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I'm a little concerned, as the data is 12 months out of date.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.