No frenzy

workers should have choice and this choice will be taken away by labor so people will not be able to cash out leave

I am also disgusted by the liberal party policy but there are those that have managed to get good outcome from this.

For frenzy it should be why labor and the unions didnt take the nation out on strike before these laws came into place,
maybe it was so they had something to fight with,
they probably thought those who would lose their jobs would only be colatoral damage so if labor and the unions were serious they would have stood back then and done what was required for the people and not themselves.

this can also be seen with the water problem the states and federal are too busy fighting with liberal and labor party politics that we the people have to suffer.

Times are changing and the people want choice and accountability.

Col, you really are a goose.

volition,

The free, unfettered market that government does not interfere in is a neo-conservative idealogue.

Is cutting spending on training programmes and simply sitting back waiting for the market to train an adequete number of people for you not the same thing?

The purpose of government is to govern. If not, then why are we, as their employer, paying them aquater to a third of a mil per year (not including perks). If the market does not need them to do anything, should this not reduce the demand for them, thus bringing the price of them down? Oh thats right, they don't have to negotiate their own wage, a comission sets it for them.

As for the skill shortage, why should this lead to all skilled people being payed more? If the law alows you to import workers from the vast pool of second and third world labour, then there is no shortage and the price of their labour does not have to go up.

In fact, these workers, being used to poverty, will accept much less than an Aussie, thus lowering the standard overall.

The law of supply and demand is a usefull guideline, but it can be innacurate for a good reason: we are talking about people, not commdities for sale. Plasma screen t.v.'s don't care how you treat them, you can do whatever you like with them. People are more complicated.

Fozz Re training for you “that the market alone cannot do it.”

Really, the “Market” is going to supply the jobs, not the government. Training is going to need to respond to those market based jobs. I work in a loose arrangement with one Industry Association, they take the “training” for their industry very seriously. They are not a government department.

You quote

“find it's natural checks and balances, free of the intrusive hand of government”

And

"What? A skill shortage crisis? Impossible!! We've deliberatly neglected funding training programmes and enforcing legislation, it was supposed to be able to run itself in it's own best interests."

Where did they come from? Not from the article or the content of any previous post on this thread.

You must be making up things simply to justify your argument. Hardly honest but honesty seems not to figure on your posting content.

As for “Removal of unfair dismissal and a drastic lowering of the legally enforcable minimum standard has made their business much riskier.”

Wrong. The risk of unemployment reduce as the cost to the employer reduces. Competitive pressure (and unemployment risk) increases with the service price.

Oh I don’t need anyone to wipe any part of me, nor do up my shoe laces or tuck me in at night. I am happier with smaller government, especially when government performance expectations, let alone achievements, are so mediocre.

Better to leave business to those who understand it than pretend some fat-cat bureaucrat or election conscious politician has a clue.

Training is an operational task not a regulatory process.
Governments exist to regulate, not to operate.

Obviously, from the content of your posts, even a completely disinterested fat-cat bureaucrat would have a better clue than you.

Oh yawning back, how hackneyed and passé.

Hedgehog “Col, you really are a goose.”

And you are a Turkey.

Maybe I do not soar like an eagle but at least geese can fly.
You, in comparison, cannot stay off the ground for half a minute and are better known for making a lot of pointless noise.

A goose that doesnt make any money. Only a goose trys to impress by mentioning his income.Only a goose keeps arguing black is white. Only a goose responds to a post calling them a goose.

Billie, I was actually talking more about labour markets recently but I'll concede that you're right, we did have a freer labour market way back then. Did you know that Australia actually had the highest per capita income in the world in the 1880's?

But I still have to disagree with your view of communal action being best and this is because markets are more efficient at getting things out to people. I think that free trade in markets will bring everyone better quality of life over time, rather than union activity. To me, union activity just serves to make more people unemployed, which is worse. I think cutting wages isn't necessarily an 'unfair' thing if the employer doesn't need that particular employee as much anymore, it's like being made to pay for something you don't want. It's all about efficiently apportioning workers and resources where they are needed most. If you are desired by a business, it will be motivated enough to offer you an attractive job.

Fozz, you said "As for the skill shortage, why should this lead to all skilled people being payed more?"- I meant that their wages go up while there still is a decreased supply of them. Once you've brought more people in, the wage will move to its efficient rate.

"In fact, these workers, being used to poverty, will accept much less than an Aussie, thus lowering the standard overall." - So you're really saying, that EVEN though they're better off, we shouldn't do it because it lowers the standard overall? Everyone should have the right to pursue his own interest as he deems best. If you want to go and offer your services for a lower wage than somebody else, there's no problem there! To do anything otherwise is to be for a nanny state that tells you what you can and can't do.

"we are talking about people, not commdities for sale" - what point are you trying to make here? The law of supply and demand has not been disproven by your efforts.