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.