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.