The current IR laws are a disgrace to Australia. Everyone knows they are about shifting power from the employee to the employer. But the power will not shift back until we have a change of government.

Given our proud history as a progressive and prosperous democracy, one would think that no government putting forward such legislation would have any chance of re-election. While the polls put Labor way in front, the election is not tomorrow.

The other remarkable aspect of modern Australia is the decline in unionism. If we all retained that sense of solidarity with our fellow workers, we would have a strong union movement and we would be better placed to resist these attacks on our pay, our hours of work and our working conditions.

I remember how the HR Nicholls Society was regarded as mad when founded more than 20 years ago. But its thinking has come to dominate in IR. That suggests to me that alternate thinking can come to dominate in the future. Let us hope we do not see our minimum wage fall from $13.47 an hour to the US level of $6.60 an hour before that happens.

Absolutely correct the ordinary working person has been their own worst enemy for 11 years, it seems by today's polling, they are beginning to see what they should do, bye bye rodent.

I am a retired babyboomer living on my superannuation so I am not directly affected by workchoices. But I am greatly concerned about what workchoices means for what sort of society we have become and what it means for the future. I have children and grandchildren so while workchoices doesn't affect me directly it does impact on people I care about and so it does affect me. When people say to me, oh I am not affected because I am not working I just ask them to think about their children and grandchildren and what it means to them. No one is immune from this insidious legislation. And If Howard (or Costello)get back into government we can expect more extreme legislation than workchoices as it currently stands.

The laws are obviously unpopular. Professor Peetz tends to look at this legislation purely from an economic perspective. I don't believe that Howard introduced the legislation based on any feeling of economic rectitude. I maintain that the new laws were introduced simply to emasculate the unions. It is a well known fact that the ALP obtains a large amount of funding from the unions so it is axiomatic that if the unions are starved of funds then so must the ALP and therefore reduce their effectiveness as a campaigning force. Time will tell if it has worked.

Whilst the mineral and energy boom continues to prop up Australia's low unemployment rate, the "Workchoice" legislation won't make much difference to those who currently hold down a well paid job. It's when the boom ends that the chickens of this hideous destruction of workers hard fought rights will come home to roost.
It was the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and of course, the H.R. Nicholls Society who campaigned so strongly to John Howard to wrest power from workers and their unions in a blantant attempt to lower the average wage and destroy those workers rights. The campaign started in the early 1990's and has been successful to some degree, yet not as much as those groups had hoped.
John Howard is rat cunning. He knew full well that to implement all the suggested changes in one hit would amount to political suicide. He caused as much damage as he thought he could get away with, all the while believing he hadn't gone too far in alienating "Howard's battlers" and yet at the same time appeasing the HR Nicholls Society and their ilk. Imagine what deals he's struck with them to be implemented after the next Federal election should the Coalition be returned to power, especially with a majority in the Senate?
Rossco, I'm fast reaching retirement age (if indeed the goal posts haven't been moved by the time I reach 65) and like yourself, I worry about the kind of working environment my children and grandchildren will have to endure and on the matter of Workchoices alone, I refuse to offer my vote to the Coalition Government at the coming election.

Chris C & Shonga

“The-other-remarkable-aspect-of-modern-Australia-is-the-decline-in-unionism.-If-we-all-retained-that-sense-of-solidarity-with-our-fellow-workers,-we-would-have-a-strong-union-movement-and-we-would-be-better-placed-to-resist-these-attacks-on-our-pay,-our-hours-of-work-and-our-working-conditions.”

“Absolutely-correct-the-ordinary-working-person-has-been-their-own-worst-enemy-for-11-years,-it-seems-by-today's-polling,-they-are-beginning-to-see-what-they-should-do,-bye-bye-rodent.”

Lets see, the Australian people voted for Hawke and Keating in the 1980s & 90s, who proceeded to deregulate industrial relations, brought in troops against pilots and crushed other militant workers struggles. The unions, in the final analysis, capitulated and assisted them.

If either of you managed to attend the last “Fill the G” gathering against workchoices, you would have seen the previous union slogan “Your rights at work, worth FIGHTING for” slickly changed to “Your rights at work, worth VOTING for”. It is not ordinary working people who don’t want to fight for their rights, it is the slickly suited union leadership, telling workers that their only option is to vote for the ALP.

Yet both of you believe that ordinary working people have been their own worst enemy because they have seen the futility of investing their hopes and future in the decrepit union leadership and the ALP and have voted with their feet, wallets, and their ballots.

It is not ordinary working people who are their own worst enemies, it is the union leadership and the ALP. Yet you are both quick to blame workers to distract from the disgrace which is the union leadership and the ALP.

The reason that people don’t vote for the ALP is that they can clearly see that the ALP does not work in their interests. The ALP does not offer an alternative to the coalition. The ALP (and union leadership) has been revealed for what it truly is - a capitalist party offering its services to the capitalists to subdue working class struggles.

This phenomenon is not a “remarkable aspect of modern Australia”, it is the same the world over, and is the result of the global capitalist economic system.

The problems faced by workers the world over cannot be solved on a national basis, and can only be solved by the unification of the INTERNATIONAL working class against the international capitalist system by reorganizing society on a socialist basis i.e. according to the needs of the majority of ordinary working people.

tao,
I agree with you that we have not seen a fair dinkum Labor Government since the Whitlam Government, Hawke & Keating did help working people a little, however being AWU faction, or right-wing they were only Liberal's with a social conscience. Hopefully Rudd will be a copy of the true Labor Government, a Whitlamesque Government if you will, a progressive government, Australia has paid too higher price for 11 years of conservatism.

Gday shonga, we meet again Labor greatly assisted by Howard's miss use of his massive mandate is about to govern again.
Workchoices is an act of spite made possible by that mandate, nothing less.
Howard history will show, miss used his massive power in spite filled ways and could have done so much but failed in the end.
am quite proudly from that AWU faction, unhappy as some may be by it it is that faction alone than can take government from this failed conservative one.
After all it takes a majority to win government not marginal minority's.
Labor and all its factions are duty bound to return good government to Australia.
That means true IR justice,and we shonga must be the conscience of the governing party to see it happens.

Why are the misnamed workchoice relations laws being implemented?
Because workers produce all the real wealth in society. This process is not immediately apparent and works itself out behind the backs of workers. The role the treacherous trade union beauracrats play has been to cover this up by promoting the axiom in every struggle and workplace as "a fair days work for a fair days pay" A fraud that has indescribale consequences for billions of workers. That is 2,500,000,000 million workers produce all the wealth and receive a 'wage' not a share. The thrust of workchoices is boosting the level of wage exploitation and the multi nationals reap the profits along with the financiers, IMF and world banks. As if somehow they do not have enough. The profits squeezed out will go around the globe in search of the highest rate of return or exact a high rate of return. In other words the money sqeezed out today from workers becomes a future demand or weapon against workers. Their priority is to extend the casualization of the workforce, and wield the sacking axe ever more frequent. This is to oppress and grind workers down to control them. The politics are workers have no rights and no say. What we already experience as shut up and faster, faster, faster. But how ridiculous, how utterley ridiculous the Howard government would appear to workers, were it not for the trade unions who prop up the liberals by keeping workers divided. The trade unions in reality defend the bosses and implement the divide and rule strategy. Their precious career up into the Labor Party is bound up with keeping workers down and the maintenance of the profit system - capitalism through divide and rule.

Its encouraging to see that Workchoiceless seems to have very few apologists, even on this forum. If this forum were a microcosm of the whole nation, I think we would be seeing a Labor landslide this year for sure.

While I'm not one to be overly rejoiced if Labor win, it would be great to see the coconut get his marching orders. I just hope Labor can actually reverse the effect of this legislation. But I also fear a Labor govt. will go the way of 'New Labour' in Britain, despicable after 10 years.

labor has been saying they are going to keep it i wonder why.

Maybe they have businesses which will benifit under these laws.

Trust neither of them
for me will vote independant if i have to.

www.tapp.org.au

Shonga,

The problem is not that “we-have-not-seen-a-fair-dinkum-Labor-Government” but that we have. Hawke and Keating were the fair dinkum Labor Government, carrying out their historical role as dupers and betrayers of the working class. Whitlam betrayed workers too – he chose to meekly accept his dismissal instead of mobilising workers against it – he didn’t want workers getting out of control of the normal channels.

The ALP is a capitalist party working in the interests of capitalists and against the interest of workers. When are you going to get it? The ALP cannot be reformed – they are what they are – capitalists i.e. exploiters of workers.

The only reason the ALP will gain power at the next election, if they don’t stuff it up, is that Howard and the Coalition have exhausted the public’s tolerance, and shown themselves to be completely vile and morally bankrupt. Rudd and the ALP have simply not had the opportunity to show the public how completely vile and morally bankrupt they are – but they will.

There is no way Rudd will head a progressive government – the man was nicknamed Dr Death in Queensland for his slashing of the public service. And you can bet that either Workchoices will not be torn up as promised, or it will be, but it will be replaced with equally anti-worker laws – probably just more favourable to their mates the union leadership.

Get rid of your illusions of the golden ALP past, and future restoration. It never was, and it will never be. The sooner you and everyone else figures that out, the better. The sooner working people realise that they need to organise themselves independently of the traditional capitalist “democratic” framework, take up an international socialist program, and oust their union leaders, take back their organisations, break with the ALP forever, and reorganise society in their own interests, the better.

By the way, I note you did not bother to address my comments about your own attacks on workers. Your hatred of workers is apparent – why should they bother to listen to you?

David Peetz might be Professor of Industrial Relations at Griffith University but appears to me to lack some basic understanding what is legally applicable.

Some months ago, I went to visit an old friend of mine John Rutherford (former union official of the Plumbers union), I had not seen for about 25 years, and when I explained what I had written in my last book INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really? A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3 was ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 he urged me to have a meeting with union officials so they might be able to use it. Well, not particularly as I got the impression they love complaining but not one ever bothered to contact me, despite correspondence send out.

So, I now plan to write a book about it, with copies of the correspondence send out.

In my view the 14 November 2006 High Court of Australia judgment was ill conceived, but union officials seem to be more interested to complaint then to spend time to attend to why it is so and perhaps seek to have the matter redressed.

Perhaps, David Peetz before doing so (IF HE CAN BOTHER ABOUT THIS) might read up about me on my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH to be aware that I go on LEGAL REALITY not LEGAL FICTION.

Tao,

People are responsible for their own actions. Those who stopped voting ALP did not choose a more radical alternative - they voted Liberal.

If workers are discontented with their union leaders, they are free to organise to change those leaders.

I have seen no evidence that the majority - or even a significant minority - of people want to re-organise society on an international socialist basis.

I have no doubt that a federal Labor government will be better for working people than the current coalition government. It may not go as far as I want, and, as it needs more than three per cent of the vote, it certainly won't go anywhere near what you want, but we will still be better off than now.

The issue of IR reform is a sticky one, but that is why horribly biased rhetorical articles, which take many bits and pieces out of context like this are unhelpful.

The author argues both that 'Her boss told the media: “If they don’t want to sign, they can leave … It’s not about what’s fair, it’s [about] what’s right - right for the company.”'

and 'And then there is another, unexpected target: the companies who refuse to play ball with the government, who wish instead to maintain constructive, co-operative relations with a unionised workforce. For many companies, this is the most sensible way to make a profit.'

If a 'constructive, co-operative' relationship with a unionised workforce is the most sensible way to make a profit, then those companies will outperform the companies that don't do this.

The author instead of wanting to test his statement, wants to enforce and control the market according to his own ideas on what a certain persons work is worth.

Unions are just like companies, both contain people who want power and money. The difference is...you pay unions, companies pay you.

The “BOOM” is uneven, as many people rightfully protest.

Economic growth is most difficult in rural isolated regions (such as) here in Cooktown and Cape York, where the greatest power rests with those;

a) who own and control the most resources…. and

b) who are able to reproduce this "BOOM" culture among a selected few, including;

c) from inside the government services.

Woman, and disadvantaged groups are highly vulnerable to workplace dysfunctionality, at all levels.

WORKERS, unemployed and under-employed, including, sole parents, indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities as well as people with disabilities, will not benefit in this IR framework.

This uneven shift in power will erode further entitlements and deeply endangers our nations future equity.

Most serious is the way people become blacklisted (locked outside-silo’s) in the unfair process. This underlines the disorder in the organization of allocating preferential treatment, through laws that promote an unbalance of power.

What will this mean to the prospects of future generations of Australia, as a whole?

.

Johnnycee, yes the workers often produce the wealth, but the business owners risk their capital in order for the business to exist in the first place. That's why they get the lions share of the reward. Sometime they make a big dollar, but they risk losing it all as well. This is particularly so in the case of small business, that can face losing their family home. So I am not opposed to the idea that the business owner takes more of the created wealth than the employee. However, I am not a fan of the workchoices legislation as I believe it undermines the financial stability of many employees.

But it is worth considering in the context of small businesses in regional areas - the ability to cut penalty rates for example might be the difference between having to cut the workforce and being able to keep everyone, albeit on lower pay. Regional areas are doing it very tough in general at the moment, with a lot of small businesses living very close to the edge. Some I know are borrowing further on their house equity so they have money to live on, and can continue to pay their workers.

Another point to take into consideration is that fact that MOST employers whether big or small know that a happy workforce is a productive workforce. If you cut the pay of the workforce or take away some of their entitlements, you will end up with an unhappy and unproductive workforce. Once you get a bad culture within a workforce it can take years to stamp it out. Most managers worth their salt know this, and will implement workchoices accordingly. However, there will always be horror stories, and these are the ones that will get the public and media attention.

The path towards laissez faire capitalism that Australia has undertaken, of which the Workchoices legislation is one part is the single greatest threat towards Australian society and culture as we know it. Forget terrorism or any other issue that periodically the government uses as a red herring.

Capitalism like that would only work if the workplace were an equal playing field. It is not. The purpose of a business, big or small, is to make a profit. Workers are necessary, but wages constitutes a big part of expenses, which cuts into profits. This causes a natural tension between the needs of the business and the needs of workers. The happy workers make for good business sounds lovely, but does that automatically mean a wage rise? I think not. It does not fulfill the needs of the business. Remember,the majority of workers are easily replaced.

Unions will become weaker and weaker as those that are just hanging in there cannot afford to risk losing their job by causing an upset with their employer. I see that happening already now. We'll have an obedient mass happy with any crumbs, all slaves to the Economy.

As we go more and more towards 'user pays' for all aspects, such as health and education, the gap between the haves and havenots will become larger and more difficult for each generation to overcome. For this reason alone it is vital that workers can be confident about their level of pay.

I fear greatly for my children and their future. I never wanted to live in the richest nation in the world (the USA) with a large part of the population disenfranchised and in poverty.

I will only vote Labor if I feel confident that Workchoices as is current is dismantled or drastically modified. Howard didn't get my vote 2 elections ago.

Sorry Country Gal, but you are wrong:

“Johnnycee, yes the workers often produce the wealth, but the business owners risk their capital in order for the business to exist in the first place.”

Workers always produce the wealth – and all of it. The only way value is “created” is by human beings working on natural resources i.e. labour, whether physical or mental. I challenge you to show how real, tangible wealth is created without human labour.

Capital is stored labour. I challenge you to think about where capital originated from – it will require a historical perspective. Capital just doesn’t grow on trees in the here and now.

Contrary to the myth perpetuated by capitalist ideology, money does not make money. Money simply enables its owner to employ the labour power of others - taking a share of the wealth created by that labour, and privately accumulate it creating more capital.

Capital is in reality the social wealth of all of humanity concentrated in the hands of a few. It belongs to all of humanity, but the reason it apparently “belongs” to the few is violence, threat of violence, and capitalist law and ideology. Take away the capitalist laws and property rights, take away their armies and police forces and jails, and the social wealth could be used to benefit all of humanity, not just the greedy few.

Nicely explained Tao. I wasn't as game to burst the romantic bubble of the 'selfless sacrificing for the greater good' by the business investor quite so harshly as you were.

Did you know that if all the world's capital was divided between all 6 billion plus human beings everyone would get $12million US dollars? Sounds like there is enough to go around for even the 'lazy dole bludging single mother' to have a reasonable standard of living and those with 'merit' over and above mere mortals to still get more than everybody else!

Thank you yvonne,

Yes, there is already plenty to go around. But imagine if we stopped spending precious energy and resources on waging war. Imagine the contribution that the billions of people all over the world, who get barely enough to live on every day, would make to our collective wealth if they didn’t have to spend their time and energies on scrounging a living.

As for working class people in “rich” countries, imagine if, instead of a few people creaming the excess production off the top as profit, the wealth that we collectively create was returned to the community and used to improve our lives.

We are so technologically advanced that everyone in the world could have a decent standard of living, food on the table, a roof over their heads, education for their children, medical care, clean water etc. It is completely ludicrous that the large majority of the world’s people live in abject poverty, and many of us are simply wage slaves living from pay to pay.

What is all this technology and “wealth” for if not to improve the lives of everyone? If anyone cares to look seriously, the world economic system is completely irrational and almost surreal.

Hegel, a German philosopher preceding Marx, once said something like – all that is real is rational, all that is rational is real – meaning I think, that once something in “reality” becomes irrational, and no longer necessary, it must be replaced with something more rational and “real”. This is a hard concept to grasp, and I don’t know if I do. Anyway… I believe we need to replace the current system with something more rational and real.

From each according to ability, to each according to need. Seems rational to me.

It is sad that a debate so important to workers is subject to extremist views never to be shared by those workers.
Communism is something that tells the workers what they want, if they want it or not.
Less than 2% of voters in this country ever vote for it.
Socialism , another thing suffers from the miss use of its name by communism.
Democratic Socialism at least is salable, and in the form of a hand up rather than a hand out could change the world.
I want to point out the nature of communism in my view, its supporters gather in small numbers, that is all they can muster, around any fight such as the anti workchoices one and pretend its a communist vs the rest fight.
It is not workchoices has declared war on low income workers ,and intends to spread to all who work.
The fight needs no weight in the saddle bags , communism is as big a threat to workers as workchoices.
And even less popular.
The fight to restore fairness at work is not a fight for extremism, after all fair go mate, is the Australian way of life far from extreme.

Tao, in many business machines are employed to aid production - yes workers are still needed but their direct contribution to wealth generation is lower. Also look at primary production, in many cases there are little employees - animals and ground provide the wealth generation. Most small businesses I know take less money to live off than their employees do (I am a small business public accountant), so your anti-business stance looks silly there.

Yvonne, I dont dispute your figures about spreading aroud the wealth. I find it reasonably plausible. One of the things that you dont take into account though is that not everyone is able to manage money - some could burn through that $12m in a few short years, rather than seeing it as a nest-egg that could last a life-time. There have been experiments done along these lines, eg what would happen if $100,000 was given to a homeless person. In this one, despite the fact that the person chosen waas not suffering from a mental illness (and could perhaps be expected not to manange money responsibily), the money lasted just 6 months. Simply giving everyone an equal share of the money pie is not going to even solve poverty, let alone long term social issues.

Yes, workers can SOMETIMES be easily replaced, but dont forget to do so means changeover costs, retraining costs etc. Often it is more profitable to give the existing workers a pay rise. Remember also that workers dont always want a payrise, some want flexibility, others want certain conditions improved, all of which costs money.

Dont forget that businesses ARENT always profitable. They do run at a loss at certain times. But even if the business is losing money, the workers dont have to take a pay cut (lay-offs will happen only under extreme conditions, as business knows it needs its workers in order to generate future income).

Yes, I dont think we should follow the path of the US, but neither should we follow the path of the USSR.

tao,
As Chris said we only get a choice of a right wing party dominated by the AWU faction, or an extreme right of small"l" or large"L".

PARTIES FURTHER TO THE LEFT HAVE BEGUN, ONLY TO COLLAPSE, so we are stuck with dumb and dumber, I'll stick with dumb, until a better option comes along. at least dumb have a left wing, and when it comes to it we are all capitalists, we working class want to sell our labour for the highest price we can get for it, that is where the AWU faction let's us down, here in Queensland they no longer call themselves the AWU faction because of all the corruption in the right wing, but a rose as a rose by any other name.

Perhaps you might get $12 million per person if all the money was divided equally, but the ultimate basis of wealth is the productive capacity of the Earth. The money is just paper. Take a look at the 2005 Footprints of Nations on the Redefining Progress site and the methods by which environmental footprints are determined. In brief, environmental footprint is a way of converting consumption and biocapacity to notional hectares of land.

In terms of the new footprints, the global average per person is 22 (54 acres) hectares. Panama consumes at about this level. Biocapacity per person is 16 hectares (38 acres) and is less than the global average because we are degrading our environmental capital for present consumption. This level of average consumption is about the same as that of Thailand (15.95 hectares) and Botswana (16.42). By comparison (in hectares), US: 108.95, Norway: 93.13, the UK 62.56, Australia: 79.05.

The bottom line is that there aren't enough resources to give everyone a decent standard of living, and there will be even less per person in the future, given population growth and environmental degradation. The problem is aggravated of course by unequal distribution.

SHONGA,

I haven't mentioned the AWU. Nor do I think that the ALP is dominated by the AWU. I believe in democracy and in individual responsibility. People get what they vote for. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to stand for election themselves.

The democratic world has well and truly defeat communism, and, like fascism, it isn't coming back. It's a pity it wasn't defeated in 1917, which would have saved the lives of perhaps 80 million human beings.

I use the terms right and left myself, but they are pretty vague really. I don't think where the members of the French National Assembly sat in the eighteenth century can be that useful in describing today's politics.

ChrisC contact me at swulrich@bigpond.net.au about education policy
and just be honest

thanks

stu

The following link is taken from Connor Hunter shows that Work Choices was designed to reduce the pay of workers. Scroll down or search for Connor Hunter or Freehills

http://www.rightsatwork.com.au:81/community/showthread.php?t=617&page=7&highlight=freehills

There is much talk about a shortage of seasonal workers and the following letter to the Sydney Morning Herald describes working conditions for blueberry picking.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/letters/berry-picking-conditions-just-not-good-enough/2007/03/09/1173166979230.html

Country Gal,

“in-many-business-machines-are-employed-to-aid-production---yes-workers-are-still-needed-but-their-direct-contribution-to-wealth-generation-is-lower”-

Who builds machinery? Where does the capital come from to buy machinery? Where do the resources come from to build machinery, and that machinery “works up”? How are products transported? etc, etc. If workers’ “direct-contribution-to-wealth-generation-is-lower”, how low is the direct contribution to wealth generation of someone who only provides “capital” and does no work? As an accountant, how high is your direct contribution to wealth generation - is counting beans the same as producing beans? I bet you make more money than most of your hard-working clients. A humble fruit-picker makes more “direct” contribution to tangible wealth than you with your fancy-schmancy accounting tricks.

“Also-look-at-primary-production,-in-many-cases-there-are-little-employees---animals-and-ground-provide-the-wealth-generation.”

Where do fertilisers, seed, etc. come from? Where does farm machinery come from? Where did the land come from? How does one person or family or corporation come to own it privately? Did humans just climb down from the trees, mark out private plots of land and buy a tractor from John Deere?

There is a historical process by which we have arrived at where we are i.e. relatively speaking a handful of people own the land, and the means of production of wealth, and the majority don’t and are forced to sell their labour. Private land ownership did not come about through the irresponsibility of poor people who couldn’t save their pennies, it came about through violent dispossession – I challenge you to show me where the majority of people willingly gave up their historical right to share in the products of land and/or work land to sustain themselves, preferring to give it to some rich capitalist to fence off.

cont...

You ought not be so quick to call others silly, Country Gal. After trying to demonstrate that workers have a lower “direct” contribution to wealth creation, you finish your comments with “business-knows-it-needs-its-workers-in-order-to-generate-future-income”. Your comment reveals the essential fact that profit can only come from surplus value created by labour of human beings. The private appropriation of this surplus value can only be justified by capitalist-ideology, capitalist property law, and ultimately the use of force.

As for your example of giving a homeless person (importantly of course without a mental problem – which must be the only reason people can’t save) $100,000, think on this: my partner and I between us earn about $100,000 per year. After we pay tax, rent, car expenses, bills, etc, we have a little for our entertainment/recreation, and not much more. What is so remarkable about a homeless person (by definition already having pretty much nothing), being given $100,000 and spending it in 6 months? What skills and/or resources would a homeless person have to ensure that they saved their little nest egg as you put it? The entire system works against ordinary people, historically and currently, yet you try to blame them because they don’t save, while you justify others taking a share of the wealth they have created. There are many more people in the world like my partner and I, and we are relatively well-off. Many many more people are on lower incomes than us. No doubt you believe savers like you are inherently intellectually and morally superior to non-savers who inherently deserve to be poor. It is absolute rubbish.

It is the system which creates poverty, not individuals. It is not a case of giving people equal money, what is required is bringing what is already social production (but privately owned) under the democratic control of workers i.e. the people who produce the wealth, and those workers deciding who gets what. Then, instead of viewing humans (i.e. workers) and their needs in terms of their cost to the bottom line of capitalists, human need would be viewed as the reason for production.

Read 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists' by Robert Tressel.

Tao, your theories have been tested to death and failed,
as history shows. Time and time again, workers never
controlled anything, politicians simply lived the good
life at their expense. Govts running anything has been
shown to be a dismal failure.

Much wealth has been created by the power of ideas.
Had Bill Gates lived under communism, the party
apparatus might have decided that he should be
a whatever. Thats the problem, individual creativity
is removed by socialism, with everyone being losers,
apart from a few politicians.

Fact is that today in Australia, workers own 1 trillion
$ worth of superannuation, which is worth as much as
the whole Australian stock exchange. In which socialist
country did workers ever have it so good or own as much
wealth, as they do right here?

Any system that limits the creativity of individuals
to follow their dreams, prove everyone wrong and
create wealth through their ideas, will impoverish
everyone.

Were it not for capitalism, despite its flaws, Tao
would not be on the net right now, using a cheap
computer to communicate with the rest of us.

The fact that capitalism lets individuals be creative,
follow their ideas and dreams and discover answers that
the rest of us had never dreamed of, is its greatest
strength. Thank capitalism for your lifestyle and
cheap access to technology Tao. Socialism could
not have done it, despite your flawed ideology.
Gorby understood all this, thats why he pulled the
plug on a failed experiment.

Tao, you're much more able than I to say what needs to be said.

What has amused me immensely is the patronising re my $12million for every human. My point was, which seemed to get lost on some as they choked on their cake, was that there is obviously ample 'wealth' to go around for all.

There's no need to keep anybody in poverty or barely hanging in there. Working people I mean, CountryGal, not only the ungrateful homeless wastrell. We are discussing how this legislation is going to affect working people. I'm not completely a bleeding heart, left wing, chardonay sipping , do gooder. I work and these work 'choices' affect me and my family.

Another thing I find depressing, rather than amusing, is that the only alternative many seem to be able to imagine is communism. That old bogeyman still creates utter panic.

The problem with workchoices is that it a tool for sectional interests to make more profit from employees who now have lessened power. In times when the economy is doing well its impact will not be as visible. During a recession the mean IR legislation will bite employees and there will be no going back to conditions enjoyed by employees prior to the recession. Already numerous employees have been burnt by this odious legislation; what will it be like at the next economic down turn for employees?

We are being catapulted back to the past as far as working conditions are concerned. Fair go is a concept of the past.

Thanks again yvonne,

Socialism, or communism, is really the only alternative to capitalism, but you need not panic or be depressed. You are mistaking Stalinism and Maoism for socialism and/or communism, and there is a big difference. What most people don’t understand, and our capitalist leaders like to keep it that way, is that Stalinist regimes are not what socialists envisage for the world, and Stalinism is not the inevitable result of socialism or Marxism. Stalinism was counterrevolutionary. It took me a lot of study to understand it myself, and I’ve also found that you need to be reading the right stuff. Someone who calls him/herself a Marxist or socialist, is not necessarily what they say they are.

One of the major tasks of a socialist is to tell workers how it really is, with no sugar coating. That is why I say what needs to be said. Unfortunately it can be a conversation stopper, or a thread stopper!

The truth is that capitalism is in serious decay/decline, which is why workers’ rights and conditions are being attacked all over the world, and why the greatest capitalist country on earth is engaged in illegal aggressive war. No amount of union militancy or anti-war protest will resolve things. It is unsustainable, and humanity has arrived at the precipice – its either socialism or barbarism.

It sounds bad, but I’m optimistic - humanity has the capacity to overcome the huge problems it faces, by first becoming conscious of their causes, and then acting consciously to solve them – and the international working class is the only social force with the power and the reason to do it – as Marx and Engels said - workers have nothing to lose but their chains and everything to gain.

Workers of the world unite!

Hehe, the workers of Australia have united enough, to virtually
own the 1 trillion$ invested in the Australian Stock Exchange!

We can learn alot from history and surprise, surprise, when
people are given a chance, they often act out of self interest.

If we look at the various socialist regimes, what we see is
State appointed bureaucrats, feathering their own little
nests bigtime, whilst providing a bit of regular spin to
keep the workers happy and as suckers of the so called dream.
Nothing changes!

Best we have the choice of paddling our own canoes. It means
that even Tao can go out, start a business of actually providing
consumers what they want and make a living. Consumers vote
every day with their wallets. Let them choose, let those who
aspire to take huge risks take them. The biggest threat we
have to our present standards, are in fact Govt bureaucrats,
pretending to actually care. History shows what happens to
that argument!

Yabby,

I believe in a previous thread I decided to end discussions with you, and the quality of your posts here have not given me any reason to reverse that decision.

What I will say however, is that the amusement you express at the concept of workers uniting is childish. What your comments about superannuation do not explain is the fact that, regardless of the trillion dollars you claim they own, the reality is that many many Australian workers are concerned about what is happening to them – they are losing conditions pay and job security, their costs of living are ever increasing, and it is getting progressively worse. There is something amiss with your story.

furious george

I have read it. It was very good. It is funny, but also infuriating, because it is so true. I reckon I’ve worked for those people in one form or another!

Shonga,

It is very revealing that you are prepared to accept dumb until something better comes along, but believe workers are their own worst enemies because they thought they’d give dumber a go. Now you believe they should just go back to dumb.

Of course, you're not prepared to go out and find something better than dumb, you'll just wait for it to come along. In the meantime you'll sit back in all your wisdom and pass judgement on what is or is not better than dumb.

How inspiring!

Tao, thanks for contradicting yourself and replying to my
post :) I remind you, that one of my heroes is Robert
Holmes a Court. Not for his ability to make money, but for
his ability to think outside the old square. When Robert
had pocketed yet another 100 million$ in the US, they reminded
him that he did not know the rules. He quietly responded that
"the VietCong did not know the rules either and look what
happened to them !" Tao, you make your rules, I will make
mine. If you post nonsense, I will point out why its nonsense.

No claim of mine about 1 trilion $ of superannuation. Its
well documented, check your facts.

Name me one socialist country, where bureacrats did not land
up feathering their own nests, at workers expense?

Yup many Aussie workers are concerned, as change is happening,
as the real world hits. The sheep which carried them in the
past collapsed from the weight. No more strikes now, because
the colour of the jelly is the wrong one. etc.

Past union thuggery will be restricted to more local industries
like building. The rest will have to learn to paddle their
own canoes in the world market, just like farmers or miners.

Yup, people don't like change, thats well known. But change
is the most certain thing in life. The days of Beasley's
job creation schemes are over, they failed miserably.

Realitly prevails, consumers dominate. If you want to earn
a living, do something to create something that people actually
want to buy. Plain old thuggery of power won't protect you
anymore, be that a business or a worker

WorkChoices are a throw back to the industrial revolution akin to working conditions of the developing world and have no place in the 21st century. Work Choices are anti Australian, a direct attack on Australian freedom and families.Work Choices are Australias September 11. As work choices serve only corrupt buisness and are unsustainable a pro-Australian government will certianly throw them out. If Labour is pro Australian it will extinct work choices legislation. This will be a test as to wether there is corruption within Labour ranks. But given the shocking crime that workchoices has inflicted upon the Australian people will Labour when it wins the next election see to it that those responsible for workchoices and those who have implemented them be brought to justice? Work Choices only serve corruption and are a smoking gun to corrupt buisness practice. Workchoices pose a test for Labour to wether its loyalties lie with the Australian people or to a system which protects corruption when the corrupt are well resourced.

I fear Rudd is too weak and so Howard is unlikely to have a gaol term longer than his term as Prime Minister, the only justice that will be bestowed upon Howard and his hench men will be his condemnation as the most anti Australian prime minister in history. Buisness leaders who have joined in the attack on Australia by adopting work choices will also most likely be left to run free and the Australians whos lives they have destroyed with such horrific conditions will never be compensated.

In truth we will be a society existing in distrust for one another and the seeds for conflict as we have had in industrial relations throughout our history have been resowed, refreshed threatening our own sustainability. Work choices has already become a cancer to our society.

Tao, I'll give you my example of generating income from the land. My family bought a small selection in 1898, with money that they had earned through working (gee funny that). Now the 4th generation is farming the land (although farming is a misnomer, as its grazing country). In the last 109 years, the land size has gone from 2,000 ac to 38,000 ac, through acquisitions as neighbouring farmers have left for the city or retired. There have been no long-term employees, only short-term labour at peak production times (eg shearing). These employees have always worked less and been paid more than the owners of the property. Currently two of the owners should be retiring, but cant afford the labour units to replace themselves. My uncle calculated a few years back that he worked for $4/hour. But accordingly to you he must be a rich fat-cat! No, he works from dawn to dusk 7 days a week, and takes annual holidays of about 3 weeks a year - mind you he doesnt go overseas, he goes and stays with his daughter in WA. Inputs to this property consist mainly of fencing materials and a few chemicals to keep the stock healthy. Even noxious weeds are chipped out rather than sprayed (it costs less to keep your kids busy in school holidays!!)

Tao, you seem to think that only those that have callused hands work hard. In my industry an 80 hour week is common and 50 hours are expected. We are the lowest paid uni graduates of any persuasion. Stress levels are high and there is plenty of lack of sleep as a result. Many of my clients earn more money that I do and quite commonly employees are paid better hourly rates than their employers, who in small business usually work alongside them.

CountryGal you are a sucker if you are working 80 hours a week! More so if you are amongst the lowest paid graduates in Australia!

I take it you work in IT and just as soon as your employer can your work will be offshored to India. Hopefully this will occur before your health is ruined.

There is no virtue in voluntarily working like a slave and if you feel coerced into those ridiculous hours then you need to negotiate better or join a union.

Your desire to be a martyr is no excuse for stopping other people getting representation so they get a fair days pay for a fair days work!

PS I wondered about your stock management skills when you said it was impossible to herd 3 sheep without restraint or hurting them. I, a city slicker, can do that easily even with domestic pet "assistance".

Aah Country Gal,

“Tao,-you-seem-to-think-that-only-those-that-have-callused-hands-work-hard.”

Not at all, I work in legal office and work hard and I don’t have calloused hands. My point is that people like you and me don’t actually make a “direct” contribution to wealth generation. i.e. we don’t produce anything of substance that can be used or consumed, or could be considered tangible wealth. That is not to say that we don’t do useful work, although lawyers and accountants pretty much only exist because of capitalist property law – a bit parasitic really.

The point is that the people who actually physically produce the things that humans need to sustain themselves produce enough for all of us, which then enables the “brain” workers to do the things that they do. There are many vocations in the world that don’t actually produce anything, but they make great contributions to human wealth and wellbeing generally – teachers, nurses, engineers, doctors, scientists, researchers etc. There are many people that society simply couldn’t function without – cleaners, garbage collectors etc, who don’t actually produce anything.

These things are all equally necessary, and contribute to the total wealth of humanity, but some get paid more than others. Some people, who do nothing but contribute “capital” get paid far more than any of them, and justify themselves getting paid for doing nothing because they “risk” capital, and pretend that workers have a lower “direct” contribution to generating wealth.

Your story about your farming family is not uncommon. My partner comes from the country – he is fifth generation. His father’s farm made enough to bring up 4 children, but eventually could only sustain his oldest brother and his 3 children. Now there is no way that it will provide enough for his oldest son and his family. It is no wonder the neighbouring families whose farms your family has acquired “left for the city”. It is a case of get big, or get out. Buy out your neighbour or be bought out. It’s not individual choice, but driven by economics.

cont...

Don’t you think there is something inherently wrong with someone working 7 days a week for next to nothing? Don’t you think there is something wrong with working 80 hours per week as an Accountant? It is not living, it is being driven into the ground. In reality, there is no choice involved, it is simply “necessary”. Yet it is completely unnecessary because with all of the resources and technology we have, we should all be working less not more. If people had more time they could be engaging in much more creative pursuits.

You seem to think that it is unjust that sometimes employees “are paid” more than the owners who work along-side them, as if they somehow don’t deserve it, and it is them and their employment-rights which are causing hardship for their employers. Small-business often perceives it this way, but it is upside-down. Everyone who works (and in fact every human) deserves a decent standard of living, and to be looked after in their retirement – because as a society we have the capacity to provide it. There is nothing wrong with workers wanting to be paid properly for the work they do, that is what small-business-people want for themselves as well. It is not the workers’ fault that a wage that enables them to live causes “hardship” to their small business employer, it is the economic-system. Small-businesses are wedged between workers and big-business and finance-capital – they are always feeling the pinch – but there is no valid reason why workers should lose out instead of their employers.

Of course, it will be argued that small businesses create-jobs, and workers should be prepared to take cuts to keep them. But that logic only works within the capitalist-framework – where workers are costs to the bottom-line, not real people. If you take as a starting point that every person deserves a decent standard-of-living, and that as a society we have the capacity to provide it, then if our economic-system doesn’t deliver that outcome, either for workers or small-business people, there must be something wrong with the system.

What countrygirl is saying is that she is devoted to greed and anybody devoted to greed has a divine right to recieve welfare from exploiting other people.

If a buisness person is working 80 hours a week obviously they are incompetent and should not be in buisness. It seems many small buisness people have all the time to complain about how hard it is to satisfy their greed but no time to get the job done properly.

Australia has far too many buisnesses and most should give up.An example we usually have to hire three or four plumbers or electricians before one will actually do the job properly. In house IT speciallists and yes accountants and lawyers are always far superior quality wise than small buisnesses. I had an excellent mechanic who had excellent staff. If his buisness was booked out he would not take on extra work. Always closed weekends, foolishly I went to a small mechanic who worked the weekend ,he massively over charged and did such a terrible job I had to get the work redone. Like wise never have a drive way paved , shed erected , house built out of hours or during the weekend, work is always shoddy.

Not to dump on countrygirl. Out house accountancy is the world of greed , an accountants job is to rip off tax payers on behalf of a client. With that world view of chasing charity for those who dont 'need' charity other than ripping of the public through corrupt buisness practice the individual employee can be ripped off for the client as well. An accountants role is not to be morally reflexive or to act patriotically. An accountants role is to get money for the client and take a cut.

West, please be careful - there is a countrygirl who posts on OLO, as compared to me, Country Gal. It has already caused some confusion. Accountants have an ethical obligation to act in the public interest as well as their clients interest - to be qualified as a public accountant there is significant study on this requirement. Many times I have refused to act for a client, or at the minimum to carry out their instructions - I can get jailed for fraud, just like anyone else.

Tao, you are right when you talk about being secondary workers (or even tertiary). In your earlier posts I saw you as more hardline than what I do now. I dont necessarily disagree with some of your points. I dont thing that it is unjust that sometimes workers are paid more than their small business employers. That's part of the risk of being a business owner.That's also why these business owners should be entitled to earn more from their risk in good times, than the workers. The workers arent subject to the same income fluctations as the employers.Its a general rule of risk vs return - the higher the risk, the higher the return. I do agree with you when it comes to corporations, mainly because there is no such thing as a corporate consiounce. Those that have a strong leader that is strapped to the business for the long term (usually those that have floated their own business) are a bit different, as their mentality is different - they have usually got where they have by hard work, and they respect and reward this in others.

I work hard because I come from a tradition of business-owners, who would have starved if they hadnt worked hard. Doesnt mean that you cant enjoy the spare time that you do have though.

Country Gal, A LOT OF US WORK HARD WITHOUT THRE REWWARD THAT FARMER 'RECEIEVE Doudghrt relief flood RELIEF PAYments, iT ALL SUBSUDISED BY THE ordinary....worker, If business is private enterprise let the farmer s survive or fall like the rest of us.

It is exactly as Tao stated. It is wrong that 'workers', whether with their hands, or brain, hopefully both(!) and small business owners, which includes farmers, are having to work harder and longer to earn a similar standard of living as enjoyed previously.

Tao as you said communism and socialism have become dirty words today, because of Stalinism and Maoism. Whether communism could actually work, I don't know. Communism, like laissez faire Capitalism is an utopian ideal. I'm not that optimistic about all of humankind.

In countries like the Netherlands, a 'democratic' socialism has prevailed for many decades. Though currently some government structures are being dismantled, which is causing quite a bit of discussion.

Socialism is actually what provides the higher standard of living for citizens in countries in Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Though from a world economics viewpoint they are often sneered at. Did you know that in the Netherlands now more people own (or are buying) their own home than currently in Australia?

In very simplistic terms, I've always seen it like this: human beings are in service to provide to a capitalistic economy, in a socialistic economy it is the other way round: the economy is in service to provide for human beings.

Country Gal,

I recognise that what I write does sound hard-line, particularly on these forums where you are limited and can’t make every point at once. In some ways it is good though, because it enables a dialectic dialogue – as long as others have the courage to come back for more!

The reason that I am “hard line” about things, as I was with you and your “direct” contribution to wealth production, is because most people believe without question that a certain thing is true merely because it is the ruling-ideology in which we are inculcated from birth. Capitalist-ideology propagates the belief that workers have a lower “direct” contribution to wealth-production than those who risk capital, and therefore deserve a lesser share of the rewards. Not only is it not true, it is an insult. But because the conception is propagated unquestioningly through all available institutions and mass-media etc, (some) people who say it don’t even realise they are incorrect and being insulting, and the people they are saying it about (sometimes) don’t even realise they are being insulted and lied to.

Not only is the conception not-true, and an insult, it is then used to perpetuate an economic-system where the producers of wealth, i.e. workers, do not benefit from all of the wealth that they produce, and essentially live in a state of constant insecurity.

Which leads me to your point about risk v return. Yes, small-business owners take a risk, but it is no higher a risk than workers. Workers might not be subject to income-fluctuations while they are working, but they are certainly subject to the vagaries of the economic-system. More than three months without a job, and most workers will be in dire financial straits, regardless of their previous income-level. People with “capital” can often ride out downturns. However, the final destination for anyone in the world who can’t earn an income is absolute poverty, starvation and ultimately death. You can’t be worse off than that, whether you start off with more or less. Those with less just take less time to get there.

The point though is that, in a technologically advanced society where everyone’s needs can be met abundantly, why should there be any risk at all to decent living-standards? Absent any world-wide catastrophe, we should all be able to live comfortably – e.g. a drought in Australia could be offset by excess production from other continents and vice versa.

With all that we have, and are capable of producing, why should anyone in the world face starvation? There is no rational reason that it happens today, except that some people believe they are entitled to a bigger share than others.

At the heart of it all is capitalist property-relations – the profit-system. Humans produce wealth socially i.e. many people combine to produce goods, or wealth. However, ownership of the means of production i.e. the tools, land, “capital” etc, is private – private property in the means of production. Although workers produce goods, they don’t own the product of their labour – the owners of the tools and the “capital’ own the goods produced by workers’ labour. The goods are then sold back to the workers who produced them for a higher price than they were paid to produce them – profit. Then, in a drive for better returns, capital moves all over the globe trying to find lower costs of production, casting previously “well-off” workers onto the scrap-heap, as we see happening in Australia today.

The results of this system are not just poverty and exploitation for workers, they are war and imperialism. Because capitalist markets must always expand – both their resource-base and markets, capitalist powers are always in competition for them, and it leads to wars e.g. WWI, WWII, and now the Middle East.

The only solution is to bring production under the democratic-control of workers – socialism. Workers will then decide, in a truly democratic way, what needs to be produced and done, and who gets what. Such things will be determined rationally on the basis of the need of all, not chaotically because of the greed of the few.

There is no merit in working for work sake. If a job requires too many hours then the cost of the job (or buisness) is higher than the returns. Many workers are losing money paying more for transport, childcare and housing than jobs return.Many workers are sacrificing their health , their families and their childrens future in order to subsidise a job. If an employer cant afford a worker then he should not employ one . If an employer needs a worker and cannot afford to provide proper conditions and wages and work life balance then that buisness costs more than its income and should close. Its not about socialism , communism and capitalism, share markets are a marxist construct , corporate rights are marxist , we live in a fusion of socialist and individualist principles, it is about human rights to live life and basic economic common sense. Like our energy consumption our economy is not sustainable. The current IR laws have been tested during the industrial revolution , they are tested in the under developed world and have failed miseably. The last Australia had such laws we suffered a series of depressions through the 19th and early 20th century. The health costs alone these ridiculous and corrupt laws will bring us to our economic knees as our population ages and the health of the following cohorts are destroyed. Social breakdown is already occuring because of current IR laws which too will burden Australia heavily. All at a time when Howards Climate change we had to have will soon wipe out two thirds of agriculture and is already plunging us into an energy defecit which will inflate goods and knock out the service and manufacturing sector.

Marx and Engels believed that capitalism is doomed to failure, because as people become more separated from the power of their labours, suffering increases. This lead to Marx's famous quote on religion:

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sign of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

Doesn't this give a neat explanation to the rise of both Christian and Islamic fundamentalism and its importance in current world affairs?

The protestant work ethic certainly views humans as machines which is consistant with the belief of creation and intelligent design which both view humans as manufactured robots.

What you people overlook of course, is that workers, with their
1 trillion$ of super fund investments, are the new capital
providers! Check any share registry of large corporations,
super funds mostly dominate.

So who is screwing the system for all its worth? Well for
a start, chief honcho workers or management, who are simply
on top of the worker pile and nearest the piggy bank, will
feather their nests as best as possible. Next super fund
chief honcho workers, will push for more and more profits
from other corporations, so that their figures look good,
so that they get a pay rise.

Human nature once again prevails, people act out of
self interest, even if its workers screwing other workers,
for their own benefit. Thats why Marx and Engels failed,
they overlooked human nature.

Back to the drawing board for you lot of dreamers :)

Yabby, you have a good point about human nature. It sums up what I wanted to say to West about work for works sake. Obviously there is a point beyond which you can work too hard, but I think this varies between people, and especially their family situations. But the human condition requires that we do a certain amount of work, if for no other reason, than to keep us out of mischief. We are a race that is ultimately destructive with too much time on our hands. Keep a bunch of people busy just trying to survive, and they wont have the time nor energy for fighting. Particularly for those of you that believe in evolution, humans originated as hunter gathers. By the nature of this activity, if you are not constantly busy, you will starve or die of exposure etc.

For those of you that think the worker gets nothing but a kick in the face, try going into business for yourself. My husband runs his own business, and has just about had enough. He is in the process of trying to find a job working for someone else, where he gets a set pay every week, gets 4 weeks holidays a year, gets paid if he is sick, that he doesnt have to worry abut when he gets home at night, or be up to 10pm making business calls, when he's due up at 4.30am to start work. He has had a go at both sides of the coin, and definately sees life as an employee as better.

CountryGal, your husband might well be on the right track, for you
have seen on here what happens when you work hard and try hard. Those
who know how to work the system to their advantage, will accuse
you of being a sucker!

At one stage I pioneeered a business, which created millions of
$ of new exports for Australia. We'd have around 30 people on
the books each year. Many wanted to work parttime to fit in with
their family commitments, that was fine by me.

In the end, some nazi like tactics by various state and federal
bureaucrats drove me to the point where I sold the lot, the moment
I had saved a few pennies. Now I do what I enjoy, if it pays so
much the better, but let others have some stress for a change.

You are right, I doubt if any of these people have ever been self
employed, they simply don't understand what is imvolved.

So time for you and hubby to enjoy life, perhaps he can work for
one of those large, worker owned companies, and demand his rights
as they do. Life is about enjoying the journey, not arriving at
the destination

I am not anti business but if a person goes into buisness it is there choice to do so and should not complain how hard it is. Their business is nobody elses responsibility but it going by the whinging and whining and moaning of many business people they seem to have a welfare mentality where they think everybody else including the state and workers should be responsible for them. A classic is a farmer here that complains his farm has been in his family for generation but he cant get anybody to work for him as they selfishly wont accept the wages and conditions he offers. He cannot understand that to keep the farm in his family is only his problem and nobody elses.

Country Gal obviously your family values money as the highest importance in life and to die rich you must devote your life to work. Good for you but you mu8st understand that you only impress yourself others put their families or their relationships as primary values. Others wish to enjoy life and so seeing appreciating life as more important than chasing the dollar. Others simply have other interests. Most importantly most have lost control of their lives as Howard has handed the contol of Australian lives to the raw virulent greedy who care nothing for Australians or the nation.

Yvonne,

Good to see you’re reading Marx and Engels! A lot of what they wrote is hard going to start with, but there are occasionally the most apt little pearls of insight. I found Engels is quite a bit more accessible than Marx – he was a bit the populariser i.e. putting things in simple terms.

Have you checked out the Marxists Internet Archive? The address to the Australian mirror site is http://marxists.anu.edu.au/. To start with stick with Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky – on the site their pictures lead to their archives.

If you want to read Marxist analysis on current events try this one: http://www.wsws.org They have an international party with a section in Australia. They are “Trotskyists”. Trotsky fought against Stalin in the Soviet Union, and was eventually killed by Stalinist assassins.

Country Gal,

Can you substantiate your assertions please?

“But-the-human-condition-requires-that-we-do-a-certain-amount-of-work,-if-for-no-other-reason,-than-to-keep-us-out-of-mischief.-We-are-a-race-that-is-ultimately-destructive-with-too-much-time-on-our-hands.-Keep-a-bunch-of-people-busy-just-trying-to-survive,-and-they-wont-have-the-time-nor-energy-for-fighting.”

Do you do work just to keep out of mischief? I don’t.

If you have time or energy on your hands do you spend it fighting? I don’t.

Are you destructive with too much time on your hands? I’m not.

Where do you get these ideas? On what objective basis do you make such judgements and generalisations about the whole of humanity and human nature?

Perhaps if the majority of wealth in the world wasn’t in the hands of the few, who use it to build bombs and drop them on people, humanity would be a whole lot less destructive.

I’d also suggest that if people didn’t have to scrounge and fight each other in order to get enough to survive humanity would be a lot less destructive. In fact, “a bunch of people” with a full belly and time on their hands, and no-one subjecting them to exploitation, could be a whole lot more creative and constructive.

"Perhaps if the majority of wealth in the world wasn’t in the hands of the few, who use it to build bombs and drop them on people, humanity would be a whole lot less destructive.

I’d also suggest that if people didn’t have to scrounge and fight each other in order to get enough to survive humanity would be a lot less destructive."

Tao, the above two comments show the contradiction of your argument.
Clearly those with power, want even more!

You are trying to see the world through your eyes, forgetting the
behaviour of others and how they think. Thats why Marx and Engels
won't work. Thats why chief honcho workers (CEOs etc) screw other
workers. Its not the shareholders, as I have shown, the majority
of them are workers too!

CountryGal, your philosophical ponderings have merit. Its just that
human behaviour is more complex, then Tao seems to think. Her limited
world view is not the only way that others see the world. She still
doesen't get it that lots of people act out of pure self interest and
many of them are in fact workers.

So Yabby what you are saying is that a nation should be indentured to the benifit of an extremely tiny minority because workers also have self interests and thus be punished for that and those who are greedy and corrupt should be rewarded. Please elaborate as to the reason why you think Australians should be punished by AWA's because they have self interests? Why do the self interests of the corrupt and greedy have precedence over the self interests of Australians?

West, IMHO the whole industrial relations system in Aus is pretty
backward, as its based on the old British system, of everbody trying
to screw everybody else, bugger the rest.

So greedy managers, union thuggery etc, will mean a loss all round,
especially to Australia as a whole. At the end of the day, companies
and workers need each other, best they all try to cooperate to achieve
mutually beneficial outcomes. A really smart employer realises that
good staff are his biggest asset. Now that workers own most of the
big companies through their super funds, they have the most to lose
if things go wrong. The really rich of this world, and there are not
many of them, will simply take their megadollars and go elsewhere,
they don't need Australia.

If we look at some comapanies around the world who have done really
well, they have achieved that without megasalaries for management and
without workers being screwed either. Everyone benefits, if they
realise what working together can achieve, not as we do in Aus,
eveyone trying to con the other guys.

Look at some of the Japanese and Korean companies etc, in industries
like cars, shipbuilding. They have come from nowhere and are thriving
globally. Everyone benefits.

I don't see the world as black and white, like you do. I see the shades of grey,
every situation is different. I think that some
AWAs are both good for management and workers. Some are clearly
rorts to cut costs. What I really think is needed is Australia is
a change of mindset, away from everyone trying to screw everyone
else based on muscle power and short term self interest, to a
system where everyone benefits by a bit of cooperation. There is
enough for all, to go around, if we use half a brain

Sounds a bit like socialism Yabby!

Nah Tao, in socialism the govt bureaucrats run things and screw
everybody! As nothing is done efficiently everybody loses.

Take a look at a country like Switzerland, its not exactly
socialist. No natural resources, yet they have had some
of the highest wages and standards of living on the planet.

They did it just through alot more intelligent thinking then
the Brits ever did. Sadly the Aussies also inherited some
bad things from Britain and industrial relations and treatment
of workers is one of them, thus the situation here.

Capital and labour can in fact work together for the benefit
of all, as has been shown.

One thing that would obviously go over Howards head is that he is trying to treat humans like domesticated animals. Unlike cattle workers have to work and not just stand there and get milked or have a bolt shot into their head. Even the most mundane tasks are cerebal. The most inefficient thing a manager can do is create an unhappy workforce as being human the workers will spend more time resisting processes and spend more time complaining. Even well behaved workforces in developing world workshops work slowly and with low quality. Like everything when it comes to workers, you get what you pay for. Except the trades which seem to have no relationship between fee and quality.

I think that you are blaming the wrong fellow there West. You
are correct, bad management is a huge issue and is also common.
Managers who lack people skills etc. Next thing noses are out
of joint, next thing there is industrial warfare. But thats not
a political problem. Its a bad management problem!

There is more to going to work then just money. If you
enjoy doing what you do, if there is a happy work environment,
if there is a purpose, if everyone can contribute to bring
about changes, these are all issues. Thats what good management
is all about.

AWAs are not the problem there. They can in fact be beneficial,
it just depends on the circumstances of each case. So its
not black and white, as you suggest. But yup, bad management,
lack of people skills etc, is a huge issue, I agree.

From The Age Monday March 27th 2007 http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/workplace-law-still-loathed-poll/2007/03/25/1174761282553.html

" a survey by Griffith University's David Peetz, commissioned by the Victorian Industrial Relations Department, found hourly pay rates for non-managers on Australian Workplace Agreements had fallen by 3.3 per cent. But Professor Peetz found the high pay of AWA workers in Western Australia's mining industry distorted this figure: in Victoria, employees on AWAs were paid 12 per cent less than those on collective agreements.

"The study found women on AWAs earned 19 per cent less than men, and the pay gap between men and women had widened after WorkChoices.

"That is, 70 per cent of the gains achieved over 10 years had been wiped off in nine months of WorkChoices," the professor wrote."

- - - - - - -

"Professor Peetz's study found job numbers were up by 2.6 per cent in the first 11 months of WorkChoices, which the Government attributed to employers being more willing to risk hiring workers because they were easier to sack.

"But he found jobs growth was lower than the 3.9 per cent growth after Labor introduced unfair dismissal laws in 1994."

Oh I am sure, that various spin will be published on this topic.
Numbers can be crunched to show all sorts of things. They will
of couse ignore the many variables, like droughts etc.

Fact is that long term Australia is best served by a flexible
and dynamic economy, where people are rewarded for effort and
Aussie companies can compete on the global scene.

For some people AWAs are perfect. For those less talented,
perhaps they need a union. Perhaps both should be allowed,
so that people can do whatever they think and companies can
choose who they hire.

The smartest companies will hire the smartest people, who are
usually those who can paddle their own canoe. It pays to pay
them extra, as they make largest profits for the company.

The thing is, Aus rode on the sheep's back until it collapsed,
now its riding on the mining boom. At some point all these little
rorts have to end and people have to understnd that their wages
are a cost to consumers, its them who are paying the bill, not
companies.

I've known people who obtained huge redundancy payouts, then
started work the following week with some other mob. Father
Christmas was very generous! To me thats thuggery.

No wonder most companies try to hire casual staff or use hire
labour companies. Rates per hour might be high, but its far
cheaper then signing your life away, if you decide to hire
permanent staff, under many union agreements.

There are employers who try to screw the system and there are
workers who try to screw the system. To claim that either is
perfect, is total folly.

John Howard has just told Fran Kelly on Radio NAtional that there have been less strikes in Australia in the last 12 moths than at any time since 1913.

Now lawyers often say that the "Workchoices" legislation takes the Australian industrial relations landscape back to the 1890s Master Servant Act, but clearly these figures show they are right.

Wasn't 1913 also the end of a way of life? Time to go JWH!

ACTU review Workchoices from http://www.actu.asn.au/

Of all AWA individual contracts surveyed in the report:
– 100% cut at least one so called ‘protected award condition’;
– 22% provided workers with no pay rise, some for up to 5 years;
– 51% cut Overtime Loadings;
– 63% cut Penalty Rates;
– 64% cut Annual Leave Loading;
– 46% cut Public Holidays payment;
– 52% cut Shift Work Loadings;
– 40% cut Rest Breaks;
– 46% cut incentive based Payments and Bonuses;
– 48% cut Monetary Allowances (for employment expenses; skills; disabilities);
– 36% cut Declared Public Holidays; and
– 44% cut Days to be substituted for Public Holidays.

Wage rises for all full time workers falling behind inflation
• Since the new IR laws were introduced increases in total earnings for full time workers have been falling behind the rising cost of living.
• Compared to the rate of inflation total average earnings for full time adult workers have dropped by -0.6% over the past 12 months since the new IR laws came into effect.
• For full time workers in the private sector average total earnings have dropped by -1.1%.
• The drop in average earnings for women workers in the private sector is - 1.8%.
• For more than a million workers on minimum wages, the increase granted to them by the Government’s new Pay Commission saw the real value of their weekly wages fall -0.9% behind the inflation rate.

Lower pay for workers on AWAs
• Even with the higher salaries paid to many workers on AWAs in the mining industry as a result of the resources boom, ABS statistics show workers on AWAs earn an average 90 cents an hour less than workers covered by collective agreements (non?managerial workers).

Many workers on AWAs working longer hours
• ABS data released in March 2007 shows that the average weekly hours worked has increased in the past year. Other recent ABS data also shows people in full time non-managerial jobs that are on AWA individual contracts work 2.3 hours a week more than people on registered collective agreements.

Keep wingeing

if Labor and the unions were so concerned they would have taken this nation out on strike before workchoices AWA's had become legislation.

You knew it was happening and did nothing.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Labor and the unions are just as responsible for this as the liberal government is.

But Labor and the unions are not to worried they are getting ready to perge NSW of public servants from the rail sector and Country link.

The end to rail passenger sevices to the Country.
Not well hidden from the workers but from the people, treat them like mushrooms.

www.tapp.org.au

"Country Gal obviously your family values money as the highest importance in life and to die rich you must devote your life to work.". West, when I originally read this, I got pretty angry with you. I've been away for a few days, and re-reading it, I just think you completely misunderstand the statements that I have made so far. I (and my family) value money, as its a requirement to live, particularly in this day and age, like it or not. But I also see that a dedication to my work, to do it properly and to the best of my ability is highly important, just as much if not more so that the money that I make out of it. I think I stated somewhere in an earlier post, that various members of my family reckoned that they worked for about $4/hour. So, obviously its not the money that motivates them! They have a strong family and community connection, with several family members receiving Citizen of the Year awards over time. They help neighbours and friends for no cost, nor any expectation of return. In fact, if the whole country were like them, we would have very few economic, social or infrastructure problems!

Yabby, you are right as usual! :) If everyone looked at the big picture, life would be so much easier. I guess perhaps I have been lucky in that most of my life I have worked for organisations that see the link in increased productivity from decent pay, flexibility and good conditions. I have never been employed under an award, even during my time as a secretary, so having to bargain my wage and conditions is nothing new. I have actually had an increase in conditions because of workchoices - I get more mandated sick leave now than I used to!

Thanks GountryGal :)

I can just imagine some entrepreneur looking at Billie's list
of lurks and perks, no mention of flexibility and innovation,
then heading off to build his factory elsewhere. Next Billie
will complain that there are not enough jobs in Melbourne.
With work attitudes like that in Melbourne, I would steer
well away from the place!

The thing is, alot of these old unionistas are bit bit like
born again, bible thumping Christians. They are the true
believers, unable to accept that the world is changing.
But we see it in the numbers. Nobody is running to the
church pews, numbers are at all time low. Nobody is running
to the unions either, numbers there are at an all time low
too.

Union leaders are making lots of noise of course, like
church leaders, their role has become less and less
significant.

Billie, I remind you that Australians overall are wealthier
then ever before. Talking of 1913 is a bit ridiculous.
Go and ask Harvey Norman about the sale of hi tech toys,
plasma screens etc, to see how the population is doing.

Fact is that the economy has changed and the world has changed.
Today we have more and more contractors etc. Where companies
used to employ people, they now contract out the work to
small bizz.

I think what will happen in future is that more and more will
simply have all the lurks and perks converted to $ per hour.
People might work for 2-3 different companies, as they are
required and depending how much they want to work.
Some want to work 20 hours, others want to work 60 hours.
We need a system which copes with all those options, not
heavy handed regulation from the top, telling people how
they should live.

People standing around on high salaries, picking their noses,
because of some award, is a waste to companies, a waste of
time and a loss to Australia. Our global economy is changing
things, but some will learn the hard way.

What this country does not need is one extreme or the other. It wont survive by punishing workers and destroying the fabric of society with current IR laws and it wouldnt survive if it returned to the union power of the 1950's and 1960's. One thing that is not on any agenda is balance. Australians were wealthier 5 years ago than they are now , it has more to do with the constraints on chinese resource purchasing that is a whole other topic. Yabby is right there has been a growth with out sourcing but I can see from experience that has probably peaked or about to peak as it has led to a number of things. Out sourcing is extremely expensive an inefficient and has led to a major decline in the quality of services in Australia. This is especially the case for many public services such as road building and welfare distribution. Many automobile associations around the country have also fallen victim to outsourcing and lower service quality. One of the major effects of the shift to out sourcing is it has created a skills shortage, not only in Australia but in many parts of the world. On the whole small business does not support the education for replacement of skills. For those with newly aquired skills there is limited entry level opportunities, the higher the skill the more experience is valued and many industries suffer a skimming of skills as many skilled workers give up and move to easier industries. There is also a growth in lower skilled small businesses such as owner operator transport or lawn mowing, dog washing or small shops ect but in such popular easy entry industries there is a saturation in the market which will lead to economic collapse for many businesses. Eventually most industries will be monopolised to a great degree by large companies wiping out small providers and replacing them with smaller number of contract indentured small businesses which is a small business in name only but operatively it is an employee.

The worst thing is the conflict industrial relations create.The truth is it makes no difference as long as the employer and union are responsible parties. It is not a case of them or us. A buisness with employees is a symbiosis, if it isnt, if it is unbalanced it is inefficient. The problem with the IR laws Howard has emposed onto Australians is they are not balanced, they seek to disempower Australians. The consequences of such vandalism to human rights will be as it is already becoming disaterous.

The unemployment rate is widely quoted as 4% but "Employed" this includes those working for 1 hour per week. People who are studying or work for the dole programs are not counted.

I have reproduced published findings through this forum not ill informed opinions.

"The ABS actually does have a measure that calculates underutilisation. It is called the 'Extended Labour Force Underutilisation Rate'. This measure takes into account underemployment, marginal attachment to the labour force and hidden unemployment (those who have given up the job search and now rely on family or savings for an income). However, the measure is only available after searching the ABS website and rarely gets an airing in public, if at all. The Extended Labour Force Underutilisation Rate shows that the true unemployment rate is probably 15 to 18% at any given time." Michael J. at March 28, 2007 12:35 PM
http://blogs.theage.com.au/yoursay/archives/2007/03/work.html#comments

The same blog has many posts by Tristan detailing the inaccuracy of the counting of vacancies and correcting Joe Hockey's claim to 90% of jobs created in the last 12 months were part time jobs.

Billie and West, thanks for bringing some balance into this discussion.
The biggest threat to Australia is this forcing into two camps. Them and us.

Figures can be skewed to reach any conclusion. Anybody who has ever
done statistics knows this. As Billie said. The unemployment figures
are terribly skewed. I work in Public Health. You may think that there
is this terrible shortage of staff, but many are finding it very, very
difficult to get full-time work. Most are employed part-time or casual.

If you are casually employed you are no longer classified as unemployed,
but you try and get a loan for a house on that. The banks know that
your income is unreliable.

The biggest employer, the private retail industry, employs the
majority of staff as casuals or part-time workers.

In the figures I would like to see how many are actually working
full-time and earning a reasonable and reliable income so you
are confident that you can pay the rent every week. Lets not even
talk of the grocery bill.

The number of plasma TV's sold is not an indication of the financial
security of a Nation's citizens.

Australia is no longer a country where the majority are buying or own
their own house. That statistic now belongs to 'socialist' countries
like the Netherlands. Something in the order of more than 60% of
home mortgages are for 'investment' or 2nd homes. And the rents
keep sky-rocketing.

Am I the only one who found budgeting for the essentials and still
had money for a holiday easier 18 years ago, though my wage has gone
up? I didn't even have a credit card then. Our credit cards has saved
us on many an occasion. I don't even want to confess what we own on
ours. Was it just that I was better at balancing a budget when young
and silly?

The balance argument is a good one. Actually its nice to see that most people agree on this, even though some would tip more towards either end of the scale!

I suspect that the trend towards outsourcing will probably come to an end once business does the figures on the cost-effectiveness vs efficiency. It seems to take big business a while to figure these things out... not the brightest of sparks sometimes.

As far as individual contracting goes, that's currently illegal. There have been a whole heap of court cases in the last few years that confirm that if someone looks like an employee, smells like and employee and acts like an employee, then they are an employee, with full employee entitlements such as leave and superannuation. Doesnt make what you call the arrangement or even if they have an ABN. There are a series of tests that can be applied to determine the situation. Off the top of my head I cant think of one of the case names, but the IT industry and bicycle couriers in particular have been targeted.

Consider in the case of casual employees too, that it is currently law that if casuals actually end up having regular shifts and working similar hours per week, then even if you CALL them casuals, they are under law permanent (perhaps part-time permanent), and as such are entitled to all of the leave entitlements of a permanent employee. Many employees dont know this however, to their detriment.

Something else that comes to mind considering the move towards outsourcing to small business. Many small businesses are run as trusts, partnerships or sole traders, who have employees. Currently in all States except Vic, anyone employed under one of the above structures is OUTSIDE federal jurisdiction, and still employed under State awards, instead of Workchoices. This is something else that needs to be borne in mind when looking at the stats being bandied around.

I think whats being overlooked in this discussion, is how the world
has changed in the last 20 years or so. Things are far more uncertain,
also for business. Lets say, a business tenders for a large contract
and wins it. So they need extra staff to cope. When that contract
ends, they might not have work for all those people anymore. If they
had given them all permanent jobs, it would be nearly impossible to
get rid of them again, work or no work.

So me thinks that casual labour and outsourcing will keep growing.
Short term in some cases it might be more expensive, but if you
look at the big picutre, its the more flexible option and today's
reality.

It can also be a win-win all round. A friend of mine is a spray
painter, a very good one at that. In the old world order, he would
have been stuck on some union award, for some large company.
Now he strips and paints industrial machines, provides his own
gear so that its good and looked after. Companies are thrilled with
his work, so he's got far more offers of work then he could ever do,
he's also making far more then he could dream of, under the old
system. I asked him about employing people. He says its tough,
some don't want to be there, some are on drugs, etc. etc. Its the
same old story it seems.

Yvonne, I agree houses are too expensive. Blame State Labour Govts
for not releasing enough land. Their chardonay set policy writers
don't want urban sprawl. Thats the crux of the problem. There
was an interesting debate on ABC on Monday night about exactly that.

At the end of the day, houses are cheap to build and farmland is
cheap. The rest is a State Govt problem