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.