Julia, What a load of nonsense.
What is fair about a union movement that demands that people DON’T have the right to vote anonymously? What is fair about a union movement that demands workers ONLY engage in collective bargaining?
For years most major infrastructure projects in this country were plagued by industrial action often brought with no rhyme or reason. Workers who put up their hand to work and increase productivity without union approval were branded scum and physically attacked. The wharves dispute in 1996 was a perfect example- what was wrong with asking unions to increase productivity when the efforts of their members were lagging behind workers on every other continent, despite superior equipment and conditions?
Today unions are nothing more than relics. The union bosses are in it for themselves and don’t give a dam about the workers or the wider community. As long as they get their share of exposure at a mine collapse or company bankruptcy meeting they are happy.

The basic flaw in the Labor thinking is that people are incapable of making their own decisions and need the "advice/assistance" of unions.

I accept that some people would like asistance in their negotiations and as long as they are entitled to seek that assistance, beit a lawyer, a friend, a union officer, that is fine. It is their choise.

But for those who do consider themselves capable, why are they to be dictated to by anyone else?

WD

wre, that's the kind of empty hysterical rhetoric I've come to expect from both extreme ends of this debate.
Nicely demonstrated - by the same logic, lets take the transgressions of multinationals and chalk it all up to the evils of business in general - y'know, just to even things out somewhat.

Sure, unions have abused their power. So have businesses. Let's take a step back to the real world for a minute here and not pretend either are saints or devils, and both employers and employees are quite capable of abusing whatever rights are given to them.

Gillard talks about balance. As much as I hate to agree with such a simplistic sound bite, she's right. Whether her reforms will do that, I'm not as confident. That being said, the changes she's proposing do not roll back the bulk of the Howard government reforms, if anything, they're rather cautious. We all knew business would react negatively to anything that may impinge upon certain elements of workchoices.

Now... the crucial thing here is to ensure unions aren't allowed to monopolise membership - that is, employees have the right to opt out of a union without fear of reprisals. I haven't seen anything to indicate Labor's policies would have it otherwise.

Secondly, I get sick of everybody assuming that whatever the unions say is focused on self interest, yet when business raises an eyebrow they aren't questioned. Both are in this for their own interests okay? Now union interests aren't always synonymous with the interests of their members, but by and large they are - the solution here is to ensure unions do represent their members, to to get rid of unions as as much as I hate to admit it, they have a role - you can't simply hand all the rights to the employers.

Enough hysterical rhetoric please. Neither side of this debate is without self interest.

TurnRightThenLeft
Firstly, the only party to this debate that is ‘hysterical’ is the union movement. The scare tactics they have employed, particularly in the ALP advertisement campaigns are nothing short of a disgrace. Furthermore, if you’ve ever been privy to a union vote, you’ll realise just how good union leaders are at working a group into a ‘hysterical’ state where pack mentality is used to intimidate anyone who uses his/her own mind to make their own decisions. Since ‘hysterical’ is the catch word though, Greg Combet’s little performance was interesting this morning- talk about losing one’s grip (on power/ reality that is).
The difference between business and unions, is that business is answerable to a share holder, a regulator and ultimately the bottom line. The better the bottom line gets, the better it is for employees. There is no better example of this than the mining and resources industry right now. It is no coincidence that that industry is leading the charge against Gillard either. I doubt you could find me a miner who is happy for his salary to be held to ransom by union industrial action that he has no say in as an individual.

It is amazing how many accuse Mr Howard of being a fifties man and yet we now have Ms Gillard trying her best to appease her mates by turning the clock back a long way. Only a small percentage of people want anything to do with the unions. The new railway line from Perth to Mandurah is a constant reminder of how much unions inconvenience people and cost the taxpayer. Labour should have plenty of targets for such a long serving Government. With the majority of Australians never having it better they should wake up to the fact that they are on a loser on this issue. The bottom line is that when it comes to fairness both employer and employee have never had it better. Of course in any system you will find employers and employees abusing the system.

wre - some valid points there, but when you said that business is answerable to shareholders and the bottom line, you're ignoring the fact that the interests of both these stakeholders run contrary to those of employees - so we're left with the regulators, and that is essentially government - that is this debate.

At present there's not all that much problem with workchoices, especially in the mining industry - with such demand for jobs there's going to be reasonable deals offered to employees. Providing the mining boom holds (and I can't see the resource demand falling significantly any time soon with China and India being the way they are) then we're okay - but one day there probably won't be the same demand for jobs - it's then that we'll have renewed respect for enforcing employee rights.

Sure, unions have often shamelessly acted in their own interests to the detriment of the economy - so has business. My question to you is, without some kind of adversarial presence to business such as the unions, how are you going to have any kind of surety regarding workers rights? Or aren't workers rights even a valid concern in Australia any more?
That makes things tough for the unskilled. Very tough.

What is it you propose to ensure employers don't abuse their employees?

TurnRightThenLeft,

I think the key point not spelt out by Julia Gillard (indeed, it has been glossed over) is that while there is a nod to rights to join or not join a union, there will be clear and strong inducements for employees to join unions.

Conditions will be included in collective agreements known as "bargaining fees", imposed by the majority of employees on the minority. They work by requiring employees who are not union members to pay a fee to the union (either directly or through the employer) which is usually in excess of the cost of union membership, supposedly in return for bargaining services in negotiating the terms of the collective agreement. Employees sensibly enough join the union at a lower cost, rather than be forced to pay the higher fee.

Restrictions on (and doubts about) the ability to have such clauses have in the past stopped the widespread inclusion of such conditions under all previous legislation allowing for collective agreements (under both Labour and Coallition governments). Julia Gillard advertises expressley that such restrictions on the content of agreements are to be removed.

Result? 100% union membership, willing or otherwise. I take no position whether this is a good or bad thing, but it is intellectually dishonest not to recognise it is the true position flowing from what has been foreshadowed.

Regards, Zetetist.

Even if Labor were in power the unions would struggle for members. Many unions had lost most of their members well before John Howard arrived on the scene. Unions lost members because they did not represent members and instead wasted precious resources on such issue as abortion, political affairs in other countries, endless in-fighting etc etc.

Howard and business need unions much more than workers need unions. After all, unions have been convenient whipping boys for decades.

Zetetist.

I assume you a referring to the Liberal Party's "Labor conference watch" website when you make this assertion regarding bargaining fees.

What Gillard said was "Under Labor’s system, bargaining participants will be free to reach agreement on whatever matters suit them".

Is this the "advertises expressley that such restrictions on the content of agreements are to be removed" you mention?

A bargaining fee is a charge made for the negotiation of a workplace agreement. They are not dissimilar to fees charged by professionals such as solicitors. In the federal jurisdiction, a workplace agreement may take a variety of forms. In the course of negotiating such an agreement, an employer may be charged a fee by a bargaining agent, as may an employee or a group of employees.

Don't believe the spin, employers are paying bargaining fees right now. But they are paying them to their industry bodies or rather industry unions.

The ABS produced a statistic that says union membership is falling. They used the same sort of survey methods that are used to determine the unemployment rate.

The ACTU says that union membership is rising, presumably by counting the number of union members.

I think that if you enjoy the benefits that a union has negotiated for your workplace like, 30 minute meal break after 5 hours work, standard 8 hour work day, 4 weeks annual leave entitlement then the union should be able to get recompense for the work their negotiator has done on your behalf. The wages most people get have been negotiated by unions saying that this job needs this amount of training, and thus should be paid $22 per hour etc.

If you don't want to be a union member then expect to work for 10 hours a day without a meal break, without annual leave entitlement, and if the employer can only afford to pay you $5 per hour, well then that's your wage.

100 years ago if a worker was injured or died at work, well that was his fault for being inattentive. Unions have made those work sites safer, reduced the injury and death toll and ensured compensation is paid to injured workers. Pilbara iron mining companies used to be notorious for trying to steamroller the grieving family into signing compensation contracts hours after the accident before they had a real understanding of their loss and the costs of living as a severely disabled person. Remember that miners are fit young people whose only asset is their strong body and keeness to work. As they work in dangerous occupations banks traditionally wouldn't give them loans so they rent housing or pay cash for a house.

WD the problem isn’t so much that people are incapable of making their own decisions, it’s that they may not always have the clout to do so. Individually, workers are replaceable, and are less likely to be listened to or respected in their individual negotiations. This isn’t as much of a problem for high skilled workers who have bargaining power, but becomes a major problem for those in other industries. Like another poster referred to, we have a standard 8 hour work day because collectively people demanded it, not because individuals attempted to individually negotiate for it.

Australia’s economy is booming at the moment, but any two bit economist will tell you that for every boom there must be a bust. When that bust comes will workers still face a fairly regulated environment that looks after basic rights? Or will it become a situation where they are forced to agree to work unreasonably long hours, without guaranteed annual leave, overtime, penalty rates etc, just to make them a more attractive candidate for a highly sought after position?

When that bust comes I’m sure unions will regain their relevance. But we will have to fight all over again to regain rights that were secured years ago, and which should be maintained.

Julia

I've only three questions: I'd have more but they all revolve around the needs and expectations of families who earn combined less than $45,000pa or $800 each week.

How many Unions represent employees earning less than $30,000 a year?

How many Union Oficials earn $30,000 or less each year?

Do you agree with Kevin Rudd that some families are only battling with earnings of $250,000 each year?

Straight answers without the usual political waffle will suffice.

The Howard Government is barren of new ideas. Sorry had to.

As for this silly line that Unions shouldn't be listened to because they haven't got the membership like they use to.
Should church leaders be ignored because less people go to church?
How many Australians are actually members of the liberal party?

One of the biggest problems in work choices is. People can be paid more or less the someone else while doing the same job. Now we would like to think that was based on performance be this is reality. A single mum of four will not have the same bargaining power as a single man with no kids. So who will push more during barging time.

So vote work choices out vote fairness in, vote Labour

I think there's a lot of merit in the diverse positions in the IR debate.

From the point of view of the active and the industrious, unions are a hindrance and a pain, while from the point of view of the ordinary (i.e. passive) worker, unions are good value because they can do things that the majority of workers would never be capable of doing as individuals. So it's hardly surprising that, in a diverse economy, there are a range of a priori views and opinions as well as a posteriori effects when policies are finally decided upon and enacted.

The way for the economy to move forward with fairness is for the most extreme proponents in the debate to either voluntarily compromise with each other or plane the sharp edges off each other by continuing the way they are. One or the other will eventually happen and, when it does, overall we'll be better off. As Thomas Friedman might say, we'll be getting to a "flat-earth" state in the sense that the playing field will be flattened. There's no doubt this is slowly happeneing and the opportunities for everyone will be so much better as a result.

Julia's Pinkish fairy floss. Unions became unpopular when all their efforts were turned towards keeping themselves in their nice jobs.
Give me a list of real working men or women on the Labor's front bench,which one or two of them ever passed an apprenticeship for a real trade?
Apart from pop idols or screen stars, lawyers, union bosses, where are the workers?
Many of the Australian states suffering under Labor would dread the thought of a Federal Labor to add to the woes.

keith

I think you will find it was The Courier Mail that said people on $250,000 were battlers. Not Kevin Rudd.

Just like tear up AWAS and mass sackings, the Liberal Party and News Limited do not let the facts get in the way of a good headline.

What Rudd said was the he has been told that even some families on $200,000 a year faced challenges and would not spend money on water tanks, solar panels ect. That is why his loan scheme includes families earning up to $250,000.

ABC 612 Radio had the decency to acknowledge they were wrong in response to my complaint.

keith will you too accept you were wrong.

Julia, your bleeding humanitarian heart for the downtrodden is "speared" with the 'fairness' of the already fully employed and with the UNFAIRNESS of the partly employed and unemployed. As employers under your re-regulatory industrial laws digged out from their 1970's grave, will hardly have an incentive to employ those who have no jobs.

See an article on your Leader in Nemesis-http://www.con.observationdeck.org

ruawake,

Thanks for the comment - I was not aware there was a "Labor Conference Watch" website. I was not referring to anything that appears on it. I note, however, that a number of senior union officials have expressley asserted that bargaining fees will be available as content (possibly relying on the Gillard comment you quote) and Julia Gillard has declined to correct them on this (although she has corrected other matters).

I appreciate that a bargaining fee is said to be a charge made for the negotiation of a workplace agreement. However, its application, each and every time it has come to the attention of the relevant tribunals in the past, is its propensity for use as a tool to increase union membership. If it were genuinely a fee-for-service, it would either be charged to non-union members at a rate far lower than union membership fees (reflecting that negotiations are only a part of the services union members recieve from their unions), or charged to all employees regardless of union memebrship status. Neither is the case.

The present situation is different. No employee or employer can be forced to pay a bargaining fee to a "bargaining agent" whom they have not individually decided to appoint to act on their behalf. As for employers, if they believe they are not being served by their employer-association, they simply resign, and cannot be required to pay it any "bargaining fee".

In Julia Gillard's world, employees who make a positive decision *not* to be represented by a union in negotiations would nevertheless be required to pay a bargaining fee (or, of course, save money by joining the union instead). That may well be regarded as an OK thing, but don't pretend it will lead to the exercise of a genuine choice whether to join or not join a union.

Regards, Zetetist.

The productivity thing is interesting but I'm not sure I understand it. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

Are we talking about the basic output per worker or the output/cost ratio?

Say for example somebody makes toasters for a living. I can't see how Workchoices can contribute to an increase in the number of toasters they make per day if they're working to capacity.

But what if they're expected to make the same number of toasters at less cost to the employer under Workchoices? The only way that can be achieved is to reduce the pay and/or working conditions (I'm thinking maybe the cost of safety equipment here) of the worker.

The manufacturing example probably isn't the best one to use in Australia. Say hairdressing instead. How do you increase the number of haircuts without asking the barber to fix more heads at the same, or less, cost to their employer?

If Workchoices is fair to workers, how can it increase productivity without raising costs to business?

I'm thinking this stuff about productivity is just hype - that we should be talking profits instead. But I'd appreciate someone explaining the productivity thing to me before I make up my mind on it.

Please? Anyone?

Hey Chainsmoker,

I think what it means is this;

Say you and I both make toasters / cut hair. If we both work on an award then we both get the same benefits for doing the same job. However lets say you are much better / more motivated / more skilled at making toasters. You should be able to negotiate a better deal with the employer than I should. In theory the employer can give a better deal to the more productive employees, and using awards ties their hands to do this.

Making it easier to fire people means the employer can reduce his workforce to only the most productive employees he needs.

However, being more productive is often very difficult without just working longer hours or taking less pay home. In the making of toasters for example, I would imagine that the process to do this is very set, and very hard for an individual to be more productive. In the case of cutting hair this is probably less so, as you could always try harder to cut hair quicker or what ever. Even in a small Salon I would assume that some of the employees would be obviously better than others. Why shouldn't they be able to negotiate a better deal?

cheers,

gw

Julia Gillard

Please explain how the majority rule is applied.

And how is this fair to those who do not wish to have collective bargening.

Labor dictatorship telling us the simple,common folk how to act, and what to do.

Labor IR speach/statement/policy whatever it is called as does not state is unfair, and using bully tacticks to increase membership.

Balance no not here.

Julia i am quite happy to have a TV debate with you.

Stuart Ulrich
Leader of The Australian Peoples Party

www.tapp.org.au

ruawake

I'll admit I'm wrong when the CM print a retraction of the story they are still running at:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21642380-952,00.html

Until then well...you know.

Well said keith

Myself on a military pension and no, not vet affairs thanks to labor with them scr@wing the defence i get about 25 grand before tax so battlers.

So since kevin is calling these people at 200 grand battlers seems labor will have to increase all wages to meet his criteria.

Also Mr Rudd i will debate you as well, we will see if you have the nerve to stand up to the real battlers.
You and Julia Gillard have been chalanged.

The arrogance of labor it is up to the people to fix this.

www.tapp.org.au
swulrich@bigpond.net.au

Julia THANK YOU for all your courage and very HARD WORK.

I am EXTREMELY PROUD OF YOU!

You are leading for me, and many who find themselves being made "invisable" and "bullied" under the current economic regrime.

Please know as I listen to your speeches and rebuttals, the struggle is impacting on me at a personal level. I hear the heart in your voice, I feel the tension and "WHAT IS AT STAKE" here in our NATION, AUSTRALIA today.

We are ALL working for Our Land and Our Future. I just wish we could do this together.

Like yourself, I want a innovative and vigorous business economy, as well as a inclusive humane Australian society.

I want the "HAVE A GO" mate to MEAN something for every Australian.

If only business corporations would SHARE THE BURDEN, and take responsiblity for a country that gave them the opportunity to earn what they have now got.

I admire small business operators as they hire more than 60% of all Australians. I admire those that empower and value their workers the most.

For me, as a person, you Julia, symbolise a FAIR GO Australia.

A true Australia, an Australia building a nation, Australia a world leader, that leads a diverse nation of intelligent citizens who all need expression.

Bye the way... I see Advocates as the key word.

Australia spends so much money on Lawyers because we do not understand the meaning of advocacy.

We shoot the messenger, then we shoot ourselves - heart and soul.

Unions are no more than Advocates. Like those lawyers assigned to advocate a defense for a consumers voice, scrutinising - with critical inspection, the loop holes in a particular policy of law.

Frankly I think we ought to change their name from Unions to the (?) Right to Work(?) Inspectors/lawyers. We need to give them a new brand name - as their image is locked in an historical controversy, which won Australia it's "Aussie" values and freedoms. Which opened the gate to those locked out of the system during previous decades.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

Something missing in Julia's approach is recognition of the danger that collective bargaining can reduce the incentive of an individual to produce. Productivity of work is a key issue. I know, because I have seen it again and again over a long career involving several jobs, that some people actually produce double what other individuals produce. Collective bargaining may be important in forcing capital and employers to allocate more wealth to the employees, but it also has the damning effect of reducing the absolute amount of wealth to be shared around,because why should the capable do more than anyone else. We need systems that harness individual effort and responsibility. We also need systems that protect those who are less capable. But we need systems that motivate everyone to their best. I don't see much wrestling with these issues in the flurry of slogans that everyone in politics seems to hurl around. Get down to fundamentals Julia and I shall listen more intently.

Julia,the choices are these.You either increase tarrifs to protect our industries from wages that are a fraction of ours,or we become more competitive.There are no level playing fields.We cannot have it both ways.

I don't think your party has the maturity,depth of talent,experience or intellect to Govern this country.Labor has to distance itself from the unions to have any credibility and start recruiting some talent.

Perhaps you could give Bob Hawke a quadruple by pass and an iron lung,he would be light years ahead of anything you have now!

A quote in today's West Australian from Julia:

"Australian women don't need Bill Heffernan or anybody
else to give them advice about how to live their lives"

Funny then, that she thinks Australian workers can't do
the same! Why not let them choose?

Labour is stuck in bed with the unions, thats the real
problem here. Rudd is a smart cookie, but the baggage
he carries with him, will drag him down in the end,
be that in or out of Govt. All very sad but true.

Why not let them choose indeed, Yabby?

As it stands now, choice is something that those in the lower part of the labour market are not greatly endowed with. Their choice often consists of signing an inferior AWA or not having a job. Some choice.

Howard said " I believe that it is for the employer to determine the nature of the employment relationship". And with workchoices, he made it so. Let's be clear. Any real choice is the privilage of the employers and of those who are (currently) in high demand.

"As it stands now, choice is something that those in the lower part of the labour market are not greatly endowed with."

Ok fine, so have those who need help, to have the ability to use
the services of a union. But those who clearly don't want or need
it, should have that choice. If Julia thinks that Aussie women are
able to make choices about their own lives, why is that not good
enough for Australian workers who choose to do so?

1. Companies belong to their own unions, in order to collectively bargain and lobby the government for favours.

2. CEOs are paid handsomely to attend their union meetings.

3. CEOs have the time, because they don't have to produce anything of utilitarian value - perish the thought!

4. When executives manage to short-change their workforce, they are paid bonuses - money for nothing.

5. Some workers are so brainwashed and afraid, they agree with this arrangement.

6. Maybe they secretly doubt the value of their labour - well, they ought to know.

7. Maybe they want to be executives themselves one day -

- when they grow up.

Chainsmoker,

When in comes to productivity in making toasters it means producing the same number of toasters for less cost (with less staff) or more toasters for the same cost (same staff - more output).

As for providing more employment, simply hiring more staff to produce more toasters doesn't work in a market that demands a certain number of toasters, otherwise everybody would be in work.

These are the basic aims of the IR argument. It's simply about getting more work out of fewer people, eliminating union influence and dressing the argument up with buzzwords and hype - not about creating more jobs and being fair.

Soon it will become apparent that many companies are either putting their own customers out of work or reducing their disposable income and sales (profits) will begin to fall and yet further jobs will go.

Then things will get REALLY interesting and, as in decades past, the union movement may see a strong resurgence.

I think BULLYING in the workplace has a lot to do with the one-sided competitveness and pressures people are under in the workplace.

I also think it has a lot to do with family breakdowns, Youth issues and Mental Health statistics generally.

With Howard and Costello the economic equation is too one-sided.

Overtime, penalty rates, redundancy deals, are put at a base-line-struggle and the clarity of working for minimal benefits and public holidays is jeapodised.... regardless of Howards persuasive rhetoric.

WHY?

Collective "Bargining" is the wrong message and culture.

It reduces a workers choice unless they are good at the politicking involved.

This is because business groups are often intimidating - people are appeased by conditions that might otherwise empower a "collective security", a culture which underlines meaningful Aussie values - FAIR GO AUSTRALIA!

I know Labor's is NOT about union rights.

Unions have a lot to answer for as do silo's everywhere, where they exist.

I KNOW Labor argues to protect ALL Australian families, allowing them and encouraging them to make flexible life choices in life-quality and generatated prosperity.

I am indignant about the properganda delivered by the Howard-Abbortt-Costello-Heffernan team.

I am furious of their vicious and defamatory statements about anything that deserves human sanctuary for citizens as-a-sacred moral-value.

I am tired of their lies, their abusive, primitive, arrogance, of any power that needs to manipulate the truth and then insults those of us who try to listen... learn... these people do not deserve governance.

I feel inauspicious action causes many of us -conscious civil distress, and that thus fact alone is doing Australia a lot of harm on all social fronts.

I am not one who normally enters party politics. I work for the well-being of humankind. I realise I can't hope to protect the planet unless I do.

I guess you would need to have had your real family killed or lost in war to understand WHY money cant rule the world.

I say this because it is the thing that sensitises me the most, it has taught me the true value of human life.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

julia wrote "should have both and deserve both. That's moving Forward with Fairness."

I have a concern. Remember the 'mark latham purge'... good man, good intentions, showed us the real person (not only the image of a person that most politicians do to public) but one major failure, he did not have the street smart skill to effectively get through the reality of the world and opposing forces with its obstructions, criticisms, soul destroying actions, media, sabotages from within and without... to get to the place where good deeds can be transformed to effective action for the people together with the people...

It is a game of chess... it takes a lot more than good intentions from good person to do good deeds, as much the same rules apply for the opposite ie unbalanced self serving interest modus operandi of 'succeed-what it takes is irrelevant'...and one just needs to look around to see whats been more successful, the unbalanced destructive or balanced constructive to date...and this takes greater significance when we realize whats there to share among us is essentially fixed and limited.

From what I have seen, julia engages the real person in public, something rudd does not appear to do...however she does unsettle the current establishment evidenced by the 'lathamology' sequence of attack by media of taking sentences out of context and making a controversial issue on which others/politicians take up the attack to the next level...plus other factors-probably 'sisterhood' has approached her to be their supporter in exchange for use of power and protection it can give...

Bottom line 'moving forward with fairness' is the only sustainable way for future stability...does julia have her core strong and settled, and necessary skills to deal with the myriad of challenges from all sides that will come(eg heffernan) to see it through while linking to 'good people' in the process of finding a better balance...

Sam

Thanks gw and wobbles.

So the product/cost ratio version is the right answer.

At that rate, according to the figures Julia gives, Workchoices hasn't worked productivity-wise. We're either producing less or costing more. Now that it's easier for employers to get rid of people who produce less, the productivity problem can't be at the employee end of the equation.

If they don't have to pay leave loading or overtime then the cost part must be located somewhere else.

I imagine that these calculations are based on national averages. Maybe if corporations reined in the expense of executive salaries and CEO payouts the ratio would improve.

TurnLeftThenRight

I do acknowledge that there must be independent support for workers and safeguards put in place.
The first thing I was going to suggest, is that workers in certain industries, with certain skills and below a certain salary threshold should be serviced by framework that protects their salaries and compensates them for the loss of overtime etc-it would appear that John Howard has beaten me to the punch though.
Secondly, there is no doubt that arbitration/ mediation processes should be put in place- anything would be an improvement on the union hijacked, cumbersome processes that have existed in the recent past.

It is also very interesting that several posters have raised the issue of productivity. The reason this whole debate has become so emotional, is because the unions have deliberately disseminated the idea that workers will be forced to work more for less money and with less rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is obviously far better for a part time worker to be part time than not working at all. Even if times are good at the moment, all Work Choices tries to implement, is a system that allows employers to employee as many as possible without fearing their own demise when the good times end.

Finally, unions cannot take sole credit for negotiating post Industrial Revolution conditions for workers. Nor is there any sense at all in stating that without unions these rights are in jeopardy. These basic rights are protected by decades and in some cases centuries of common law. Work choices doesn’t (nor can it) change the basics of that law.

What is important is that people walk away from negotiations feeling as though they have achieved the best outcome for themselves, that their needs have been respected and their sense of justice has been satisfied. Having said this, tricking people into feeling good whilst at the same time ripping them off financially, is a common strategy which often ends in bitterness and tears. Some people are too vulnerable to advocate on their own behalf. Some people lack the skills to identify deception. Some people are too trusting and some people are unreasonably distrustful. Some people identify with the wealthy, even if they are in an extremely disadvantaged financial situation, some people identify with the poor, even if they are living in above average standards. Collective bargaining is helpful when the employer is unreasonable, as is often the case. Having said this however, the collective has a responsibility to be receptive to differences and make themselves aware of prejudices amongst their own.

wre - I see your points there but my overall perception's a little different.

As far as government regulation goes, I'm not all that confident in its effectiveness - whether it's on a broad level of comparing government intervention to free market economics, it just seems to be that you're never going to get the balance of employer/employee relations just right through legislation, especially considering the changing nature of the economy.

So basically I'm saying that if it's always up to the government to intervene and regulate, it's often going to fail.

Our legal system (hopelessly flawed, but a decent premise) relies on adversarial concepts - something I tend to think it's a more effective model than a regulator. Problem is, you tend to end up with one side of the debate wielding too much power (in the legal system I tend to think that's represented by defence counsel, but that's another matter).
I think if you want a balanced workplace you need to removing the ugly parts of unionism while retaining strong union rights. It's up to the unions to prove they can assist members, even if it means they adopt a less formal role... I'm sure there are ways for unions to become relevant again, but unlike business they've become mired in older models that are no longer as relevant - that isn't to say some form of employee co-operative couldn't offer valuable advice and protection to its members... perhaps using industry based co-operatives to place more emphasis on job placement, thus assisting businesses in desperate need of workers... I dunno, I'm sure there are ways, they just need some original thinking.

vivy makes a good point insofar as the less educated are likely to be incapable of negotiation - somehow I don't have faith in either government to offer a platform in which the rights of these people are considered with due reflection, considering their relative unimportance to the businesses with a need for cheap labour.

TurnRightTurnLeft I agree with you that neither party is likely to

" to offer a platform in which the rights of these people are considered with due reflection, considering their relative unimportance to the businesses with a need for cheap labour."

But there are many businesses out there operating because AWAs guarantee a pool of cheap labour.

On ABC radio 774 this morning the owner of a retail business that is open 18 hours a day said he could not survive if he had to pay penalty rates. He thought his workers who are also university students were grateful for the opportunity to work unsocial hours.

Miners in WA love AWAs but retail and hospitality workers in eastern Australia grudgingly put up with AWAs that have reduced their weekly pay packets by $100 or more. An open cut miner's wages are insignificant in comparison to the cost of the equipment they operate.

Life isnt fair.

That's why people go into politics and talk about it.

Balance is the key.

I think Sam, Chainsmoker, Wre, Keith,TRTL and Billie discuss really good points.

To catch a word, I think "productivity" has a real meaning if we consider it as a Social Capital equation as well as a Economic one.

It seems there are the folk that have a stable job, those that have a stable part-time job and those who are stressing because they cant for whatever reason (socio-economic barriers and lack of community infrastructure) secure a sense of stablity, through having a identifable job, really.

Their demise is felt in response to a lack of consistency, regularity policies, where populations are "invisible" and remain unsupported, having no fixed or regular course. In short, it is a population caught up in a modernised form of "social drift".

As Tofler, Marx and Adams had said, there will come a time when humans may become less and less required in the work force directly. These are changing times,

"Rethinking work". I am suggesting that by not considering this as a concept, we will fail through policy to address the growing problem which will appear through aging populations in the next two decades.

At community levels, productivity is highly important if we are to consider the true meaning of "enterprise", and include a meaning that includes the productivity of "Social Capital".

For me the political-cultural and social arguements ought to be rethinking the overlap between auditing wage paradigms and those others which also produce economic "productivity", and are highly valuable to nation building.

I think communities are shrinking in social capital because economist and (as keith points out above) Unions as well as governments only see productivity as financial wages, profit and loss terms. Wages as a cost rather than human labour as an asset.

The people who are experiencing the most difficulty are not defended in the so called "work" policies and this fact alone is putting a strain on building capacity at local levels.

This is to say, things that need to be done are not getting done because wage determines the work and anything else doesn't count.

Labor has to start recruiting people from the commercial world.Union dinosaurs with no brains, experience or any sense of survival will always bring them asunder.

The public are getting too savvy with expansion of the internet that is gives more insights than the usual biased political agendas pushed by major interest groups on.

With all it's $ millions Labor in the last 10 yrs has failed dismally in attracting any talent that has a grasp of economics or the new directions our society must move to adapt to our dynamic world.

Even with environmental change ,we still have to maintain a strong economy or we will not have the wealth to find new ways to counteract negative change.

We needed strong opposition years ago to give the Coalition some competition and it didn't happen,now Labor thinks that it is time for their turn purely because the opposition have had a longer turn.

Well sorry,your true colours are showing and you're not capable of doing the job.

Arjay

How many people on The Government front bench have formal qualifications in economics?

How many on the Labor side?

A hint the answer for The Government is zero.

I will tell you now

Stuart Ulrich from The Australian Peoples Party will be sending out a press release in the next 2 weeks.

This could well end those who are in and have been in politics, Deregulation of political parties.
This will also end to corruption,deciet,fraud of the federal system.

Its big

Its about research and the right information from those who have had enough from those who do not listen.

It is time for the truth can you all handle that or would you prefer your own pathetic lies.

I have seen the whole truth and has given me a greater responsibility for it to be completely known.

Stuart Ulrich
The Leader of The Australian Peoples Party

It seems to me that alot of people just won't accept that the world
has changed. One minute they complain that there arn't enough jobs,
next minute they complain that all the lurks and perks arn't being
paid. Hey, if you have all the answers, go out and create employment
and see how you go. You will have consumers to answer to!

Thirty years ago Australia still rode on the sheep's back, the
Melbourne club had their pseudo manufacturing monopolies. If
unions wanted more, it was simply passed on to the consumer.

Well the sheep collapsed in the end. The big winners have been
consumers. No more huge tarrifs to protect those cushy little
monopolies either. All of you benefit, from that increased
competition. Cheaper clothes, cheaper electronics, cheaper power
tools, etc. etc. Compare life with 30 years ago, its hugely
different.

The drawback is, that life is now more uncertain for many.
Not just employees but companies too. A few still have pseudo
monopolies, so still can provide cushy little deals. They are
in a position to screw the taxpayer, who has little choice,
or for logistical reasons they don't face overseas competition.

But a huge amount don't, they have to compete or close down.
Thats the reality. Companies are not guaranteed work or orders,
they live week to week, doing their best. Either they measure
up or they close. To expect these kinds of companies to go
and provide some heaven of certainty for their staff, is kidding
oneself. Even BHP could not predict 5-7 years ago, the outcome
of the China resources boom. Gottliebsen was one of the few who
did. Even he could have been wrong.

For those who want certainty, go and work for the Govt, they have
the power to tax, thats one certainty. For the rest, learn to
live with a changing world, its the new reality. See the new
opportunities being created by change, rather then being bogged
down by the past. The sheep that kept you going for so long is dead.

Strong economy should not be at cost of fairness :

Ah Julia What a wonderful Title.
I couldnt agree with you more.

So could you please explain why the WA Small business Minister has blocked up from opening abattoirs?
Abattoirs to create employment that would help to supply jobs for peopple who are suffering from the biggest dry Australia has ever had?
Wouldnt it be fair to say your unions dont want me bring in staff to train locals because they might not pay union fees?
Why just the meat Trade Julia? couldnt be to protect the cruel live export industry could it?
Come to think of it would you even know?

You made a mistake when you showed you school girl bully face to the mines industry. They wont forget that.

These are people of their own making. What gives 'you' the right to tell them that you know more about employing 'their staff' than they do.
Thats pretty arrogant.

Look I am all for people joining anything they wish- But to force people?
The AMIEU are Quiet. Any idea why? I heard through the grape vine they have been told to "back off" Live Animal Exports.
Any comments Julia?

See I dont think economy should be at the coat of fairness-

I am more than capable of obtaining staff and training staff and providing traing for more staff. These staff will learn skills such as value adding. Of course there are many other jobs involved in the abattoir business julia as you should know.
You have plumbers and electrians, mechanics and cleaners.
Packaging boxes cardboard plastic tapes boneing and wrapping.
stores. IT jobs and transport jobs.
Activity in country towns encourages tourism.

No Yabby the sheep are not dead they are stuffed on cruel death ships and sent off along with our jobs.
One big reason for this in the first place was unreasonable demands from unions!

I look forward to your Reply julia.

Julia I copied this from the offical Organ of LABOUR NET.

WOKERS ONLINE Written by the Head of Your! Labour Union AMIEU of thirty five years!

Sheeps Of Shame

Four thousand Aussie jobs have been exported by the live export industry as New Zealand moves towards a moratorium on the trade following the embarrassing saga of thousands of Australian sheep cast adrift in the Persian Gulf.

For thirty years Australian meatworkers have been picketing ships and wharves in an effort to protect their livelihoods from the live sheep export trade.

Two recent abattoir closures in NSW have been directly attributed to the trade.

"Live sheep exports have had their day," says Australian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU) Federal secretary Tom Hannan. "There's no sensible reason for them to continue."

"They're exporting Aussie jobs," says Hannan. "This is only going to benefit a few greedy Ship owners. The torment, cruelty and inhuman practices are just not worth it. They're giving Australia a bad name."

Hannan told Workers Online that Australia possessed fully trained abattoir staff accredited by the Islamic Council of Australia that fulfilled the Halal requirements of the Middle Eastern market.

4000 abattoir jobs have disappeared through live sheep exports. The trade has had a big impact on the meat industry, especially in the top end where only two abattoirs remain open north of the tropic of Capricorn.

In a bizarre twist media reports have suggested that Canberra is set to give the sheep adrift in the Persian Gulf to Iraq under a secret deal worth $10 million.

The foreign flagged Cormo Express is yet to unload its cargo of 53 000 Australian sheep.

The RSPCA vowed to stop the trade of live animals and animal rights protesters barricaded a Portland feedlot stalling the loading of 28,000 sheep bound for Kuwait.

Govt Abandons Mudgee Meatworker

Wendy, methinks that the economic argument about the proverbial
sheep, in contrast to the one that you are fretting about, went
clean over your head, but I shall try to explain it to you.

Its well known that Australia rode on the sheep's back. In other
words, the wealth created from rural exports has played a huge
role in creating the kinds of standards of living and wealth, that
we Australians benefit from today. Wool and sheep played a dominant
role in all that, thats where the expresssion comes from.

When the Nationals created high tarrif walls, to encourage local
industry, somebody had to pay. Farming was riding high in those
times and could afford to pay high taxes and tarrifs on inputs.
On that basis, high cost manufacturing was established in Aus,
including lots of cushy union deals in the process. That was
not a problem, costs were simply passed on to consumers, which
included farmers.

Times have changed. Today farming is relatively speaking on the
bones of its arse. There are few industries with lower returns.
Many farmers have become peasants, earning far less then
mollycoddled union members. So farming cannot afford
high input costs anymore, to subsidise manufacturing, like used
to be the case. So the proverbial sheep has effectively collapsed.

Regarding the 4 legged ones that you are fussing about. I remind
you that its documented, that conditions on live sheep ships today,
are better then most feedlots in
Australia. You can rant and rave all you want about some tv documentary
of the past, I am talking about the present, here and
now.

Given that the Australian meat processing industry has neither
the labour, nor the capacity, nor the $ to pay farmers a reasonable
price for their livestock, it only stands to reason that some should
be exported live, in better conditions then most feedlots. Farming
has to be a business, farmers have families to feed too. You can
rant and rave until the cows come home Wendy, but reality will not
change, just because you close your eyes and wish it would

Consumers are workers and workers are consumers. It is in everyone's best interest to ensure that employers pay fair wages. Fair wages to everyone in and out of Australia.

That is basic and obvious economics.

Julia
you can fool some of the people some of the time,but not all the people all the time.
I could equally address that comment to your political opponents of the Coalition.
Flexible fair workplaces?

You see..the problem is, I've done some research into the 'union machine' and in particular the CFMEU. I know how they have blackmailed construction companies and have pushed the boundaries of supposedly fair pay to the point where a laborer can be paid astronomical amounts whereas a trained technician can command a mediocre salary much lower.

Oh.. lets not kid ourselves, the only "laborers" who get the exhorbitant pay rates are:

a) Those in the Union.
b) Those who also work on major projects which are targeted by Unions.

Then there is Greg Combe. Where was Combe during the well deserved crushing of the maritime unions power? with their 'hereditary jobs' and mind boggling work practices and pay scales, all based on blackmail and thuggery.. where was he ? AT THE FOREFRONT of defending these injust, corrupt and thuggish practices.

Now.. what is your party doing? why in the good spirit of the Indonesian Defense forces which PROMOTED those in charge of the masaccres in Timor as 'national hero's almost.. Combe is being fast tracked into Federal Parliment as a reward for sticking up for thugs, criminals and gangs.

Well...thats my opinion on the matter.

OH.. by the way.. we have seen the 2 faces of Combe.. the 'serious concerned look' and then the 'laughing wink wink' look which the camera's caught when he was off guard. When he realized the camera's were on.. he suddenly morphed back into 'serious concerned' mode.
What a joke.

Combe=Latham the sequel.

FLEXIBLE and FAIR is to allow EITHER AWA's or Collective Bargaining.
I've tried in the past to get more pay for good workers.. CB was the barrier!

'How many people on The Government front bench have formal qualifications in economics?

How many on the Labor side?

A hint the answer for The Government is zero.'

Incorrect.

Many would answer thankfully zero.

BOAZ_David you are so right, the only workers on very good pay belong to militant unions with strong bargaining power.

Do you think its fair the workers in less powerful bargaining positions should have their pay and conditions undermined because they are unable to use collective bargaining?
Do you think its fair for shop assistants, nurses, teachers, hospitality workers, engineers to have their pay chopped to subsistence level?
Do you think the nurse who is worried about whether she will get enough shifts this week to pay her rent is going to be able to look after you as solicitously as your condition requires?
Do you expect the agency nurse in intensive care to be fully familiar with the equipment and hospitals' operating procedures? Your dreaming!
Do you expect your Virgin Blue pilot who has flown more than 900 hours is relaxed enough to make the right decision in all situations or is he prepared to risk safety for the save-fuel-bonus like the Garuda pilot in Yogjakarta a month ago?
Do you think the state government has done any public transport planning since they outsourced public transport to Connex in 1992? Obviously they didn't keep any transport planners or engineers and have only paid for specialist reports when they can see the need.

Many low paid workers are now expected to set up companies before they can get work, so the burden of sickness benefit, workers compensation and public liability has been shifted to the contract cleaners, promotions people themselves.

There are 10 million people in the workforce
3 million self employed or contractors, most of these having no choice
1.79 million union members
400,000 AWAs
22,000 mining union AWAs

You have grown up in an era of fair go and you have chosen to downsize and live on the edge but that doesn't mean our young people should be forced to work under such appalling conditions and in fact the brightest will continue to emmigrate in search of better working conditions.

An erosion of working conditions will lead to an decline in customer service and decrease in safety.

Hi Billie.....just a quick one mate..

I don't think the conditions of most of the groups you mentioned have been "undermined" as much as they are now simply relatively lower than those for the militant unions.

I'm sure some unscrupulous employers have taken advantage of the opportunity as far as it goes to re-shape their workforce on poorer conditions, but these days, with many job opportunities, I don't know why people would come back to such a situation.

I honestly don't think there is any simple or across the board solution to the problem of 'sufficient disposable income' because as soon as we get a pay rise we also experience an 'expectations' rise.

Then, we have the dynamics of the world economy, and the increasingly powerful mega corporations, I think I take comfort more and more from being part of a history stream which is not part of that 'system' so much. Being part of Christs Body is a truly wonderful experience, and it negates the bitterness which might otherwise arise.

Paul learnt to be content in abundance and lack, I've tried to do the same. I'm nearing the 7th year in my period of 'lack' :) but work is picking up, and things are happening. My greatest satisfaction is that during my period of lack, I've quietly trusted the Lord to provide and indeed He has. "Great is thy faithfulness, Oh God our Father" as the hymn goes.

The idea of fairness and flexibility? hmmm no matter what they come up with, one parties 'fairness' is anothers 'stifling of economic growth' etc.. its a no win mate.

When we re-discover the communal and mutually supportive nature of the Christ centred community, we will all be much better off.

BOAZ_David

When we re-discover the communal and mutually supportive nature of the community, we will all be much better off.

Not greed, dog eat dog, and I'm all right Jack. I think its called a fair society. Christ is optional for many, but his teachings may show the way. Money changers rule in our society unfortunately.

I was the second to post on this forum and so far only a couple of respondents have addressed the point I made and that was to support the argument.

The common theme of many posters is that they are "sure" that there are unscrupulous employers reducing the pay and conditions of the young - or similar etc etc. But they have never once given an example of a personal experience.

Which is in line with the union argument. If you carefully note their arguments, it is always about what is possible and what might happen rather than what has happened.

Likewise, the whole Labor pitch about families being inconvenienced and Workchoices being unfriendly to families has never given any examples.

In my next post I will give a positive example of the benefits of WorkChoices from my personal experience.

The following is the example I referred to in my last post.

An organisation with about 150 employees, of which I am a director, had been through the enterprise bargaining process in early 2006 with Union involvement as had been the norm in the past.

Unlike previous EBA’s it was an unhappy time for all concerned with Union involvement more oriented to the politics of the process than the outcome for employees.

Eventually agreement was reached with the employees and the agreement was registered in the Federal system and employees got their promised pay increases under the agreement at an earlier date than what was appearing likely if the union had continued their stand.

Following the EBA process, and with the introduction of WorkChoices, the Board made the following decisions to apply from 1 June 2006:

1 All new employees to be employed on AWAs on the same remuneration as in the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement but with the ability to negotiate an outcome that suited both parties.

2 Existing staff may negotiate an AWA, on the same basis as new employees, but the initial approach has to be made by the employee. In other words there was to be no coercion.

As of today over one third of the employees are on AWA’s. 13% of employees are new employees. There has been no resistance by prospective employees to entering an AWA.

Existing staff who have elected to go onto an AWA have negotiated away some of the conditions of the EBA in return for conditions which they have decided better suits their lifestyle and personal and family requirements than the EBA conditions.

Negotiated outcomes have included:

Work less hours overall;
Working longer hours per day on fewer days per fortnight.
working on particular days or more correctly having particular days off work (for family purposes);
working more than 5 days straight in return for the equivalent time off but on bunched days (that is an Easter length break every fortnight)

This is a positive experience and an example of how WorkChoices can benefit both the enterprise and the employee.

wd, I outlined my experiences of AWAs on post http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=591#11268

On post http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5806#79394
I referred to articles in The Age about 3 teenage girls experience at Mrs FIelds cookies.

Spotlight, Darrell Lea, Coles, Woolworths, Cowra Abattoirs, Priceline have been named and shamed for taking advantage of the legislation to reduce the take home pay of employees. Epworth Hospital is one of the many private hospitals that rely extensively on contract staff, over 40% of people working in the Victorian Education Department are on contract and they are not paid in school holidays. On any given day 10% of the classroom teachers supervising your child are casual teachers hired 1 hour before class begins. You can bet your bottom dollar they are just child minding.

All the so-called contractors working for large organisations are considered employees according to the Tax Office definition of employer-employee relationship.

The reason we have "low unemployment" is because we have redefined "employed" to be "one hour of work paid or unpaid in the survey period" and because many of the jobs that have been created are part time jobs. For your information I am technically employed.

I honestly don't believe Howard's promise to make sure workers earning less than $75,000 are no worse off under AWAs than an award because in its first 12 months of operation a third of AWAs lodged are illegal and almost all break one of the 5 minimum conditions.

"you are so right, the only workers on very good pay belong to militant unions with strong bargaining power."

On that basis billie, the workers with the biggest thugs
representing them, get the most pay. Hardly a fair system
now, is it. At the end of the day, somebody has to pay
for that thuggishness, usually its the little people.

I just had a look in yesterday's West Australian. 60 pages
of employment offered, plus another 10 pages of professional
appointments. Plus exactly 6 ads of people offering to work.

Plenty of full time positions in there too, including for
nurses, for between 43-70k$. So there are clearly plenty
of options for people, if they don't like one employer, they
can go elsewhere.

Yes, contracting has become more common and for good reasons.
If companies can't dismiss useless people, or dismiss people
when there is no more work for them, they clearly can't go
on coughing up wages. Thats the reality. Many companies
don't have certainty when it comes to orders, so they can't
provide certainty when it comes to employment. Its unreasonable
of anyone to expect it from them.

Flexibility is part of today's economy, for most except a limited
part of the economy. Workers have to ajust as business has
had to adjust.

Based on billies argument, farmers need a Kevin Reynolds to
represent them and to deny food supply to cities, if they are
not paid say 10$ a lettuce. Sorry, I don't think thats fair either.

Yabby.

Well said re Billie

Reply from your earlier remarks
Methinks your forgetting I am ` 4thGeneration farmer and rather ashamed
To say `distantly related to Heffernan. The sheep farming live exporter Senator.

People sitting on Animal Welfare boards with conflicts of interest supporting Cruel Live Exports is a insult to all Australians..

Nothings got better Yabby – its worse!

By The Way We`re still` riding on the sheep’s back Yabby. Well some of us – ask Bill .

Why Not ask one of our largest Live Animal Exporters. - Elders!
Wow! 6 point ten% interest.
Who said Australia doesn’t still ride on the Sheep’s Back.

Farmers were betrayed by Nationals.

Nationals” relied” on the Farmers -`not asking the `pertinent questions` while they played with the trade deals.

Overseas take Animals Live to` Create Employment` and for `Value Adding` to improve THEIR ECONOMY.

4. You’re correct regarding Tariffs Yabby.
. It `must` be changed.
.
Why Don’t they change it?

Scared of loosing votes . that includes labour who mostly run the States. Donations and votes dictate to three political parties.

` Its termed -feeding the chooks. `

Julia hiding behind the Small Business Minister lady in WA to block building Abattoirs is a poor show.

Meat Works are the ONLY industry in Australia blocked from engaging skilled staff.

People could assume their `protecting the Cruel Live Export Trade. `

Yabby your spot on at `times` - sometimes naïve.
. You read propaganda put out by people with vetted interests.
Many farmers’ years ago had the wool pulled over their eyes including the priorities regarding APA, Farmers Federations.
Neither Bill D’Arcy nor staff replied to HKM request to pass onto farmers that Muslim buyers wanted to meet them direct.

Bill`D “did concede” they had received calls from Malaysians and others interested in abattoirs and “Chilled Meats.

Farmers Federation’s driven by the Nationals are Traitors to Farmers.


Farmer’s reps are `not interested `to help.

Australian Farmers need help.

We are offering just that..

Ask yourself why?

Strong Economy Should Not Be At The Cost Of Fairness Farmers Common decency or humanity.

Julia,
I just want to say that I love those pear ear rings ;-)

Let's all be grateful that Howard has never, and will never, engage in fear campaigns. Right!

As to being a 50's man, he will be a 70's person, can't call him a man, sorry, if you elect him again. He should be in an old folks home, not running a country. Even his hearing aid isn't working well these days, haven't you noticed. Imagine how often he turns it off. Perhaps every time the public screams at him or experts offer advice. What else would explain his ignoring the people and experts?

The recent backflip on No Work Choices was done for two reasons. The obvious (it wasn't fair which he has admitted with this backflip) and the chance to use our money to advertise. Blatant scare campaign coming right up. Oops, he doesn't use fear, I forgot.

wd as an elected councillor are you referring to your council or your private business interests?

I hope it is your business because a 13% staff turnover in 12 months is worrying. I am sure you would have let us know if the business you are a director of had increased its workforce.

Are the employees on different AWA’s or is it one AWA for all new employees and the minority who have decided to change?

I have always had two objections to AWAs under work choices, the removal of the no disadvantage test (partially changed by JH double back flip with pike – over $75,000 you can still be shafted) and the fact that most AWAs are not individual agreements.

If I really wanted to negotiate an AWA with your enterprise, not just accept the pro-forma, how much would it cost you? How much would it cost me?

While I agree in principal with Labor's removal of Work Choices from the Industrial Relations scene, Non-Union members will not support Labor at the forecoming Federal Elections. Why, when unions want to charge non-members a fee for any gains made by them at a EBA level. If I choose to be represented by a person/company other than a union to act on my behalf during such negotiations, I will challege their rights to charge a fee in the high court. The Union Movement I knew was one that got of their backsides and work very hard at selling the benefits of belonging to a Union. Instead they have given Jack Boot Johnny the ammunition to destroy Labor's credibility at the next federal election by allowing unions to act as stand over merchants.

If a union is to have an enforceable right to charge me for negotiating on my behalf whether or not I am a member of the union; how does the union demonstrate that it has taken notice of my opinion re terms to be achieved?
A union has a choice whether or not to enter a negotion on behalf of a group of its members. If the union does not want to represent free-loaders it can choose not to enter the negotiations. If the union chooses to enter the negotiations it must have judged that the advantages to its members outweighed the disadvantages of having free loaders.
Will the unions accept freely engaged negotiators engaged by a non-unionised worker at the bargaining table?

What a load of crock

Strong economy should not be at cost of fairness

The states have already created unfairness

The federal government just followed suit

It seems that fairness was probably not the intention the states had in mind, when they unlawfully and unconstitutional gave away the states rights the peoples rights.

The reason could have been on the hope that at the previous federal election labor was going to win.

So when it comes down to it labor has created this whole mess.
The liberals just took advantage of labors arrogance, but this was also illegal.

www.tapp.org.au

The lunatics have jumped all over this post. Why dont you all just cut the crap. Workchoices is capable off and has done all the things the Unions have said. Even the Lib's have finnally accepted that fact.
"We never meant it to eradicate penalty rates, public holiday's etc etc........" So we are ammending our Laws to protect or provide for compensation. If anybody earning under $150K as an employee swallows this guff and votes once again for Howard they deserve everything the get. They will really see what a bully with power can do. That bully wont be the Union bogie.

It was labor that allowed workchoices to happen.

The labor states

the labor party

the unions

www.tapp.org.au

Take a nap, Tapp.

Well written Julia. There's been a great deal of deception and lack of transparency by Howard about the real and projected impact of Work Choices.

You are to be congratulated by being up-front with your IR policies. That is what electors need and expect to help them in evaluating contending claims.

The debate is set to be muddied further as we are now being flooded with tax-payer funded advertising gloss on Howard's latest changes to Work Choices. Howard has no credability as his Ministers refuse FOI applications on government research papers on the relevant issues.

I am particularly impressed that you are eliminating red tape with a one-stop shop for IR issue resolution under a National IR system.

Having six states with inconsistent IR laws and industrial commissions makes as much sence as 6 different guage rail networks.

Best wishes for your success in 2007.

Billie says: "... the only workers on very good pay belong to militant unions with strong bargaining power."

This is an over-simplification. Militant unionists aren't the only workers who get a good wage, although they were largely the ones who "patented" the pattern for a lot of workers to follow.

Like all things, there is good and bad in the workplace: without unions many other workers wouldn't have had the confidence to ask for better wages because they couldn't have broken the employer's power nexus on their own and, on the negative side, by getting better wages for their members, unions have effectively distorted the wage balance in the economy, causing employers to rip off more vulnerable workers in the workforce (eg childcare and hospitality workers) to balance the books. It's like pressing in a balloon - as it holds a finite amount of air, it just bulges out somewhere else. Of course in the union narrative, you never hear about the losers.

The real message in all this is that the unions, if they’re going to survive in any form in future, need to be more widely representative of the community and workers. It means compromising on their traditional strengths.

Unions cause employers to rip off thier workers! What are you smoking?

Julia

like the rest of these pollies in canberra have forgotton one thing
our constitution.

It also seems to be the norm that our constitution of 1900 is a relic well its not. There is much that is widley assumed but not legal.

As a matter of fact they dont even belong there.

www.tapp.org.au

Hedgehog,

You show what you get when you combine a comprehension problem with blind ideology.

The point I was making is there is only so much dough in the economy. If business is to stay afloat - they get mugged by reality too! - then they have to "cut their cloth" in terms of paying their costs, including wages. They will then take it out - and, in fact, are forced to take it out because of AIRC rulings in the past - on those least well-organised/protected workers to stay competitive. And, yes, the success of unions in other areas of the economy indirectly causes this. At least until the country gets wealthier overall.

It's too convenient for the unions to pretend that those workers who do well are representative across the whole economy. The only way everyone will do well is when the country is wealthy enough to pay everyone better. And who will be DIRECTLY resposible for this? Obviously business is, because they are the wealth creators. Unions are only a handbrake on true economic progress!

Rob - what you're saying is completely correct, but fails to address so many of the key points it resembles one of those blind ideologies you're talking about.

Yeah, business generates wealth. One good way to generate wealth is to cut costs. This can be done through reducing wages.

If our number one priority is wealth and the standard of living, then what are you proposing to protect the rights of employees? Do you really believe the government has the motivation and capability of doing this?

RobP'

Silly me. Its those greedy multi billionaire Union Bosses at fault.Coles, Woolies havnt crushed all the small Butchers, Greengrocers,corner delis, liquor shops etc etc etc. It was the Bully Unions.When we are a wealthy country things will improve. I cant wait for the Packers, Murdochs and Loweys to get a fair go whilst trying to make a buck. The day that BHP Billiton frees its neck from the Union Jackboot will be joyous indeed. When will our Banking CEO's get a fair shake, i am sick of the Nations cream going to the cleaners who are destroying our Nation as i type. Keep smoking RobP.

TRTL – I agree. I address about half the key points, if you’re talking about the full debate. If the debate turned to social equity and rights, I’d agree that the unions do some good there.

To answer your last question first, no, I don’t think Howard has the motivation and capability of protecting employees. But he won’t be around forever and some of the more discerning journos in the press gallery are saying he’ll leave in the next term of government if he wins the election. So, in this case, your problem melts away like the spring snow.

As to making proposals about how to help workers, I’m not about to as it’s a new area whose pathway will only become clear when there’s no other option but to change. I don’t think anyone really knows what will happen. Besides, in the end, it’s the job of the ALP to come up with the proposals and prosecute its case. What I do know is that the new system must combine and keep alive the virtues of both business and social equity. How to do this is the big question.

Also, business does not necessarily have to cut wages to generate wealth. They can do it by being innovative and making new products and services that people are prepared to pay for. In the global economy, this may be the way for Australia to create greater wealth.

RUAWAKE... spot on....but remember what Jesus did to the money changers in the Temple :)
cheers.

I wonder if the declining productivity numbers are a natural response as a greater percentage of people enter the workforce.

As less experienced, marginal workers are employed (because there are fewer high productivity workers unemployed), the productivity should drop.

As an aside, how is productivity measured anyway

Good point Miner. The answer is - the same way employment / unemployment is meausured. Whatever way suits thier arguement. They are useless statements most of the time.

If you are on newstart and doing work for the dole you are employed, if you are on newstart and do 1 hour voluntary work (as you are obliged to do under mutual obligation) you are employed. If you work one hour a week you are employed.

What a crock of crud. Only 60% of men are working in Australia. I suggest the figures don't add up.

Ruawake thanks for clarifying employment statistics methodology.

When employers say they can't find workers they often have quite tight specifications and truthfully there may not be someone with the experience but there will be countless people with the potential to do the job who are overlooked. The people with the experience might be looking for a new role to polish their resume for another challenge.

When Telstra looked for Cobol programmers to update their billing systems, rather than employ forced early retired Cobol programmers they decided to import callow youth from India. Having overheard the conversations on trams the Indians aren't any better than the overlooked Australians.

There are three basic ways which help to build a strong economy. 1st The Government, Employers and our Youth must understand that without education and the development of skilled persons there is no future for our nation. 2nd Employers, Employees and the Unions must work together to produce a win, win situation during negotiations for income and working conditions. 3rd If we do not retain jobs in this country than Employers will have to fit the bill for those left to survive on welfare by way of higher taxes. Remember working as a team we can drive Australia forward in the 21st century

In the last decade potential university students have questioned the wisdom of running up a HECS debt to study into a field where the jobs have been offshored. Although its quite fast to downsize an industry it takes decades to build up an industry, to develop the depth of knowledge and disseminate it through the ranks. There was 30 years investment in IT before it was so hastily dismantled.

The current offshoring regime is destroying Australia's knowledge base.

Just how many salesman can a country support? What use is being a salesman without the customer base able to afford your product / service or the product to sell?

As the unemployment rate is over 5% in NSW I am surprised that WA is a large enough portion of the population to be able to reduce the national unemployment rate. I wonder whether the NSW electorate is percieved to be too sophisticated to lie too blatantly to.

“The current offshoring regime is destroying Australia’s knowledge base.”

This is a glass-half-empty type of argument. While it’s true we can’t afford to have too many salesmen at the expense of productive workers, there is a time and a place for everything, including offshoring. If the Indians can do an adequate job in IT, why not give the work to them if they can do it cheaper? This gives opportunities for ordinary Indians to get jobs (a great life improvement for many of them), while making it more profitable for Australian companies, which can then reinvest in new businesses and industries that create opportunities for Australians to trade in their often drudge jobs for something better.

OK, the knowledge base here is being diluted, but it’s not being destroyed, just exported. Look closely at history, and you’ll see that it’s always been that way. If the Indians do well out of this, it’s just a matter of time before we get a dividend back in some form. The world moves on and if we don’t move with it, it’ll be us who get destroyed.

what you all need to do is read the Australian Constitution 1900.

If you did this then went through the debates

you would know about workchoices.
you would know about the Australia Act

you would know with some research that these people in government have no rights to be there since 2001.

But hey these are your rights that labor and the liberal party are stripping.

Do they know of course they do both sides.

and what are they doing NOTHING

why treat you like mushrooms

and you will accept what they say without making sure it right.

Well i tell you now it is not.

They are acting illegally and frauduantly.

I am Stuart Ulrich
Leader of The Australian Peoples Party.

Why can i say this because i am right and have they acted NO

www.tapp.org.au

tapp, I once encountered a fellow who attempted to use international law to avoid paying a speeding fine. His argument was, that the now defunct League of Nations had specified (and Australia was a signatory to it) that essentially, one country's legislation could not override another.
He then extrapolated that because Australia had never formally adopted their own system, instead borrowing the British model, that effectively, he couldn't be tried under Australian law because Australian law couldn't be subordinate to that of another nation.

Technically, he was correct. In practice? it was empty ranting. I fear you're going to need to express yourself with more restraint and constructive as opposed to negative rhetoric.
It's all well and good to point people in the direction of all your policies, but guess what - when politicians do that, nobody does it, they go by what the politician says.
If you want get your party off the ground, you're gonna have to do better than that or nobody's going to listen. You can't demand people review your policies when they query you, then abuse them for not perusing your site.
I say this not to insult, but as an honest appraisal. If I'm wrong, then put forth a constructive reason detailing why.
I'd also suggest more structured grammar, because like it or not, people do consider these things when appraising a candidate.

Rant no rant

My policies some of them i have to remove as the commonwealth has no power over them.

Go to the links page Australian Constitution.

You are wrong, your are very wrong

One should remember that the commonwealth government was created by the states, and therefore if any powers or the constitution needs amending it is up to the people to approve.

As rudd and gillard have already been advised they have just turned their backs on the people and its constitution.

Rants NO

Facts yes

If nobody goes to my site thats ok but they are your rights that the labor and liberal governments are eroding.

For when the Framers of the constitution wrote it they also debated it and there is your reasons.

www.tapp.org.au

Dear MS Gillard
I doubt you will read this but I might be lucky.
I am unemployed. I also do a volunteer job which provides DFAT and aid organisations with a high level, professional assistance and contributes to their effectiveness to carry out their programmes of overseas aid. Over the years it has provided at least several millions dollars worth of assistance for a pittance.
I might have had a job but first of all one of your Labor mates personally intervened to prevent me getting a position because he did not like the idea of a person with a disability acting in an ambassadorial position. Then the union movement decided that no one had the right to remain apolitical and that a desire not to support one political party or another (even indirectly) was not good cause not to join a union. I was told I could not have any job within the APS or anywhere the union movement had a toehold.
I have remained without paid employment but I hope, indeed believe, I contribute more than any member of the union movement to the good of the world community. Unions had a place in the past they are now do more harm than good.

Communicat

I hate to tell you, but by the ABS method of measurement, you are employed.

Communicat

rauwake is correct. Remember who made the rules, Howard. Why not write to her at Parliament House Canberra.

The real world works likes this;the less educated are the slaves who work long hours to support the multi-nationals and Public Servants.They are the meat in the sandwich.

The Unions only represent 16% of the private workforce so they don't give a toss about the hardworking masses.Unions are only interested in their own power base much like our multi-nationals and Govts whatever their ilk.Unions have destroyed small business in this country and thus have empowered the multi-nationals

Globalisation has taken us back to the law of the jungle.The veneer of civilisation is indeed very thin.

Arjay, Arjay Unions are not the sole cause, when it comes to the destruction of Small Business or any other Business. The simple facts are neither side take a business approach to wages and salaries. If they did, the results would be a win for Business, a win for the Workers and a win for our Nation. Right now the Multi Nationals are only interested in profits thats why our jobs are been exported and they use imported scab labour, who they treat like animals, to take your future. Jack Boot Johhny has been the best friend the Big End of Town ever had. Better known as Howard the Coward, he has done everything possible to bring an American style wages system to this country whereby you would be working in a factory for less than $10 an hour.

Did you know that journalists in Australia are on AWAs. Those at SBS just received their 4% annual award rise. I hope they are smart enough to know most AWAs don't include pay rises for the life of the agreement. I hope journalists also realise that they are in a priviledged position to be so well treated because it's an election year and if they want to they can undermine the government's IR policy.

Unions, both employer and employee were registered from 1904 to represent industries and callings not members! This was done to bring a bloody industrial conflict into a Conciliation and Arbitration system Every State and the Commonwealth established conciliation and arbitration commissions to bring disputing parties under a legal framework.
Unions of employees are required to negotiate wages and conditions of people in an occupation whether or not they are members of that union.
That is why unions think it only fair that non members make a contribution to the effort to win better wages or conditions. But there is no legal way for them to force that contribution, they literally have to rely on the conscience of non members to join.So what can one say or do? Just get on with the job of representing those who support them and accept that non joiners will get benefits for free.

Unions are now required to act in a responsible manner by all parties. But without the Union Movement who is going to Protect Your Rights At Work. Certainly not the Liberal/National Party or the Employer.

So when an Employer enters into negotiations with his employees why should they not have the right to pay one set of conditions to a Union Member and a different set to those who have decided to negotiate on their own behalf.

I for one support the concept that gains made by the Union Movement should apply to members only.

southerner,
In line with your thinking we should go back in time to before the eight hour day and only apply the labour gains made over the past century to the select few who join the union. There were so many gains that we have forgotten what they were and take them all for granted now. Some would say, thanks for all of your help, we should set up a memorial to all of those unionist who got us here (lest we forget etc...) but we do not need you anymore...but is that the case?

vivy,

With the power of my union we were able to produce a win for the Company, a win for the Employer and a win for the Employee. Thats why we are paid a yearly bonsus. You know the Company profits are continue to grow because we treat each other as family.

I hope when you negotiate your own conditions that you know your rights at work.

southerner,
I am so happy for you that you have found a family that treats you well. Some families however, can be a little overbearing, involving themselves in all areas of your life, from how you dress to what you eat etc. I for one enjoy the company of teletubbies!