Thanks for a great article. You did a great job of making sense out of the limited and misleading data available in the public arena.

AWA's are a simple device really. They give the employer the chance to buy conditions at a discount rate, so official firures show that employees have had a rise in pay, but mention nothing of lost conditions. Employee's are at the employers mercy they do not in any real sense have the right to disagree. If an employee does disagree they get unfairly sacked. Of course unless you happen to be in a union that is strong enough to take action C.F.M.E.U or M.U.A. for example, you find yourself up that proverbial creek, without a paddle.

The weak unions are not worth belong to Australia's Weakest Union, The National Union of Workers etc. Workchoices have put employees into a state of fear and of course the two biggest sticks are AWA's and unfair dismissal.

A damning report on the results of the Workchoices (not) legislation. Bring on the election so we can throw out this worthless piece of crap!

Alzo
We still have about 4 months until the 10th of Novermer, but throw them out on their collective ears we will

It is useful to have research like this to under pin what people instinctively knew would happen and have personal an anec dotal experiences to further re inforce it.

At the time Workchoices was being pressed upon us there was also a plethora of very sond sound academic work - which has since proven to be prescient in the extreme - pointing to the very problems the authors here demonstrate. But these were dismissed - they always would be - by a government hell bent on getting its own way.

With the exception of miners who were alwaya going to be on a good wicket I dont know a soul who has fared better under AWAs -

Where the links between unions and the ALP are pretty obvious and not always for the good - the links between business and this government are just as real but nebulous enough for the government to practice its fine art of plausible deniabiltiy - this legislation had the finger prints of peak businesses groups all over it - as has a great deal of what this government gets up to - we are best rid of them

Most of the academics in this field are former union officials and advisers to ALP ministers. So you know the line about statistics.

They fail to point out that thousands of public sector AWAs provide a legal instrument to pay higher packages to attract, reward and retain managers, professionals and other highly valued employees. Also many employees in the private sector on over awards or who are award free have more protection with an AWA which is more easily enforced than a common law contract.

Those opposed to AWAs and Workchoices often fail to acknowledge that most employers and workers invariable do the right thing by each other. This is what we need to remember. The small number of Employers and employees who don't do the right thing deserve the appropriate treatment.

It's official, in today's Sydney Morning Herald there is an article about how Mr. Howard knew that "Work Choices" would harm a segment of workers. This view has been published in the very recently biography on Mr. Howard.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/libs-knew-laws-would-hurt-workers/2007/07/20/1184560040254.html

It means that the $55 million squandered on the "Work Choices" advertising was promoting at best deception, if not down right lies.
It also means the current Government advertising is also promoting flawed perceptions in relation to "Work Choices".

This is interesting! Where are all the conservatives argueing the case for AWA's not one so far. I think their absense tells a huge story don't you.

"Yet median hourly earnings for AWA employees were only 16 per cent above median award-only earnings." That is like saying that interest rates are only 5% lower on average under Howard than Keating. If unemployment is low then there are more opportunities to advance to better paid jobs and any boss with half a brain is not going to risk losing a good employee, whether they are in unskilled or skilled work. From my own experience collective agreements in the public service do not protect workers from unscrupulous managers either, including being expected to do unpaid overtime and not being paid appropriate allowances (yes this is fact), nor did it result in anything but dismal productivity. To all those hailing a Rudd victory in the next election, well maybe, but thankfully, unlikely. How many federal govts have ever been voted out when both unemployment and inflation are low? Oh yes the polls, well hopefully this will be reminiscent of the last US elections exit polls. Kerry was sucking up to the left wing media while Bush was out rallying to the public.

"How many federal govts have ever been voted out when both unemployment and inflation are low?"

Is inflation low? Have there been 8 interest rate rises? Very few governments have stayed in office when inflation and interest rates are higher than they were at the previous election.

You probably believe the "never had it so good" line as well.

ruawake, interest rates are nothing like they were in the 70s and 80s. We are probably no better off now though, as the cost of housing is so high. We are meant at present to have low unemployment rates; however, my recollections are that in days of yore there was not the level of part time employment that there is now. Nor were people encouraged to take on so many education programs; in other words, oranges are not being compared with oranges. Just part of the misleading information we are fed by the Coalition Government.

Perspective is important.

People forget that when interest rates were high, they were high all over the world.

Now they are low - all over the world. (Actually they are a bit higher in Australia now than in many other comparable nations.)

Soon, almost everybody will either be directly affected by an AWA, or know somebody else who is.

No amount of spin is going to change first-hand experience and this legacy will haunt the Coalition for many years.

A link to the full paper may be found here http://www.business.vic.gov.au/busvicwr/_assets/main/lib60013/awa-ca-earnings-paper.pdf . Here are links to the CVs of Peetz http://www.griffith.edu.au/school/gbs/irl/staff/david_peetz.html and Preston http://www.cbs.curtin.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=0BE2CB9C-E76E-F973-D71E8BB6E3F62C40&method=renderstaffprofile&staffid=431FDCA5-DD62-7E4C-DE51FED7B038DE91

I'm a little concerned, as the data is 12 months out of date. Further, AWAs are only 3% of the sample data, so the findings need to be taken with a grain of salt. However until the Fed Govt publishes the information collected by the Workplace Authority, this is the best data available.

Paulo, perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain what part of their statistical analysis you find problematic?

Krustyburger says ""Yet median hourly earnings for AWA employees were only 16 per cent above median award-only earnings." That is like saying that interest rates are only 5% lower on average under Howard than Keating." Umm, Krusty you might have to rethink that. Public holidays, RDOs, penalty rates, rest breaks, annual leave etc etc can be be removed under AWAs. I'd want a damn sight more than 15% to compensate, but perhaps your choice might be different. Or rather, your employer's choice might be different. Faced with an AWA, your choice will be to sign it, or find another job.

Peetz worked as a senior advisor to Hawke and Keating ministers and Preston work for the WATLC. They should be stating this so that all readers know where they are coming from and why they say what they do.

Paulo

Peetz worked as a senior advisor to Hawke and Keating ministers Preston work for the WATLC. They should be stating this so that all readers know where they are coming from and why they say what they do.

Paulo

Thanks Paulo we heard you the first time, still I have not seen a convincing argument in favor of employees on AWA's plenty in it for employers this was already known, now the fact that even Howard knew that employees would lose out is public.

I will argue a convincing case for AWAs - "Made in China" or made in anywhere but Australia. (Take a look at the frozen food section in the supermarket - "Made in China".)
One reason for all this, and it is a big reason, is that unions have demanded ever increasing wages and conditions that cannot compete with overseas wages and conditions. Rather than try and strike a reasonable balance in order to keep jobs here they keep increasing their demands.
We need AWAs to keep us afloat - and most employers will do the right thing and pay as much as they can - because, believe it or not all you unionists, they don't want to go bankrupt either - and your demands are bankrupting Australia and are also the reason that I remain unemployed.

If it's just about competing with China, how long before we are all working for a bowl of rice per day?

As China's economy grows, their workers will be demanding higher wages and better conditions so they can begin to afford the goods that they are producing on behalf of the West. That's when things will get really interesting.

Workchoices is simply about driving cost down for the employer (and profits up) and breaking the Unions.

If labour costs have dropped already, where are the savings going?
They don't appear to be evident in the prices we pay.
They must be going into somebody's pocket somewhere.

It can't be about creating more jobs.
Productivity is producing more for less cost, not simply about producing more.

I'm on an AWA and it was strictly take-it-or-leave-it with no negotiation allowed.
Everybody else on an AWA with me has identical conditions and we are all getting less than those on Award conditions for doing the same work.

Ant wrote: “however, my recollections are that in days of yore there was not the level of part time employment that there is now” This is correct. there were fewer opportunities for part time employment.

Johnj wrote: “Public holidays, RDOs, penalty rates, rest breaks, annual leave etc etc can be be removed under AWAs. I'd want a damn sight more than 15% to compensate, but perhaps your choice might be different” Let’s do the math. Working days excluding public holidays = 365 days * 5/7 = 261. 16% (not 15%) of 261 = 41days. Remove 20 days annual leave = 21 days. RDOs are a flexible working arrangement so are irrelevant in the calculation. Your suggesting people sign away rest breaks in their AWAs is pandering union propaganda. Thus we have around 21 days of extra pay just for removing penalty rates and public holidays which may be attractive to a lot of workers i.e. Work “Choices”.

Rache wrote: “Everybody else on an AWA with me has identical conditions and we are all getting less than those on Award conditions for doing the same work.” I see numerous claims like these on various blogs so please forgive my scepticism. It is interesting that the WorkChoices web site states: “Although terms in awards about annual leave, personal/carer’s leave and parental leave are preserved, an employee’s entitlements will generally be determined by the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard (the Standard). When a preserved award term is more generous to an employee than the Standard, the more generous award entitlement will apply. Otherwise the Standard applies.” Now let’s look at another example that occurred to me when employed in telecommunications in the late 80s under a Labour federal govt. I was forced to join the ETU before I could enter construction sites in the CBD and in a 3 month period I had to go on strike several times without being told why. The outcome? I was getting much less than the award.

KBurger.

How many days in a year? How many public holidays?

I think you will find "Working days excluding public holidays" are 355.

What part of: "The Standard contains five minimum conditions. Additionally, certain protected conditions are included in the Australian workplace agreement, unless the agreement specifically excludes or changes these protected conditions." Do you fail to understand?

No wonder you were a telecom tech.

“Is inflation low?” Yes

“Have there been 8 interest rate rises?” Yes

“Very few governments have stayed in office when inflation and interest rates are higher than they were at the previous election.” Fortunately inflation is trending downward now that the drought is easing which is good news for the taxpayers that are finally witnessing the removal of dole bludgers, professional students, and union bosses from society.

“You probably believe the "never had it so good" line as well.” Yes

“How many days in a year?” 365.25

“How many public holidays?” “I think you will find "Working days excluding public holidays" are 355.“ So?

“What part of: "The Standard contains five minimum conditions. Additionally, certain protected conditions are included in the Australian workplace agreement, unless the agreement specifically excludes or changes these protected conditions." Do you fail to understand?” None.

“No wonder you were a telecom tech.” Yes but thanks to the favourable job market provided by a coalition govt over the last 10 years I moved up to a highly paid managerial role in IT Security while completing a degree part time, and can guarantee that I was on more money than you will ever be (unless of course you are one of those parasitic union bosses who sponge money off hard working union members to fill the trough and fund the Labour party). I am now trading shares for a living, perusing travel brochures, playing tennis, golf, scuba diving, sipping latte’s etc. What do you get up to when you are not writing vitriol on these blogs?

No more communistcations between me and ruawake.

Krusty,
How good of you to point out this state of affairs began in late 1983 when Keating floated the dollar, much of the hard yards were done by Hawke and Keating well before Howard and Costello came along to take advantage of the good work. I am surprised however that the ETU would have you as a member, they are usually picky about who they allow to join. A Telecom tech who benefited from the unions presence, who now thinks he's better than everybody else, how arrogant can you get.

"I am now trading shares for a living, perusing travel brochures, playing tennis, golf, scuba diving, sipping latte’s etc. What do you get up to when you are not writing vitriol on these blogs?" (Quote: krustybuger)

PRAT!

Anyone like to consider that the sort of jobs available have changed since the union membership peak? The many jobs which required unskilled or minimally skilled labour have often been mechanised or computerised or something else 'ised' but they have all resulted in a reduction of the number of people required to do the amount of work.
Despite that everyone still expects that they should be the ones to be in full time employment with a superior rate of pay and employment conditions.
This is something never mentioned by the union heavy weights. They can talk all they like about skills training but the jobs still have to be there - and, unfortunately, some people will never have the capacity to acquire the skills. We can't all be in charge of the technical side of the highest levels of rocket science.

Aw Krusty sorry I stepped on your managerial superiority, you clever little vegemite.

Communicat.

The HIA reckons we are short 100,000 traditional tradesmen. Brickies, Carpenters, Sparkies, Dunny Divers. You know the guys who are now making more than Krusty.

But of course, Howard is not going to train potential trade union members.

He is only interested in his union mates.

AWAs have cut average weekly ordinary time earnings, You no longer hear Joe Hockey talk about real wage increases. I wonder why?

Paulo says "Peetz worked as a senior advisor to Hawke and Keating ministers Preston work for the WATLC." Presumably this means that Paulo can't be bothered refuting their argument and has to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Krustyburger says "I am now trading shares for a living, perusing travel brochures, playing tennis, golf, scuba diving, sipping latte’s etc." So I guess it doesn't much matter to Krusty whether workers are being screwed over? Perhaps he's even glad, as it might mean more in share dividends?

Krustyburger says that Australia has a low unemployment rate, and does he attribute it to Workchoices.

The OECD reported that Australia has a very low workforce participation rate. Only 52% of males aged 15 to 55 particpate in the workforce.

Behind Howard and Rudd and stand the global corporations, investors, banks and media owners who have all collaberated in the anti-working class industrial relations laws. Too devious and cowardly to express the real relations and intentions they cover up and dress them up with spin. Clearly, these are about boosting the rate of exploitation of workers through the lengthening of the working day, week and year through longer hours and cutting holidays. Along with the ongoing depletion of all workplace conditions and the casualization of the workforce. In their financial papers and in the corridors of power they call this "rollback" and "restructuring." Rolling back means unravelling and depleting all workers conditions. And restructuring has come to mean destruction.
Three billion workers produce all the wealth and instead of a share they are given a "wage." Even this "wage" is far from constant or increasing but under downward pressure. Put into context, as the wealth of the world has increased the "wage" has decreased in its purchasing power. What is very difficult to cover up at least for all those who have a stake in this swindling has been the common knowledge of at least 400 substantial increases for CEO's over the last 25 years. As well, almost every major factory around the world has carried out sackings or retrenchments, cutting their workforce by a half, so that fewer workers are forced to do the work of many. Which is just another way of boosting the rate of exploitation.

Paulo,

Produce Government evidence before attacking anybody. You will not be able to obtain the real evidence under the Freedom of Information because Governments tend to black out the negatives.

Read the Howard biography by Peter Costello and you might just learn the truth about AWAs.

There's one issue that I'm confused about and I'd be grateful for an explanation. During the Hawke/Keating years from 1983 to 1996, the ALP government had in place the Accord, an arrangement whereby wage increases were negotiated between government and employers. Many of these 13 years were times of high inflation, up to 12% or more if my memory serves me correctly, yet the Accord usually delivered wage increases of 3 or 4 or 5%, well below the inflation rate. The result was that people on award wages lost out badly in terms of living costs increasing at the inflation rate while inflation was galloping along at 2 or 3 times the rate of wage increases.

Hawke and Keating were overwhelmingly supported in this deliberate policy to keep wages down because it was in the national interest. In fact, their terms in government are recognised as being some of the most important periods in Australia's economic development, the benefits of which are still being enjoyed today.

So here's my question: if WorkChoices AWAs is the Howard/Costello government's method of keeping the lid on wage increases, why is the criticism of this preferred method of economic responsibility so strong, when the ACTU, the media and others said nothing and instead supported the Hawke/Keating government when their preferred method achieved the same result?

While I don't doubt Peetz and Preston's analysis of the statistical date, I can't help but wonder if the primary motivation of the ACTU and others against WorkChoices is based upon the reduction in union power and influence that these industrial reforms bring about.

Krustyburger,

Your comment about more generous conditions applies in situations where somebody who is already on an Award is moving onto an AWA for the same employer.

If you are commencing employment, this does not apply and you are forced to take what is offered.

Now that many employers will be able to sack their staff and re-employ them on AWAs - (whether for restructuring reasons or whatever)- a lot of people will eventually be in the same circumstance.

I was also in the Telecoms industry for almost 30 years , made redundant and later returned as a Contractor.
I was later offered an AWA.

Meanwhile, my compatriots are entitled to an Overtime Meal Allowance for example, but I am not. My hours can also be adjusted so I work Sunday to Thursday (with no penalty rates). The comparisons go on and on.

Personally, it doesn't affect me too much because I will be out of the workforce within the next decade, but my children will not.

I was hoping that they would enjoy better (or at least equivalent) conditions that I struggled for throughout my own working life - not have them stolen way at the stroke of a pen by some political zealot.

In North Queensland at the moment we have philipino "guest workers" being paid $800 p.w. less than their Australian counterparts working as linesmen. The true value of an AWA to an employer. More profit in the employer's back pocket, exploitation harking back to the "master and servant" legislation of the early days.

Just another regressive Howard Government policy bought to you by the business unions Business Council of Australia, Australian [would be] Star Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Bernie

The Accord was between The Government, Unions AND Employers. It was done because all three agreed it was the best thing to do at the time.

Hawke and Keating were honest and open about what they were doing and why they were doing it. Nobody lost wages or conditions.

Contrast this to workchoices, blind freddy could see the difference

As if these two were ever going to give us anything but Labor-serving , Left wing claptrap on Work Choices…give us a break…..as if the feminists and the union mouthpieces haven’t already done enough damage to this country , without weighing in with the pre-election propaganda pretending to inform Australians, but really intending to suck them into the Rudd pen, just long enough to get him over the line.
Of course the media is more than willing to assist in the scam, when David Peetz is regularly introduced as just an expert in his field, without alluding to the fact that he’s joined at the hip with the unions , Labor and the Left …and is never going to do anything but undermine the Howard government…so it’s always just another sneaky , rat cunning ploy to deceive the Australian voters….and every assessment and remark made by this pair has to be seen as sly election material for Labor.
They would do a real service to the Australian people if they informed them about the real nature of their man Rudd and Labor…but people can find out by googling…’The Justice Project’ , ‘The Lindeberg Petition’, ‘Dilkera air conditioning O’Neill’ and ‘Heiner Inquiry’.

real,
Would you like the news item from the SMH describing the situation I have described above, or are you one of those tories whi is too blind to see, or worse will not see.

The Reals of this world do not live in a Real world.

The fact is that most of us do jobs that are not particularly unique that require particularly unique skills apart from all the required qualifications(tertiary or otherwise). It would be rare that many amongst us know when applying for a job that we have that one highly desirable something that will give us an upper hand over other applicants.

AWA's would work wonderfully well when negotiation is conducted at more or less an equal basis. The employee wants that job as much as the employer wants that particular job applicant.

We very well may have the 'lowest' unemployment figures in goodness knows how long, but for me it a case of being underemployed. Plenty of part time jobs, casual jobs, not many full-time jobs. The competition for these are rather fierce.

At the moment I'm applying for a full time position. You can bet your sweet bibby I'm not going to jeopardize that by making too many demands. I'm the main bread winner. Can't afford to not get this. Am I unique? Not when I talk to family and friends. But then not many of us live in a rarefied upper echelon.

But then maybe I'm just a left wing feminist whinger who finds it hard to make ends meet on $480.00 a week with $320.00 rent/week (and not a plasma TV in sight) by wanting too much like certainty that I will be able to pay my electricity and phone bills after our one car bit into the budget by needing an extra repair (brake pads).

Thanks Real,

It's these sort of comments that are eating away at the credibility of this government.

To be constantly told that we never had it so good, in spite of personal experience makes them look either ignorant or deluded or both.

Please keep it up for at least the next 6 months.

"I will argue a convincing case for AWAs - "Made in China" or made in anywhere but Australia. (Take a look at the frozen food section in the supermarket - "Made in China".)" - Communicat

I will make a convincing case against AWA's , The quality of Germnan technology compared to the quality of cheap Chinese knock offs.

There are issues with comparing wages. China has a far lower productivity than Australia, it takes more worker hours to produce the same goods in China. To get around this the quality of cheaply produced goods is at marginal standard. Wages in China are comparitable with the cost of living in China. Where China out competes Australia is in the unskilled labour population and we will never beat them because we dont have the unskilled population to compete with each other to make AWA's viable. To make AWA's truley work Howard must close down schools or at least waste education hours installing Ned Kelly history and teaching arbitary cultural values (just like Mao did)into kids.

For China's standard of living to rise its wages will have to rise. In many news reports lately China is responding to the reputation it has of producing low quality goods. To do that China will have to up skill. China will be a wealthy nation if it does so. If Australia keeps its 19th Century style AWA's we are doomed to become a third world country within a generation or two producing cheap knock offs for China.

As for retaining good workers , Australian business is often uncommitted to the Australian community and has no intellectual or strategic capacity to develop , innovate product, process or service let alone foster a cohesive work force. Australian business in this era of low quality governance is an anarchy of get rich quick schemes. We remain decades behind the developed world when it comes to employment relations, skilling , philanthropy , investment in the environment, research and skill retention.

Enter Japanese and German automation technology ....
AWA's are the first major act in our decline.

West, your second last paragraph-very well said. That is precisely why AWA's are a joke in our Australian work force. It would be of benefit and applicable to only a few in very, very few businesses.

Too many employers will still tell you when approached for better conditions or pay, 'you're not indispensable/irreplaceable'. Because they know that you need an income more than they need you.

I've resigned once on principle because after 3 years I was still being paid $15.00/per hour though increased nett profit by 30%-consistently. Even a suggestion that only a bonus be payable on an agreed improvement was knocked back. It was the scariest and hardest (financially) 5 months of my life. That was 2 years ago.

I now work in a government position and belong to a Union. I get more money and when there is negotiation there is a union representative present. Me, who hasn't belonged to a Union for 20 years, because the compulsion irked me.

Real: During the 1980s and early 1990s, inflation hit 12% and interest rates reached 18% or more. Yet the Accord delivered annual wage increases of just 3 or 4 or 5%, hugely lower than the inflation rate and the equivalent of massive cuts in wages. You're correct, the ALP in those days did it different than Howard is doing today but, in the 1980s, you had a Liberal-controlled Senate which accepted that Australia had to very significantly change its economy in order to survive in the real world. Today, every state government is Labor and they, along with the federal ALP, have opposed just about every action proposed or undertaken by the Howard government to try and make us more competitive on the world scene. I'm not particularly happy with the poor communication that Howard and company have used to sell their message but I have no problem accepting that Australia is facing competitive pressures from many other countries around the world and, if we don't respond positively to those pressures, then we become the 'banana economy' that Keating warned us about some 20 years ago.

Bernie

Please stop rewriting history, inflation in Australia has not been over 10% since 1982. (Hawke was elected in 1983).

The Accord applied to all, AWAs disadvantage the low paid and low skilled.

"Never had it so good" will be on John Howards political tombstone.

All those tories that think that a person [and there are millions of them] such as yvonne can live on $480 p.w. pay $320 p.w. in rent and feed a family obviously "have never had it so good" as Howard says of we working class. In the past we used to compete by working "smarter" not "harder" those days have disappeared under Howard. Now it's a race to the bottom for ordinary families, which is why all working people should join a union.

Sooner or later when the plastic card hits its limit working people will have to pay or declare themselves bankrupt. It never ceases to amaze me how little people save a few thousand dollars buy a two bob business and suddenly think they are superior, I put it down to an inferiority complex. Their newly found self importance in themselves allows them to exploit the people they once were them selves and they do so with reckless abandon helped of course by our ultimate "little man syndrome" sufferer JWH.

It is very frustrating when personal experiences are dismissed. Like some posters who cast doubt that conditions have become tougher.

I'm 49, so remember very well what it was like in the 80's. I've worked for 32 years. In the public sector and private sector.

I've also had businesses with my husband and been an employer. I know how hard it is in business. In all that time we've had one employee from hell who took us to Industrial Relations. Sure it was scary. We too believed all those stories of the 'power' of Unions and Industrial Relations to 'destroy' your business. The big bad bogeyman was a myth.

If as an employer you do the right thing, are honest, keep good and transparent records there never was any agency who was going to cause your business to fail. Failure or down turn in a business is NOT the fault of employees. Wages are the last in the list.

For many private business employers, many who are very mediocre at running a business in the first place, the temptation to reduce the payroll, whichever way, is the easiest way to improve outgoings vs income. Work Choices now make it even easier for incompetent businesses to stay open.

ruawake: I need to respond to your two earlier posts.
1. during the Hawke/Keating years, with the ex-president of the ACTU as PM, employers and the ACTU had no choice but to work with the ALP government for the common good of all Australians. Contrast that situation with today, where you've had state ALP governments for most of Howard's 11 years in office and just about everything that the Liberal government has put forward has been opposed by the states, more for political reasons than because the proposals have been wrong. I'm unhappy with the way that Howard has changed IR laws but I have no problem with their intent: to keep Australia a competitive player in the world economy.
2. every worker lost wages during the Hawke/Keating years, without exception. Wage rates were often less, sometimes far less, than the inflation rate.
3. according to the ABS (and ignoring the 17.6% inflation during the term of that ALP hero Goff Whitlam), under Hawke/Keating, inflation peaked in March 1986 at 9.3%, peaked again at 9.8% in December 1986, hit 8.6% in March 1990 and then was only brought under control in June 1991 when Keating's economic policies took full effect. I apologise for stating that inflation was 12% during the Hawke/Keating years, but this error shouldn't detract from the economic reality which is that Australia suffered high inflation for most of the first 7 years of the Hawke/Keating government. Australia like any other country is always in need of fine-tuning its economy. Howard and Costello may not have the charisma of Hawke but they had a job to do. In the face of obstructionist ALP state governments and an ACTU which is part of the Labor political movement, they did what had to be done.
For all the media hype that the union movement and the ALP are creating over WorkChoices, the media has brought precious few examples of employees suffering under the new IR news to the attention of the public over the last year.

Bernie history is one thing and a sensible person can learn from history. Obvious to all of us politicians of any party is neither sensible nor do they ever learn from history, crikey Howard never had the brains to learn from the Tampa.

Howards work choices that we had to have although not logical , nor rational , the consequences were always obvious, never based on honesty or integrity , and by nature slimey and philosophically creepy, a genuine throwback to the cotton mills days of Dickens and were most likely inspired by Dickens aside ; -

AWA's are destroying Australian families and spreading misery amongst the Australian people TODAY. I find that morally and patriotically repulsive. What I find repugnant is that as a tax payer my hard earned dollars are being wasted on Liberal party propaganda telling people who are certainly victims of Howards Work Choices that the destruction of their lives is not occurring.

Bernie

Again you don't quite get the figures correct. Sure inflation was high under Whitlam, do you remember the Fist Oil Crisis? Oil doubled in price in a month causing world wide inflation.

Your reverting to blaming the states and unions signifies you have lost the plot (and the argument). Please argue the facts, leave the Liberal dogma behind, it does you no credit.

Workchoices is bad IR policy, it was not introduced to help anyone. It was introduced to satisfy an old mans ideology, one that was irrelevant - just as he is.

ruawake: I remember the 30% pay rise paid by the Whitlam government to federal public servants. I remember the absolute incompetence of that government causing the most severe economic and political crisis in our nation's history. Mind you, I also remember the 8 years of lost opportunities under Fraser.
As a person who's worked in the mining industry and state public service in WA, I'm also aware of unions abusing their powers over employers and of employees abusing their rights and responsibilities, with employers lacking any meaningful power to do anything about these union and employee excesses.
I'll ask again: with all the media hype about the evil consequences of the federal government's IR laws, where are the TV and newspaper stories of workers being abused and sacked unfairly, etc? Tell me a few stories about your friends and relatives losing their jobs unfairly, having their pay and conditions cut unreasonably and I'll start believing you. We're in election mode right now and hardly anyone is telling the truth; exaggeration is the norm.
The reality is that Australia is enjoying its lowest unemployment for 30 years, with strikes at their lowest levels for over a decade. In part, this is due to the new IR laws.

Skilled workers are generally on a negotiated contracts anyway and have been so since Keating. Such contracts are vastly different to AWA's. When signing a contract such a worker is only looking to stay with the employer for a year or two , in many industries there is always a better offer waiting for the skilled worker here and over seas. Those who stay with an employer are rewarded with even better life balance conditions and salary. In many industries nearly the whole skilled base is approaching retirement within the next 5-8 years leaving many industries to have no alternative than to import their skilled workers or base operations off shore.

AWA's attack the rest of Australia, not only have Australians been denied access through education to improve their skills by the Howard government they have been side lined to operate as no more than sweat shop workers. I have relatives in the mining industry , over worked they will chuck the towel in, other than a few more bucks AWA's have nothing to offer them. I have never heard of anybody who has benefited by being forced onto an AWA. I know im not happy when my school age child is expected to be on call 24/7 for a token sum when my tax dollars are used to tell me that there is no problem. Yes I can veto AWA's I can afford to, out there there are Australians suffering because they cannot afford to say no.

The authors are both professors but while they do present details as to monies paid, etc, I would think they would at least have some background knowledge that despite the High Court of Australia 14 November 2006 ruling constitutionally “WorkChoices cannot and does not apply to non Federal Government workers unless they are special classes such as waterside workers.
.
Despite that a now retired union official urged me to provide unions with details I have set out in my book;
.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1
.
It may be noted that none bothered about it. It seems unions are better of to gain membership then to seek to overturn the ill-conceived decision.
.
To give you some examples;
.
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution-Convention-Debates
Mr. SYMON.-
The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it occurs.
And
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-
We have heard to-day something about the fixing of a rate of wage by the federal authority. That would be an absolute impossibility in the different states.
And
Mr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the laws of the place where the contract was made.
And
Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question.
And
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
The people of the various states make their own contracts amongst themselves, and if in course of their contractual relations disagreements arise, and the state chooses to legislate in respect of the subject-matter of them, it can do so.
.
Keep-in-mind-that-Subsection-51(xx)-the-High-Court-used-was-inserted-in-1897-and-the-later-(dated)-statements-quoted-above-clearly-underline-that-"CIVIL RIGHTS CONTRACTS"-remained-with-the-States.
.
Those and numerous other details the High Court of Australia concealed from its judgment. One should ask : Why this deception?
.
HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. SOLOMON.-
We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
.
See also my website at http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

HANSARD 11-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. CLARK:
What we want is a separate federal judiciary, allowing the state judiciaries to remain under their own governments.
.
This underlines the Commonwealth cannot dictate State Courts, despite doing so now!
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. BARTON.-
Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
And
Mr. BARTON.-
Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
.
We have found however that the High Court of Australia with WorkChoices and numerous other matters has diverted from what is embedded in the Constitution to what the Court desires on their own views. A very dangerous pathway to follow.
.
On 19 July 2006 I succeeded in both appeals against the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, after a 5-year legal battle, on all constitutional grounds UNCHALLENGED, because as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I pursue the RULE OF LAW within constitutional context.
.
If just unions did address the issue to challenge the ill conceived High Court judgment, as I extensively exposed in my book, the could prove then to really care about the harm caused to so many, rather then just now benefiting from swelling membership by allowing this ill conceived judgment to remain.