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.