Billie, you say that "The setting up of all these microbusinesses will lead to loss of productivity and loss of quality of life for most Australians." In fact, the labour market (and other) changes have been accompanied by higher productivity, higher employment, higher wages and faster economic growth, and many surveys show higher levels of satisfaction among those who are self-employed or have more control over their hours, e.g. my wife with two quite different part-time jobs reflecting two different interests, with hours of work she generally chooses herself (i.e., more often knocking back work than not being offered enough). Sounds good to me. Yes, there will always be less advantaged people, but the whole system shouldn't be regulated just because certain regulation might serve the interests of certain people.

In fact, I don't think that the interests of the unemployed/low-paid are served by laws and regulations which make employing them less profitable or unprofitable, on the contrary. The best position from which to get a job is in a job, however humble.

tapp,

what has been lost is the RIGHT to four weeks annual leave. If he wants four, how much he will actually get is now dependent upon what the employer is willing to give.

Given that he is among the 20% easily replacable, if he fails several interveiws,and in each one he was asked "would you be willing to cash out two weeks annual leave?" and given that he is starting to get desperate for a job, next time he is asked that question, he is much more likely to accept losing half of his previously entitled leave, in exchange for a small amount of money.

He did not want to cash it out, but with an ever shrinking number of employers being prepared to grant four weeks, he was forced to accept reduced conditions. That is not choice.

Most labourers would rather not exchange half their leave for a small lump sum, and I am one of them.

To sum up, a large minority of workers are not in a position to refuse reduced conditions. Employers on the other hand, know that if one labourer won't take the job at reduced renumeration, they won't have much difficulty finding one who will, slowly dragging down standards overall.

The ACTU's intent is not to prevent anyone from cashing out leave (though this may be the effect). It is to prevent those in the middle and lower reaches of the labour market from being FORCED to cash out their leave unwillingly.

Now fozz this is what i was refering too.

Also seems labor believes that the lower classes are incapable of doing anything for themselves, follow us and we will look after you.

It is about choice you are going from one dictatorship to another by them telling you what to do.

Do you know how to think for yourself, not like Col Rouge who is liberal through and through so any bad comments about the coalition will be one sided.

There is choice in IR but neither labor or the coalition will give it, it is either our way or the highway.

I keep saying this but what would i know, oh then again what would you know about me, with regards to IR, unions,conditions,everyday people, but nobody is interested why or what my past has to offer and why i did this so really its all BLAH BLAH BLAH here to winge at each other no chance of real change.

And Col politics is a dictatorship and the coalition is the head of this.

So Col your ability to accept what others say is get St3ffed what would you know , you col are just a sheep following the coalition spin, do you care about anything else but yourself i dont think so why should you, your talk is cheap just like the coalition and labor.

Just look at labor now knows privitisation means job losses do they care no, why they are still selling of the states for their own benifit and not for the worker or the people and the coalition big business, oh Col well done on AWB, the directors get a smack the government lies through their a## and accepts no responsibility but dont you worry lets give them a bonus.

You dont have much time left Col, look at the future

Fozz “The entire notion of a worker being free to choose to cash out leave is built on a fundamental fiction.”

So you presume to know better than someone else how their employment contract should be structured.

I have a life long suspicion of those who would restrict people being “free to choose”. Such words so often drip from the lips of dictators and despots as well.

low-skilled / unskilled. There is nothing to stop anyone, at any age, acquiring a new skill. I did it at aged 50+. What makes the difference is the attitude of “what I am doing is not working, necessity demands I do something else”.

Billie “I am sure all of the part employed etc”

Simple, work several roles. If someone has a parttime job, there is nothing stopping them doing a second job.

Oh before you go on about that’s all too hard, that is exactly what I do.

Faustino, I agree with what you have said. Who is Billie to presume to dictate / restrict other people’s type of employment terms?

Your quote of Billie “"The setting up of all these microbusinesses will lead to loss of productivity and loss of quality of life for most Australians."”

I ask Billie to explain how
greater flexibility will lead to lower productivity.
And how people exercising greater control over their circumstances by being self employed can ever represent a “loss of quality of life”.

“Quality of life” for most people is about getting the government, unions, employers and officialdom off their backs and being allowed to do exactly what they want without kowtowing to anyone, whilst still earning a living.

Fozz “RIGHT to four weeks” see my previous post, “what it costs the employer”. Same applies. Holiday pay is an employment overhead. How is the employer on the notion of unpaid leave?

TAPP people being “FORCED” is why we have legislation in place.

No employer is going to abuse a productive employee to save a dollar, the employer knows it will cost his business $5 or more for every $1 he saves in wages.

Billie, you said "When organisations and governments respond to the market, they are reacting, they are no longer setting the agenda, thus they will always be behind."

It's fallacy to think that the government could ever efficiently 'set the agenda', because consumers wishes will never be able to be truly foretold and secondguessed by the government. Your comment suggests that the government can somehow know what the future wishes of the people are, and that it can make the required decisions now to make that a reality.

This is wrong, because firms themselves are much more efficient at doing this, rather than governments with their bureaucratical red tape and tax payer funded exercises. Not to mention the fact that it's unfair to just tax people and give the money to other people to make an industry out of something that people don't necessarily desire.

In truth, businesses never only respond to the market, they have to innovate and try to match consumer preferences. The ones that are able to do this well, prosper. Why do you think Coca-Cola introduced vanilla coke? Why did McDonalds introduce the salads menu? Because they knew that they couldn't just rest on their laurels, they would not be successful if they didn't continually try new things.

Not only this, but your comment about "15/20 years" to train up the personnel is also not really correct. People can be brought in from overseas, or trained in a few years, if that were truly what the people wanted. If this isn't happening, well then guess what? The people don't want that particular service. It's no biggie.

Col, keep pedalling. It is so pleasing to see that you are always in the minority in these posts. It gives hope for a decent Australian Society yet. Looked at all the latest Morgan polls yesterday. It appears that all the punters are on the ball. Stanley Bruce all over again. Col, you can fool some people some time but you cant ....... you know the rest.