"Half a million workers on AWAs and probably as many again on WorkChoices CWAs have seized that opportunity to negotiate mutually acceptable rates."

Negotiate?

If, as you argue, employers will need to increase wages of pre fairness AWA employees, surely AWAs have cut wages?

Poor John, he can't take a trick. I also note the Tasmanian forests he said he would protect are being logged.

There’s a smell of hypocrisy, vested interest and special pleading in Graeme Haycroft’s article. His byline tells us that his own business, “Haycroft Workplace Solutions, has been one of Australia's biggest providers of AWAs”.

The gist of his argument: The Federal Government has spent $40 million of taxpayers' money coaxing [hardly any need for coaxing I would have thought] businesses to introduce IR changes. About 50,000 businesses have spent time and money with consultants to help manage ‘reform’; and 5000,000 workers on AWAs and about the same number on WorkChoices CWAs have “seized that opportunity [sic] to negotiate mutually acceptable rates”.

Now the Howard Government - shaken by a massive electoral backlash - has gone and introduced a fairness test which will ruin everything for these businesses and their consultants. This new fairness is so unfair. If only Howard hadn’t dropped the old No Disadvantage Test.

Fairness will render it “too hard and expensive to use Australian Workplace Agreements in order to operate profitably and compete.” Under the new fairness test, says Haycroft, the vast majority of businesses will, except in isolated circumstances, have to be pay new employees more than their existing workers – unless you bring the old workers back up to the old rates. It’s so unfair, says Haycroft!

And it will also be “politically disastrous” because, unless Howard reverses his reformed reforms, it will hurt Howard’s core constituency, small business, and they will be most unhappy John.

But Haycroft is living in cuckoo land if he thinks Howard will reverse WorkChoices Mark 2 before the election. (What he does afterwards if he somehow wins is of course another matter.)

Ever the realist, he had an epiphany and watered down WorkChoices – and tried to bury its deadly name – because it was going to cost him hundreds of thousands of votes - and it might still cost him an election even in its ‘fair’ form.

So small business owners are politically dispensable. To rub salt into their wounds they’ll even have to hand out Howard’s propaganda Fact Sheets (in press as we speak) before the election.

if you go on voting for politicians, year after year, should you complain when you're ruled by politicians?

...eh? There's a choice DEMOS?

Point me in that direction and I'll sign on!

graham - the award system was far better for small business - it meant that an employer could employ someone without having to pay consultants, lawyers, etc to draw up australian workplace agreements. both employer and employee knew the award rate, terms and conditions were fair - because employers and unions had had a forum through which to negotiate or put their views. the outcome through the australian industrial relations commission took into account the positions of employers and unions. if an employer paid more than the award rate or provided better conditions than those set out in the award, then s/he knew, and the employee knew, that above award conditions were being provided - hence a recognition and reward for those employees' productivity, etc.

in small business, workplace harmony is maintained if there is transparency of the wagefixing process - as was so under the award system. if an employee is unsure, s/he could always find out what the award conditions were. similarly for the employer. there was an objective, known and transparent standard by which employers and employees could measure wagerates and conditions of work.

all this is absent from the current 'workchoices' (sic) system. the current system is a recipe for upset and uncertainty amongst workers, with no way for the employer to affirm that the rates and conditions are 'fair' according to a nationally known and transparent standard.

apols - graeme, not graham

Every time Howard attacks the ALP on these issues, he makes it plain that he intends to retain both the Work Choices approach and to reject any form of unfair dismissal laws.

The combination leaves every employee at the mercy of their employers. (Starving men are not free, as the House of Lords declared in the early 1900s.) Apart from fear of death, the greatest fear of most employees of of losing their jobs. It is hardly surprising that the electorate rejects them. And none of the nonsense of this article or similar bits of spin will help.

ginx, there is a choice. my master plan to bring democracy to oz goes like this: 1000's of would-be citizens send emails to each party office, saying: "will only vote for party that will institute cir and direct election of ministers. if none, will write 'democracy' on otherwise blank ballot."

can't fail, easy to do, but will need many thousands to choose democracy. so far, there's you, me, and a couple of my mates.

courage, mon brave!

Haycroft, what a parasite. A man who makes his living out of screwing working mum's and dad's. What self serving piffle this article is. There are no workers who willingly reduced thier wages under WorkChoices. They had no choice , and smarmy Haycroft knows it.
What makes me laugh is the reqirement for the compulsory "Workplace Relations Fact Sheet" Your rights and obligations. Many workers at the lower end of the scale will all of a sudden find out they have rights, and may just have the courage to pursue them.Thats not good new's for Mr Haycroft and his trade in human labour.

Yes I am ALP, yet in Howard's early time as leader my contempt for him was balanced by understanding.
Howard without reserve is a Bob Menzies look alike, he molded his whole life on his idol.
And stealing Labors policy's and following what voters wanted was his ace in the hole.
Labors failure to consider voters much at all helped.
Workchoices that beat Howard, not yet but it will,those who sit adoringly at this mans feet today will remember this mans act of war on workplace fairness.
It will for a time destroy his party.
Yet so very many who he hurt so badly have never voted other than for his team.
ALL who work can be victims of workchoices, not just unionists.
Not just one in five.
Our economic place is not via workchoices but if it fails? workchoices will make the Australian workplace a disaster area.
Kev are you out there Mr Rudd?
Keep your promises mate, please, workers are Australians after all.
That wage packet is the oil our country runs on.

Haycroft is wrong to include all small business as anti Australian. Australian small business people would find it offensive to be labelled as a mindless support base for an increasingly dinosaur party.

Howards problem is that he pandered to unions - business unions when he forced his ridiculous personal work place agenda onto the Australian people.
Haycroft and Howard both forget (or do not know) that Howard has a job to do , to work for the Australian people and not pander to fringe minority business groups.

As far as the benifits of AWA's , reality contradicts Haycroft. For astute consumers, tax payers and skilled workers AWA's serve as smoke and where there is smoke there is fire. In this case fire being business incompetence and/or low quality product and service and /or corruption.

In a democracy the concept of loyal support for a party or candidate runs counter to the integrity of the system.

If the Coalition sold out its supporters then so what ? There is no honour amongst theives.