Fozz why should government to organize a training programme for you?
Do you expect a public servant to wipe your arse too?

I went through specific processes to acquire the different skills I utilize in earning multiple incomes. Some came from books, some from being mentored. None came from government or were funded by taxes

As for general maintenance, if everyone went off and trained, the available pool of people wishing to do those roles would diminish and likely inducements (hourly rate) increase, it is called “supply and demand”, maybe you should do a course in “Economics for Dummy’s” (Or even “Dummies for Economists), you sound as if you still suck your thumb).

I have a client, he earns around $130,000 pa from general maintenance contracts. Maybe you should ask me nicely for his phone number and he caould give you some tips.

Why are we importing unskilled workers to do jobs? Obviously the “locals” are earning more elsewhere, a labour shortage read (supply and demand above).

A contract of employment involves an employer paying an employee for their services. I might be obtuse but your question seems to be a nonsense,

The Margaret Thatcher quote re growing taller, was not me saying what I have done but identifying what serves everyone the best.

Why should people be held back to some luddite notion of what they are allowed to achieve?

We applaud excellence in sport, why do you think business is any different?

Business is as competitive as the AFL
It is as risky too.
A lot of people applaud the sportsmen who play sport at a professional level and get paid mega-bucks for it.

Would you suggest the captain of whatever team you support is overpaid?

So why whine and expect CEO’s and leaders of industry to be treated differently?

Finally, I am sure you are very familiar with the properties of “scum”, so I will defer to what is, obviously, your greater knowledge and experience of the substance.

Have a nice day, we must do this again sometime (yawn)

Tapp, trawling for email penpals I see!

Col Rogue,

"Why should government organise a training programme for you?". Presumably, you are applying that argument to everyone else as well.

For the glaringly obvious reason that the market alone cannot do it. As billie posted, unions have traditionally ensured that big firms employ a percentage of apprentices by pressuring governments to legislate for it.

A long running policy of allowing the market to "find it's natural checks and balances, free of the intrusive hand of government" hasn't exactly been a roaring sucess here, has it?
"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."
Well, clearly that hasn't worked and it's time to try a diffent approach.

But you do have a point about supply and demand. This country has opened the floodgates to allow large numbers of both skilled and unskilled workers in, in order to increase supply, therefore reducing demand so that employers can pay them less. How this is benefiting the country, by removing the incentive to train is a mystery to me.

You say it is risky being in business. I don't doubt it. But workers have always faced risk in the business of selling their labour. Removal of unfair dismissal and a drastic lowering of the legally enforcable minimum standard has made their business much riskier.

"tapp that is why we have regulations-to prevent people from being forced". Specifically, which regulations were you refering to?
The award system and unfair dismissal?.....To prevent people from being forced to accept miserable pay and condtions because the employer can sack them for any reason or none at all if they refuse?

Or do you need the government to wipe your arse by regulating to protect you against unfair competition from bigger and stronger firms? So it's ok for business to want protection through trade practices but not ok for workers to want protection through awards?

I yawn right back at ya.

"tapp that is why we have regulations-to prevent people from being forced". Specifically, which regulations were you refering to?
The award system and unfair dismissal?.....To prevent people from being forced to accept miserable pay and condtions because the employer can sack them for any reason or none at all if they refuse?

hey fozz
i was refering to the inability to cash in leave this will be enforced by labor and the unions.
you are right the people are being scr#wed but as you have noticed col is a coalition lackey so any comment from him should be taken with a grain -no not even that.

This is very easy to fix but labor will be adding to the IR laws their own piece.

Fozz i have nothing against the workers and well the unions are not what they used to be about, now adays its about power and business.

Like i said email swulrich@bigpond.net.au.

Those who are really interested do email and those who dont well they end up like col.

Fozz, I think that before you claim "A long running policy of allowing the market to "find it's natural checks and balances, free of the intrusive hand of government"" has failed, there needs to have actually been a policy of labour markets free from intervention (awards, legislation, govt spending on the area in general), when this isn't true. It's been a gradual process for Australia.

As for the perceived skills shortage, I'm not convinced. To me, it looks like a 'mythical shortage', a non problem that is seemingly being solved by a non solution. If there is truly a shortage, the wages of the people with these specializations would go up, thereby drawing more people into the profession.

It's conceptually very similar to the myth of the 'science shortage' in America, where the US national science board, "expressing concern that few native-born citizens are entering scientific careers, called for an intensified national effort to expand domestic production. Meanwhile, unemployment rates for scientists are going up; according to the American Chemical Society, they have doubled among chemists over the past 2 years." - quoted from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5661/1105

tapp,

sorry mate, I should have put "qouting col rogue" beside that comment, I was referring to his not yours.

I have been mulling over your party's constitution, looks pretty fair and balanced to me so far, I'll talk about it some more to you later.

cheers

Volition's para quoted below is proof of the absolute ignorance of australian history

"Fozz, I think that before you claim "A long running policy of allowing the market to "find it's natural checks and balances, free of the intrusive hand of government"" has failed, there needs to have actually been a policy of labour markets free from intervention (awards, legislation, govt spending on the area in general), when this isn't true. It's been a gradual process for Australia."

Volition proior to the rise of the union movement - in 1860's for masons, noticeably spread to shearers and miners in the 1890s and the landmark Sunshine Harvester case of 1906 the labour market was free of regulation and bosses could cut wages, did not have to worry about paying a living wage, did not have to concern themselves with worker safety .

In 400 years time people will probably view communal action as the greatest achievement of the 20 century, from setting up of kibbutzses, hippy and fabian communes, union activity, universal health and education, farmer co-ops, community co-ops, rise and fall of Soviet Union and Mao's China.

That said, unions are the only thing standing between the workers and the bullying tactics of large employers who want to cut wages, cut working conditions, make work places unsafe and increase their profit.

Tapp what is your frenzy about workers cashing in their leave entitlements? Sounds like a sandgroper button pusher but really doesn't wash with a community that has seen their recreation time eroded by 7 day a week trading and casualising the workforce. Doesn't make your party sound at all attractive.