No comments as yet. No bloody wonder. This article would have to go
down as the most naive commentary to date concerning Workchoices.Mum works extra, dad just pops home blah blah blah. Get out in the real world Mr Butler. Mum works extra, dad might just be told to work extra as well. Of course choice and flexibilty are there as well. Mum,Dad or both might refuse to work overtime and the employer might choose to sack them with impunity.

I think the point regarding the ACTU's (and unions generally) paternalistic approach as to what is best for its members is well made. However the statement is also true of the current Federal Government. The WorkChoices legislation is excessively prescriptive and significantly restricts the options of both employers and employees compared to the previous system. There is a need for policy makers to recognise the need to establish fair and workable legislation which provides basic levels of protections to maintain decent employment conditions while allowing the parties to sort out what is best for them. While there will always be winners and losers in any system, increasing the amount of regulation benefits nobody.

I agree with Hedgehog. In this example WorkChoices is really NoChoices for most workers. If they refuse an employers "request" to work "reasonable" overtime because it is not reasonable for them ie they have other commitments/obligations then the employer has the whiphand - dimissal with no comeback. And the idea that an employee will be happy to just work the extra hours to pick up money to supplement the family holiday is just nonsense for most working families.

Joel Butler writes from the premise that the current laws enacted by the Howard Government are good laws. That is it's major flaw.
He does not acknowledge that the Melbourne Club and Howards think tanks who relentlessly strive on behalf of Corporations to wring the most benefit from their work forces for the least reward constitute a working class conspiracy.

Why would a worker choose to cash up his/her annual leave which they have acrued for the purpose of family recreation if indeed their remuneration was not grossly inadequate for their families wellbeing.

Why would a family man choose to work extended hours and deprive himself and family from quality existence.

The author may consider the proposals archaic, but workers have fought for quality and safety in their work places and their collective representatives in Unions ,the ACTU and the political party which emerged from Union struggle and the desire to participate in Governance will continue to resist Corporate embezzlement of their quality of life.

A decent standard of living is not solely for the grossly overpaid Corporate CEO's and charge-what-the-traffic-will-bear lawyers.

Joel is currently a law student at Bond Uni. I wonder what experience he has working in the real world for wages, raising a family, paying a mortgage and trying to save for the future.

Marracus has hit the nail on the head.Holidays are there to provide a break. When we begin to cash them out the far right 'framers' begin to create a workforce where holidays are an abberation rather than the norm. That of course is the clear objective. Mr Butler is iether a HR Nichol's accolyte, or not the brightest student in his class.