The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The gap between work and choices > Comments

The gap between work and choices : Comments

By David Peetz, published 12/3/2007

WorkChoices is not about increasing productivity or prosperity; rather, it is about increasing the power of those who already have the most power.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All
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.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Monday, 12 March 2007 10:39:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 12:54:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 9:14:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?

.
Posted by miacat, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 11:59:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Country Gal, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 12:26:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by yvonne, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 6:58:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy