise power. The High Court further found a tax based on compliance with certain labour conditions which could differ from State to State was a discrimination within the meaning of section 51(ii) and a preference within the meaning of section 99.”

Plus it does not matter what the unemployment rate is at the next election, with higher interest rates and higher inflation Howard will lose, as has every Govt. that has increased two out of three of these indicators during a term in office.

Steve, thanks for those citations.

I guess OLO employers still want to believe that they got to where they are despite the regulation of labour markets and the collective brilliance and struggle of workers -working for the good of majority.

I have yet to see any evidence that a deregulated market will increase productivity and choice for workers.

My understanding is that productivity must rise faster than wages or companies will fail and recession could result.

In other words, workers produce more but do not receive a corresponding increase in wages - which is the kind of social and economic environment OLO employers are wanting.

Are they just greedy old men who don't give a dam about workers?

Yes.

Do they know this to be the truth about themselves?

Yes.

Do they give a dam?

No.

But they still want to stand with us and declare themselves to be fair minded, egalitarian, patriotic - but are similtaneously blind to how they have benefited from the social and democratic culture that unionism has delivered.

It just shows how conservative rugged individualism was an economic, social and cultural myth that they want to believe but have never really lived.

Having followed the unfolding of workchoices closely since its unveiling, I am seeing what I expected to see. Not mass sackings but the mass downgrading of take home pay and conditions, slowly but surely. Don't expect to see it on television(you won't-after the cowra abbatoir, the media quickly tired of the issue),but aussie wages and conditions are quietly eroding away.

Thousands of workers have so far been forced to accept AWA's that are inferior to their previous agreements, some of them vastly inferior. We are only six months in, after six years woking life in Australia will be very diffent to the way it is now for a lot of people. Quite a few aussies might not believe this, but then, quite a few kiwis didn't believe that much would change when the new zealand government introduced a very similar IR policy in 1992.

Does anyone not remember all tha jokes ciculating around years ago about how all the kiwis were over here? It wasn't a joke. Employment conditions deteriorated so far, not immediatly, but over eight years(the legislation was repealed in 2000) that the country's population actually fell as workers left in droves, and I know a number of them.

They confirmed the dreadful state of employment under such laws that forced them to leave, and what we can look forward to if they remain in place.

Mass sackings? Maybe not, but you can bet decent working conditions will grow scarcer as pay packets grow lighter.

Howard doesnt like Sol Trujillo, Col doesnt think Sol is worth the renumeration. How illuminating.
Col when will your posts comment on the article ?
Is it Govt. spin or not,when they assert the Union movement claimed that the introduction of WorkChoices, would lead to thousands being thrown out of work?
The author of the article Mass sackings? Bull (almost as simplistic as crap)suggests that it is a misleading stance.
What does sad Col say, and why?

On reading the last post by col, all I can say is I agree with hedgehog.

Relda “self-regulatory” means without governmental underpinning,
Self-regulatory means they manage themselves, untouched by the dead hand of government bureaucracy and often the organizations which are “self-regulatory” are asked for expert input to legislative planning or proposed changes.

The points you find “no fault with”

a, b, and c are all subjective assessments and not objective measures. Finding fault with something which has no benchmark or other objective standard is expected. It is like the well known observation, the problem with all three is, whilst the bureaucracy might find no fault with their decision, they are not the ones who have to live with the “faultless” outcomes. It is the Employers and Employees who do.

I would further note, in these days when some employers are paying labourers $85,000 pa, it does have a beneficial “trickle-on” effect on the incomes of all labouring and unskilled workers.

Likewise the 12 % unemployment statistics which labour produced in the 1980’s had a negative effect on everyone’s income and job-security.

Rainier, a system which produces outcomes without incurring the cost of a governing bureaucracy, is more efficient than one which relies on employing a governing bureaucracy, even if it is only in saving the public cost of generally mindless and unaccountable “fat-cat bureaucrats”.

As for “the collective brilliance and struggle of workers -working for the good of majority.”

What a hoot, I have never ever met any employee who struggles for “the good of the majority”.

Although I have met plenty of individuals who struggle to better their own lot and in the process give example to how the majority can similarly benefit – it is called using your head.

Hedgehog, labor / unions have been running a scare campaign, they see their vested interests / power threatened and are running scared. It was to be expected, the limited imagination of bullies leaves them to rely on such tactics.

Fozz – agreeing with hedgehog – good for you, I am still trying to work out what he is, in his quaint "down in the hedgerow" style, trying to say!

Col you should get out more.
Maybe then you will meet some people who do work for other people.
I used to think that Ian Hanke was the closest a human had come to gaining the qualities of a Cockroach, but Col's working on it.
Now Col, please provide the citation of any Labor Leader or Union official who claimed that mass sackings would be the immediate result of Workchoices introduction.

Col,
The condition of “fairness” has its subjectivity in the maxim “Do unto others…” - that is, it cannot be objectively measured – only known, perhaps deeply felt. Our system is based on such subjectivity.

The government bureaucracy and its legislators, ‘dead’ as they perhaps are, form an essential part of our democratic tradition. Its purpose is entirely objective. The principle is always one of justice or fairness – achieved through the legislators (our representatives) and interpreted through an independent judiciary. These are the ideals, perhaps not always achieved and often imperfect – but they do protect us all from a utopia where many believe, they are merely a law unto themselves

col,
you say you have never met an employee who struggles for the good of the majority. Well let me introduce myself, my name's Fozz. Please let me know which employer is offering labourers jobs at 85 grand a year. If I can get one of my blokes on there, he'll about triple his take home pay.

Don't ge me wrong. I'm not "rabid anti-employer". I have worked for four small businesses and all of the owners were very good and decent people. I have also worked for bigger employers who were not so decent, leaving me seriously dbouting this "trickle down" effect.
There are those employers who would funnel even the smallest remaining trickle into their own hip pocket. It would probably be more accuratly described as the "treacle-down effect". Nearly everthing sticks to the hands at the top, while everyone else runs madly around to catch the few drops that do fall.

relda I think we are migrating from the issue.

The point is, when two people make a contract, be it for goods or services, they are the ones who negotiate and ultimately exchange those goods or services for either barter or more commonly these days, money.

The whole process requires agreement by those two parties as to the value placed on the services provided.

Ultimately, whilst minimum wage laws can think they achieve anything, what happens in real life is either
1 people defer the idea of employing someone.
2 they contract out the problem to an agency, effectively separating the negotiation from the payment by using an intermediary.
3 they negotiate outside the legal limits with other people who are prepared to do the same.

All of the above make the idea of “regulated employment terms” and “job security” a redundant to the process.

I recently took on a government role for a short time (strategic positioning reasons), strictly limited tenure and got paid for the first public holiday in 20 years. That role lapsed and I now consult/contract to government.
Do I get paid “holidays” or have notional “job security”? – No,
I respond at an hours notice to any need and only when asked – but the hourly rate I negotiated is a hell of a lot more than I was getting from being a holidays paid and superannuated “public servant”.

Fozz, your experience with employers is similar to mine, what I considered “unacceptable attitudes” of some large employers was one of the motive forces behind deciding to become “self employed” in the first place.
Getting off the security of a salary teat was hard at first but I would never go back (as a permanent strategy).

I guess I did what a lot of folk want “government” to do for them.

I do not value the role of government, politicians or bureaucrats, regardless of their professed intentions, to care for or be responsive to my personal circumstances as I am to them and encourage similar skepticism in others.

The $85,000’s are in the WA mining sector.

Col,
I gather you’re O.K. with the new workplace agreement reforms because your argument seems to counter even these. Australian Fair Pay and New minimum standard for all wage agreements between employers and employees contain these five conditions:
1. A minimum wage based on job classification starting at $484 a week.
2. Four weeks' paid annual leave, of which two weeks can be cashed out at the request of an employee.
3. Paid personal/carer's leave, including sick leave, of 10 days a year, plus a further two days a year of unpaid carer's leave.
4. Parental leave of up to 52 weeks unpaid after the birth or adoption of a child for the primary caregiver.
5. A standard working week of 38 hours, averaged over a year, but not tightly enforced

Any employment contract can’t seek to avoid the legislated minimum conditions in in any of these areas – flexability out side of these minimum agreements, as you suggest, is a good thing. The point here is the setting of a minimum standard.

As most acknowledge, the union movement in Australia exceeded its power base and no longer dealt with the interests of ordinary workers, instead forming liasons based purely on greed and political power – a la, Norm Gallagher and the BLF along with his ‘dirty’ backroom deals and bribery charges or the dock workers’ union thuggery. Unfettered union power needs to be checked – this has largley happened.

A legitimate concern of many is that the Australian Fair Pay Commission may set minimum wages in a way that fall over time along with the loss of ability to collectively bargain. A valid concern must also be, particularly of small business, the declining profit margin in hard economic times. Costs will invariably be cut by ‘sacking’ workers – a balance will be struck between taxpayer funded unemployment and employer paid work. Responsible fiscal management ensures both options have a predilection towards the unaffordable in an economic downturn.

Relda

I believe people should be free to negotiate the terms and conditions which suite them.

The more “benefits” an employer provides or is obliged to provide reduces the “mobility of labour”, which in the long term works to the detriment of employees as much as employers.

If some people want to negotiate 10 weeks holiday a year and others 4 weeks, let them!

These days it is common for individuals to decide, under the terms of their “salary package” how much superannuation with be deducted from their taxable income, my partner is presently dropping an extra $400 /fortnight into hers.

Others accept “novated lease” cars in their “package” (although why has always been beyond me).

Now, I have always taken the simple view, the few strings to hold me back, such as holiday entitlements, Long service leave, benefits in kind etc etc are not in my interest. What is in my interest is to be paid in cash and cash now (Iam scrupulous about issuing weekly invoices and getting them paid).

When I want a holiday, I take it!

If I ever needed “parental leave” again, I would have already received the money to fund it.

If I needed a carer, I would employ one, at a rate of pay less than that which I earn.

I “choose” to work 50-60 hours a week, because I get paid for every one of them, on the rates I negotiate and which is increasing with each additional client. By the time I have finished putting away for my superannuation and incurred “genuine” business expense (like workcover!) I end up still paying a lot of tax. But, since I earn it, I am due to pay tax.

Australia is the only place on earth which has a “Long Service Leave” entitlement. It is or was a condition which was completely out of step with everywhere else in the world.

What would you prefer, the promise of some possible benefit in the future or cash in your hand

relda #2

I used to work in UK. in 1973 my salary increases were pegged because, under the collective bargaining position of the unions and the socialist government of Harold Wilson, who had such a poor control on the economy, I was not allowed, by law, to improve my circumstances, except by changing job.

When such tyranny as “wage and price control”, which if I recall correctly also came to Australia, is enforced it is the start of dictatorship by the state and destruction of the freewill (and source of invention and innovation) of individuals to do the best for themselves. It is an offense to anyone who believes that the purpose of government is to serve the people and not to dominate them.

It is the reason that the socialists were thrown out in UK in the 1970’s. No government can regulate effectively when dealing with the multiplicity of independent variables which comprise the individual wills, preferences and aspirations of a population of millions of people.

Any government which thinks it can is either seriously deluded or so authoritarian that its populous live in fear of offending it. A case study in the latter can be observed by simply talking with any ex-East German, Pole, Ukrainian, Chinese etc. etc.

Oh. economic downturns happen, inevitably a boom is followed by a slump but the slump is ultimately followed by another boom. Economies are cyclical. The skill of government is to keep its hands off the economy triggers and not pretend to be so arrogant to believe it can “outsmart the market”, because it cannot.

All government do is, to analogize the Chinese Yangtze River, “build up the levee banks”, subsidies here, soft loans there, “pork barrel” the national industries. The problem with that is when the slum does come (the economic equivalent of the levee banks bursting) the ensuing catastrophe is far worse than if they had done nothing at all.

Col I am happy you and your partner are doing well but it is irrelevant to the debate.

Just as an aside Edward Heath (Conservative) was PM of the UK in 1973 not Wilson. He had been in power for 3 years.

In an enterprise of unskilled workers (and don't get on your high horse that they should retrain, many cannot) if individuals negotiate it comes down to the lowest common denominator.

A case in point in the printing industry, one worker decides that he will do overtime at the casual rate thus ensuring he gets ALL overtime offered. If the others want overtime they have to work at the casual rate as well.

This individual bargaining may be OK for employers like you but it only works to reduce the earning capacity of others.

We could all take a lesson from Sidney Myer who said "It is the duty of capital to employ" but unfortunately we live in a society where it is the duty of capital to make profits by sourcing its work overseas.

Get ready to move back to England because Labor will win the next election here and send the greed class (of which you are the main advocate on OLO) back to 1974 where you belong.

I met an person (seems relatively new to Australia) get paid $100 for a 45 hour week, she worked there until she could find another job and left. She didn't do anything about because "She needed the work and experience". Rampant exploitation. I suppose the tax payers and her family had to make the rest up for this poor girl. This of course isn't "efficient" for the economy because she doesn't spend all that much and other people (taxpayers) esstenially pay her wage. I see this happening everywhere, technically people can take these people to court, in reality they can't. I would hate to see what happens when the economy goes down.

The Trickle down effect, is rich people pissing all over the rest of us.

Steve Madden “irrelevant to the debate”

It is very pertinent. It is people doing what they want against the machinations of social engineers and manipulators.

You are right of course, Heath, a particularly useless tool who was ousted by the much better suited, energetic and star, dear Margaret.

Heath was the whimp who “fell on his sword” rather than face down the communist infiltrated and controlled miners union run by Gormley and Scargill.

I was wrong about the exact year, however I do remember in 1972, studying by kerosene lamp because of power outages caused by a lack of coal for power stations. The blackmail and thugery of the unions was one of the things which helped me form my views of the right of individuals to freely negotiate.

Now for another reality “In an enterprise of unskilled workers”

No enterprise would exist if it relied exclusively on “unskilled workers” – someone has to have some skill to organize “the unskilled” into a productive unit or they will sit on their butts and do nothing all day. Those who manage the unskilled are worthy of greater remuneration.

As for “Get ready to move back to England because Labor will win the next election here and send the greed class (of which you are the main advocate on OLO) back to 1974 where you belong.”

Wedge politics Steve, instead of being even a little bit creative in your view (which I must admit is probably too great a challenge even on a good day).

You cannot deal with people who achieve, whilst you appear to wallow.

You simply suggest they leave. If I did that, Australia loses my innovative and productive energy which pays the taxes which the likes of you like to play lady bountiful with.

“Greed” - The war cry of the “co-dependent”,

The last time I looked, “co-dependency” was classed as a mental disorder, “independency” was not.

I figure they will carry you away to the laughing academy before they come for me.

The “greedy” are those who collectively want for free what I have worked for.

Col

$27.36 plus $17 for those on state awards,who did not get the federal increase, $44.36 a week. Ha Ha

Turned purple yet.

:)

Steve Madden “$27.36 plus $17 for those on state awards, who did not get the federal increase, $44.36”

Hardly Steve, I bill the government over twice that and private industry even more – and I am talking hourly rates.

What people earn is limited by what they are prepared to accept.

For myself, I expect and get a lot more. However, I earn it too.

It is payout time for years of focused dedication to developing rare and valued skills and then finding out how to market them.

What you do not get is

people get what they focus their efforts on.

Men and women who did not bother at school, do not keep up to date with their skills or bother to develop any skills at all, who expect the world to hand them a living just for being there are suckers.

No one deserves the world on a plate and those who think they do or think some politician is going to get it for them are double-suckers.

High incomes and the notion of job security is bought at a price, the price is not going down the pub or hanging around with your mates or doing what the indolent folk do.

What it costs is called "investing in yourself" and working smart, not hard.

For me, I never wanted to be on the “minimum wage” and I never wanted to be "snug-and–secure" with a "safety net".

As the old saying goes, you cannot expect to soar like an eagle if you hang around with turkeys.

See ya later "gobbler".

Col

Yet another post on your favourite two issues.

1. Telling us how smart you are and how much you make.
2. Blaming the victim for everything.

For your enlightenment I was billing BHP IT $400 per hour over 10 years ago when working on the DSS technology upgrade at Tuggeranong Offices ACT.

I do not tread on people more unfortunate than myself and blame them for their situation, I help them for nothing. (Voluntary work)

Try helping someone Col, you may find it addictive.

Steve Madden – was that $400 an hour you received or was that $400 an hour someone else was charging for you (whilst paying you $40 an hour)?

“Blaming the victim for everything”

I have blamed “the victim” for nothing.

If anything you are attempting to blame me for the outcome of those who have not bothered to work at school or make any effort to improve themselves through their own effort.

As for “Telling us how smart you are and how much you make” well Steve, that is the pot calling the kettle black, especially after your revelation of supposedly earning $400 / hour. I see the stench of hypocrisy follows your posts, as it does most know all intelligentsia elitist socialists who presume how to tell everyone else how to live (and usually do the opposite themselves).

You do not know how I spend my time Steve. I do not parade it like you do (“I help them for nothing. (Voluntary work)”)

How patronizing of you, I bet you get lots of acolytes fawning as you regale them with tales of your heroic actions in the name of socialism, its enough to make one want to vomit.

This Friday just gone, I attended a debate on the topic of workchoices, held in the central Queensland city of Gladstone.

Present were Joe Hockey, Minister for assisting the Minister for Industrial Relations, Paul Neville, Federal member for Hinkler and an Australian Industry Group spokesman.

In opposition were Grace Grace, secretary of the Queensland Council of Unions, David Peetz, Professor of Industrial Relations and the QCU's chief legal advocate.

With the room packed to capacity, the debate was the most most explosivly charged discussion I have ever attended. The few non- union members - the conservative leaning Member for Gladstone, Liz Cunningham and a local buisinessman sat quietly as mice while the other 99.9% of the crowd vented their outrage, particularly at Minister Hockey.

Workers told their stories to the panel: a Telstra employee who was presented with an AWA that slashed ten thousand dollars a year from his pay: construction workers docked four hours pay for holding a meeting about a companys refusal to provide two sets of working toilets on a site almost a kilometre long(urinating in the open would result in instant dismissal).

In the end, it was clear to me that the Government fervently believes that the way forward for Australia is a system that breaks down workers collective power, thus driving down wages and expensive working conditions in what will be a futile effort to compete with the rice bowl economies and mighty giants such as the U.S and the European Union.

The majority of workers are simply not in a position to truly bargain with an employer. There is a huge difference between having bargaining SKILLS and having bargaining POWER. Should this thing run long term, it will be remembered as the most destructive legislation ever introduced to this country(except by big business who will love it).