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/
.