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.