Good riddance to AWAs! Only rarely do employees have the opportunity to negiotiate their pay.

All of the workers in your local shopping centre have to accept the AWA offered or look elsewhere for work. Even Santa has to sign an AWA that specifies a flat hourly rate and the ability to be rostered on any time between 8:30 am and 11:30 pm. You wonder which drunken yobbo will be trying to sit on Santa's knee at 11pm. We all know that the Spotlight workers were forced to sign AWAs that removed ppenalty rates in return for increasing their pay by 2cents an hour with a nett effect of reducing take home pay by $100 per week, so earning $400 per week instead of $500 per week.

Every financial advisor in this country tells investers that company profits are at their highest ratio since the 1920s and increasing and that wages are at a low ratio and falling. WorkNoChoices just allows company profits to increase at a greater rate.

The Government's Industrial Relations legislation is unpopular because it is terribly written legislation that leaves many people worse off.

People are more concerned about the growing economic apartheid between the haves and have nots rather than this ivory tower 'right to flexibility' perversion.

You will never convince anyone of this argument other than fellow Young Liberals. The general public has too much commonsense and know when their being sold a pup. Move on from the IR debate. You've already lost.

Why don't you talk to some foot soldiers of Telstra and see if they're happy with their AWA work culture. The work related suicides are only the tip of the iceburg. There is a very real simmering anger in Telstra employees.

These workers are being pushed to desperation. Would you really want your children working in this environment?

Our country has to become smarter - not be wage competitive with growing asian economies.

Ah, Fascism with a smiling face---all in the name of "freedom" of course.

The basis of WorkChoices - ensuring that employers make sound decisions regarding who they employ and how they treat their employees based essentially on the economical viability of the company (giving them the best possible chance of maintaining and growing profitability, thus being the position to offer better wages better conditions, and increased employment opportunities) was reasonable enough. But Kevin Andrews did such a hatchet job of introducing it that it will be years before the public again accepts the need to recognise that laws making life difficult for employers ultimately make life difficult for anyone.
In almost every portfolio this man has been given he has managed to give the Coalition government a bad name, the Immigration department being his latest disaster zone. http://www.andrewsmustresign.com/

Thanks for that polemic, Felicity McMahon, Liberal party member. It would seem that you have never heard of common law contracts. Your fallacious assertion that everyone will be forced onto collective agreements is totally wrong. There will be nothing stopping an employer from employing someone on a CLC which has award conditions that provide minimum conditions as it's base. The employer can then add incentives or flexible arrangements on top of that minimum.
I think you lost the argument when you argued that Australian worker's agreements should be dragged down to the same level as a third world nation, India. Even the US does not stop enterprise bargaining if a majority of the workplace want one. yet this Government wants to paint this right as a union stalking horse. Do you think the IR laws in the United States are bad for worker productivity?
Labor's IR laws restore the status quo back to where it was before Work Choices. No one would argue that Australia's economic performance was shabby pre 2006

Felicity, you're probably right in some aspects but your extremist language as usual lets you down. I'd hope future Tara educated girls might correctly save the stock phrase "dangerous apartheid" for debates defining racist segregation instead of simple policy you or your betters happen to disagree with. Could someone tell me if those in the current Government or party rooms who are pushing this are on AWAs? It'd be nice to know how many people in what's left of this country after 60 trade deficits in a row are speaking from experience and not imported NZ online pieces.

For my own part, before I retired from "working in the factory for the fat man" I did my own negotiating. This generally involved a lot of drinking. The latter is a skill one can keep for life. I expect that anyone without the skills to both drink heavily and converse fluently will find themselves employed here by award, rather than an AWA. An AWA would mean having to involve less than wholesome folk into the invoices of my general life. Although that said, my solicitor has a much better wine collection that I do and isn't afraid to share it.

As an employer, conditions in State & Federal awards concerning primary production are fair to say the least. Over the years if we like someone, we're happy to pay more for that privilege. At the moment though, drought continues. No week passes without someone going bust, big or small. Unless someone can make it rain, the IR policies of either party isn't going to make a difference to employment.

Must say, I'd love to see someone do an article on the results of drought on elections. I think they'd find changes in Fed Govts occur during drought regardless of any mob's IR policies.

Just for the record Felicity, are you on an AWA?

Simon Bedak
Wagga Wagga NSW 2650

Labor’s plan to replace individual contracts with collective awards for those earning under $100,000 destroys choice and the opportunity to negotiate better pay and conditions - opines Felicity

This lass really thinks that there was a land where there was those opportunities - if it ever existed it was certainly no more than a very small principality - real life has demonstrated most people lived and still do in the land of "take it or leave it" - yes the miners did well - but by and large they always have in recent history - but the average punter was pretty much screwed.

The imagery of apartheid is also so a bit wacky - the real separatness was created by the old regime - the owners and the serfs returned to the industrial landscape - Rudd ammnedments are imperfect but they do go some way to redress the imbalance

Ok, Felicity, John Howard tried but you succeeded. At last I am willing to admit it. Black is indeed white, and white is indeed back.

Congratulations

...john

There's an implication in McMahon's article that people who always worked on common-law contracts before will have their contracts declared null-and-void, and now be obliged to work for minimally-compliant award wages and conditions.

That's not the thrust of the proposed Labor amendments at all. People on individual contracts will *again* be covered by the *minimum* conditions of the award *in addition* to the terms of their contract -- meaning that they will lose nothing more than the "right" to sign away basic workplace rights.

The problem with the AWA "system" is that rights established under the award system -- such as leave entitlements, penalty rates, and conditions to ensure workplace safety -- are up for grabs. Workers can now agree, for no greater incentive than continued employment, to surrender those rights. They're not "protected" from being signed away on the dotted line.

Collective bargaining is another right, but it's only pertinent in those workplaces where a "collective" makes sense. In many workplaces there is no union presence and the only way union power makes itself felt is in the awards: legally-binding concessions the unions have historically won from government. The choice to bargain collectively is one that *should* lie with workers; the choice to give up essential safety requirements like clean air and rest breaks is one that no-one should be able to be bribed to make.

In this (so-called) egalitarian society, we already have a two-tiered Health System, a two-tiered Education system and a two-tiered Justice system.

I guess a two-tiered Employment system is inevitable.

Interesting too, that employers like to band together into various common-interest groups to collectively lobby the Government but they try to deny this opportunity for their employees to collectively bargain with them in the same way.

Interesting days ahead for us all.

Burkey,
I bet that Telstra is still telling their staff that "people are our greatest asset" while they are escorting them off the premises, post-redundancy.

In Telstra, people are actually number 7 on the scale of importance.
What's number six?
Photocopy paper!

Felicity, the new cheerleader for our neo-liberal right forces of power.

She could step into Miranda Devine's job.

There's always been a desire by our propertied and monied classes to have greater power to exploit, just look at what happens in the US, and in 3rd world countries, and also what happened in the era of Dickens.

It could all happen again if we take our eye off the ball long enough.

This is the sort of strong-languaged scare-mongering that I would expect from a liberal candidate on the campaign trail. What a load!

- awards if reintroduced act as a MINIMUM. Employers have always been able to give exceptional employees extra monetary reward and extra flexibility reward. After all, if one employee is 25% more efficient than the rest, the employer would be happy to give them flexible conditions to make sure that their services were retained. Doesnt matter what regime it is under.

- This article ignores the fact that we have a 2-tier system now (everywhere but Victoria). Sole traders and partnerships which make up a large proportion of small business owners, are still governed by State Awards. Workchoices biggest impact has been on large employers, not small.

- the mining companies are whinging about collective bargaining, but there has been evidence presented about the same companies employing pattern-bargaining with their AWA's (supposed to be illegal). What's the difference, if most people end up on the same agreement anyway?

- the study results about profits being higher in non-union workplaces is questionable too. Again, it comes back to what point you are trying to prove. Most high-profit businesses operate in industries where there are no unions, because there has never been any need for them. The workers are highly skilled and sufficiently equipped to negotiate their own conditions (which is the world in which many uni graduates enter). On the other hand unionised workplaces often operate in lower-profit industries (manufacturing for example), where lower wages prevail, because of the dymanics of that industry and the fact that many workers are poorly educated and lack the ability to negotiate well for themselves

Unlike our authoress I did no go to uni, in fact nor to high school.
I passed in burning the rubbish from every classroom and little else.
However the uni of life continues to educate and entertain me.
This thread is baseless, it comes from a lack of understanding of the workplace and the intent of workchoices.
It is standard Liberal dribble and quite wrong.
It is not shared by most Australians, workers, or voters, all of who hold a different view.
On election night, after a hard and bitter campaign a out going Howard government will Begin a debate that may last for years, I think people such as our authoress will drive that debate.
Its subject? why workchoices? why allow it to so very badly turn a majority unheard of into such a defeat?

4,000 Telstra employees on an identical AWA? Looks like a collective agreement to me, except it is an individual agreement - take it or leave us Mr/Mrs individual.

John "man of steel" Howard's political antennae did not work on this one.

"man of steel" translated into Russian = Stalin. :)

Oh dear, oh dear - Labor can do no wrong, the unions can do no wrong. The Coalition are mean, tricky, nasty, underhand bastards who can do no right.
Could we have a bit of reasoned debate here? Are ALL AWA's really a bad thing? Are ALL people really worse off? Are ALL employers out to do the wrong thing by their employees?
The posts here sound as if AWAs are the worst possible thing out and that the world will be a rosy and cosy place again under Labor and the unions.
I really am curious now. Is there anyone out there who supports AWAs? Is there anyone out there on an AWA and happy about it? Has the union movement and the ALP always done the right thing? (Gee why haven't they always been in power?)
Come on - the article might be a bit over the top but so are the responses.

No communicat not all AWA's are bad -

however they are part of very bad law - poorly drafted - subject to little internal debate or analysis in the party room - excellent vehicles for exploitation - they were designed thus and now cop all the bad press under sun -

Some employers may well have used them as they were touted in the propaganda surrounding workchoices Mk 1 and 2 - as instruments of fairness and opportunity - particularly in the tiresome case of the miners we keep on hearing about - but it seems very few did -

and most people knew that AWA's would provide a perfect ride to the bottom when it comes to wages and conditions.

Apartheid is already here, thy name is Workchoices.

Great work of fiction, well done.

Communicat, while I share your frustration at the dearth of reasoned debate, I'm afraid that when anybody comes out with something so overblown and one-eyed to begin with, well, they can expect a response in kind!

Felicity has done the equivalent of getting up on open mic night at the stand-up comedy club. The response is predictable.

And on that note, here's my tomatoes:

Instead of choosing to be a Liberal Party propagandist, it's a pity that Felicity didn't follow the good example of my step-sister, who put her prestigious Tara education to better use by opening a pole-dancing studio.

Had she done so, Felicity would have found that the money is cleaner, the work more satisfying, and the profession much more respectable than the one she has chosen.

The article makes a lot of sense.

Communicat, interesting I should find myself knowing that what you say may be true, my life says it is so.
I like many others have met good people a lot of whom perhaps are immigrants. or have other "disabilities", like can't express them selves well. This is the area that most concerns me with your post, I was an employer and found that a limit set thru circumstance has great variety.
Empathy, compassion has little reward in a profit motivated society so we need to protect the vulnerable.
These base objectives are a fair society, makes who we are. No one suffers, smarts do what they has always done, do better.
fluff4fairness.

Well i dont care for either labor or liberal.

How did we get here, by the blind obsesion of voting for a party and not someone who will stand up for you or the electorate.

These party's have only one goal themselves.

Oh and greg combet has said that awa's are good.
You will also find that dear ole ruddy has been saying to make sure awa's are right for five years,realy looking after the workers.

Just like before the state elction , i was emailing unions,newspapers,radio and tv and did they care that the public transport system was going to be privatised, no .

This tells who they are their for and that is to either get liberals in or get labor in and all you are to them is the $2.40 that they will get when they get 4% of the primary vote, nothing more.

With me running as an independent i couldnt give a rats about the money, i am running for what is important and thats the people.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

As an old cockie who never worked for anyone much except his slave-driving old-man as a kid, often heard talk about the boss always having the big-end of the stick as far as choice was concerned.

Now it seems with unions neutered the boss really has got back the big end of the stick, with work choices really not having any guarantee except pure faith in someone's master that the choice can be guaranteed.

So thus the question now is, what has happened to arbitration, part of a country's law system in a democracy that a worker at least can appeal to with unions now being regarded by the growing corporate culture as just unnecessary human garbage.

Certainly it seems that with today's employer-employee relations, decency and democracy have been chucked out the window and replaced by a faith that long ago was replaced by intelligent reasoning anyhow.

It's Fliss for God's sake! (DON'T DO IT BOAZ..) What more do you expect?

For a realistic discussion of what the ALP’s few actual changes to WorknotcalledChoicesanymore mean, go to:
<a href=http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/coalition-and-labor-narrow-industrial-relations-gap/2007/09/02/1188671793954.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1>Coalition and Labor narrow industrial relations gap>/a>

You are one really funny lady Felicity, you must be on drugs, I only read about 5 or 6 paragraphs and I nearly died laughing, you are really away in LA LA land I suggest you join AA or try rehab.

Despite this young lady's academic qualifications I do not think she has any idea what she is talking about. The main thrust of her opinion seems to be that the ALP policy will remove choice for an employee. Seriously, any person who puts forward the view that the present laws promote choice for an employee knows absolutely nothing about the real world of industrial relations. I would venture to say that this young lady has had NO experience at all in that field.

My experience in that field, over a 40 year period, tells me, and will tell any experienced industrial practicioner, whether that experience has been gained acting for employers or employees, that the present laws just went too far and tipped the power balance too far to employers. The recent introduction of the so-called fairness test by the present government is cogent evidence of that fact. The present laws got the industrial 'balance' way out of kilter.

The proposals by the ALP will, in my view, restore that balance. Most Australians have grown up with the view that a 'fair go' is a pretty good idea. It is basic to the Australian way of life. And Australians know when they see something that does not fall into the category of a 'fair go'.

The current laws simply do not, and emphatically so, represent a fair and balanced approach to industrial relations.

The article by this young lady is one of the most biased, right wing, lacking in knowledge, articles about industrial relations that I have ever come across.

The Liberal Party will rue the day that these laws ever saw the light of day.

There are no winners her

Employers will have to examine wether they can have their extra staff and people will have to work out wether they wis to work.

If the labor party doesnt buy their own t shirts in australia due to being cheaper overseas then what have you got.

Jobs vs wages vs being able to sell product to pay wages.

It comes down to do you want to work or just buy all your stuff from overseas and be on the dole.

Even this will have to be cut due to the less and less workers.

Just like when i told the unions about privatisation in nsw of public transport they didnt care, it wasnt their jobs but the workers that will lose.

All they wanted was labor

You get what you get.

If you dont have what it takes to stand up for yourself as you only stand for a party then i would suggest another country.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

The reality is this.We either have IR reform and try to compete with China or we increase tarrifs.This country is bleeding to death even with record sales of our energy and resources.

Our present balance of payments deficit is fast approaching $60,000.00 for every working person.This is why the Coaltion had an ill planned IR reform to try and make us more competitive.

The Labor Party are in denial.They have not confronted the reality of tarrifs V's wages and efficiency.We either go broke living on credit,lower our incomes to keep industry here or increase tarrifs to offset cheap labour in poor countries.

It is about time we had the real debate about our economic survival and people like Kevin Rudd cannot protect us from the economic bogey man with promises of watered down Howard polices.

"Labor’s plan to replace individual contracts with collective awards for those earning under $100,000 destroys choice and the opportunity to negotiate better pay and conditions."

No, it doesn't.

Next.

Arjay,
The reason that personal debt is so high is because people have borrowed so much - probably in the mistaken belief that things were allegedly going so well for the economy and that it would last forever.

Now with increasing under-employment, comparatively decreasing wages and the reduction in job security due to Workchoices, reality is fast approaching for many people.

The Government built up an illusion of increasing personal wealth and now kicked the chair out from under a lot of people.

It's also got little to do with competing with China. Local businesses will outsource to China or India regardless.

For an employer to outsource overseas, the cost reduction must be at least 50% of the local costs to make it worthwhile. Are you willing to take a 51% pay cut, just to keep your job? I suspect not.

Workchoices is soley about increasing local profits and taking the unions out of the equation.

It's the long-held ambition of the H.R. Nicholls Society and Costello is a founder member.

This, along with the GST and the selling-out of public assets will be a long term legacy that will haunt them in years to come.

Gday Tapp last or second last in Charlton less than 1.000 votes no reason to claim deeper understanding.
Communicat, not ALP blindness not union victory IR reform in the form most Australians want it.
This thread is a symptom.
Of the very real gap in Liberal understanding of why the polls are so badly against them.
One foot in front of the other blindly wading deeper into the mud, how do they turn around if mid campaign Howard waters down workchoices,? he may very well do so.

Communicat, I am on an AWA. Prior to that a common law contract. My AWA has made me marginally better off, as I have increased sick leave entitlements (I now get 10 days a year instead of 8, and they accumulate where they didnt before). But I work in an industry where wages are directly linked to productivity and individual results and have been for decades, so common law contracts to recognise individual effort have been commonplace for some time. There has also been a labour shortage in the field for many years and will continue to be so for the forseeable future, so that puts the employee in a strong bargaining position.

My concern over the current legislation is that contracts suit some industries and bulk agreements suit others. And the article was blatant and poorly written propoganda. With arguments and construction such as was used I am very surprised that the author managed to graduate - my law professors certainly required a much higher standard.

Now look here. Work Choice only got a bad name because those Bully Boy Unionists gave unreasonable information. I recommend that all those that were swayed by those Bully boy Adverts should ask for The Workplace Fact Sheet which gives you your rights and obligations. We cannot be sacked by a small business with under 100 employees. We may have scrapped the unfair dismissal laws but I am sure that an employee would get reinstated if they were sacked for joining a union because Barbara Emmett assures us. Our Government would not pay large sums of money for adverts and tell us untruths and details that were incorrect. I am pleased that our Government has counter acted the scare mongering put out by the Bully Boy tactics of Trade Unions. People now realise that the New Industrial Relations Laws are now fair for employees.

Now Look John Howard has been misunderstood.
We have nothing against Collective Bargaining the only thing wrong with it is that it puts an Employer at a disadvantage. Our Party believes in a fair go So please give our Companies a chance to make their profits. $16 dollars an hour is a reasonable wage and Carers should think their selves lucky that they have a job. It is important that Companies do make big profits for the benefit of our shareholders otherwise we would take our Companies abroad and set up in China. We must have flexibilty in the Workplace and the Australian Government Workplace Authority now gives us that. I urge you all to phone 1300 363 264 and learn the ral facts. We cannot allow Trade Unions to have right of Entry to check on other employees wages. This is private it is imperative that each employee can earn for their devotion to the Company and their supervisor. It is not logical that all employees should earn the same money for doing the same job. Some Employees may have better interpersonal skills. All this rubbish that some teachers have to teach in hard to teach schools. This is why we must bring in Performance Management on teachers so that The Principal can favour who they want for promotion and higher pay. We must have all teachers on individual work place agreements and once they have signed that contract we can make sure that they will perform better. Behavour Management is the responsibility of the class teacher and not the Principal, Deputy or Head of Department.

good god. will this boring, pompous, self-satisfied woman ever stop posting her liberal crap?

Julie Vickers or the authoress? both are lost in a space well away from reality.

Belly,
Julie Vickers is being ironical. Felicity McMahon, I am afraid, is not. But that's good too, because it shows how far out of touch Liberals are.

Belly and Bushwacker

Com'on, don't you get it? Felicity McMahon and Julie Vickers are one and the same ALP stooge writing under two pseudonyms. She know she'll get rumbled by astute readers and Labor will get free kicks. That's the whole point.

Felicity kicks off with: "Studies have shown (PDF 636KB) that the presence of unions in an economy reduces the returns to skilled workers in an economy."

Click on the link she provides and it says nothing of the sort. The report she linked us to concludes: "...although unions in both industrial and developing countries are successful in securing a wage markup for their members and other workers covered by collective agreements, no general conclusions about the net costs (or benefits) of unions can be reached (p.5)." and "The evidence on the macroeconomic impact of collective bargaining in OECD countries is too weak and fragile to warrant generalizations (p.120)."

Felicity was giving a deliberate free kick to Labor.

Then her alter ego, Julie chimes in tongue-in-cheek: "Our Government would not pay large sums of money for adverts and tell us untruths and details that were incorrect...Now Look John Howard has been misunderstood." [Canned audience hysteria up full volume]

Same with her dissertation on fairness: "People now realise that the New Industrial Relations Laws are now fair for employees. ("We cannot be sacked by a small business with under 100 employees", she says.)

And her deliberate sarcasm re the plight of the poor employers: "Our Party believes in a fair go So please give our Companies a chance to make their profits." and

"We have nothing against Collective Bargaining the only thing wrong with it is that it puts an Employer at a disadvantage."

And she's just laying for the socialist teachers' vote with this: "All this rubbish that some teachers have to teach in hard to teach schools. This is why we must bring in Performance Management on teachers so that The Principal can favour who they want for promotion and higher pay."

C'mon Flick/Jules. Come clean - Ruddy put you up to this, didn't he?

Kevin Rudd... a.k.a. KRUDD (or just plain CRUD)

Definition of CRUD:

Noun:
1. (Euphemism) Crap.
2. Dirt, Filth or Refuse.
3. Heavy wet snow on which it is difficult to Ski.

Crud may refer to:
Crud (game), played on a billiard table.
Unidentified deposits on Nuclear Fuel.
Create, Retrieve/Read, Update and Delete (CRUD), basic functions of a computer database.
Crud, as a Minced Oath or in the Sense of Dirt, or a Euphemism for Crap

Derived Terms:
Cruddy Ruddy

I found this article hard to believe. Was it written by a supposedly intelligent, university-trained person? If so, then I am afraid that this only goes to support the contention that we are allowing people with too little intelligent aptitude in to these hallowed grounds.
Ms McMahon, your understanding of the issues defy belief. Your article, accordingly, has so many holes that a fleet of double-decker buses could be driven through. It also shows that you are coming from a societal priveleged base. May I suggest that you take a couple of years off from University and take youself to some underpriveleged areas, to examine the issues of real poverty? I am sure you will benefit, as your experiences and understanding increase. You may also learn that not everybody has the capacity to bargain for their own benefit; you may also learn.... my goodness, I could go on and on about what you need to learn. But I think at this point I will desist any further communications.
Oh, dear!

i was referring to mcmahon. it escapes me why online opinion gives so much space to this vacuous liberal shill.

In short the choices are these,we either increase tarrifs in selected areas or lower our wages to compete with the likes of China and India.Now with limited energy/resources and with a growing world pop living standards for most of us in Western Societies under Globalisation must fall.

We in Australia would be better off keeping the bulk of our energy for ourselves since cheap energy underpins quality living standards.We have opted for a Global game with no rules which we cannot possibly win.We have vast quantities of energy/resources/land which makes us the envy of the planet.Why do so many of us work such long hours for so little reward?

I know how you feel Tapp it is like banging your head against the wall.
They know not what they do they are campaigning themselves into unemployment. India and China have low wages and their economy is booming they have gone from strength to strength since our Companies have set up business over there. Here we have organised labour and that is not good for prosperity and profits. Tapp you believe in what you are doing and stay true to yourself when all looks futile. Our newspapers need the educate their readers a lot more than they are doing already. It would pay the West Australian and the Sunday Times to deliver them free of charge to get our message accross. Foxtel needs to reduce the rental charge to bombard their viewers regarding the management of our economy and the dangers once the Trade Unions hold our country to ransom. Tapp we will have to get together to try and tackle the unfair negative attacks upon our leadership have you any ideas ?

Australia First your input is so articulate you do have a way with words. You overwhelm me you get home to the core issues. We need to do a lot more to destroy Trade Unionism and seperate them from all other workers. Workplace Reform
The Australian Government’s workplace reforms are the next step in the evolution of a more decentralised workplace relations system. The reforms are major but not extreme. They are sensible and fair steps to further strengthen the Australian economy and bring on the next wave of productivity improvement which will benefit all Australians.

A workplace relations system is only as good as the contribution it makes to the strength of the economy. All the regulations in the world will not save somebody’s job, or push up wages, if our economy is weak or if firms are uncompetitive.

Through its reforms the Government has transformed the Australian economy into one of the strongest in the world. Around 2 million jobs have been created, the real wages of Australian workers have risen by 17.9 per cent, the unemployment rate is at its lowest levels in 30 years and interest rates have been significantly reduced.

Since the introduction of WorkChoices in March 2006, more than 200,000 new jobs have been created (December 2006), the largest increase in employment in an eight month period since records began.

Australia’s high living standards rely on the productivity of our workplaces. Just as today’s prosperity has been built by Australians working smarter over the past decade, so we must unleash a new burst of productivity growth to secure our future prosperity.

Top
WorkChoices has three major elements:

The introduction of a national workplace relations system for the first time;
The simplification of the agreement making process; and
A better balancing of the unfair dismissal laws.

Come on! you can not believe our Julie is from the ALP? it is Joe hockey!
Heard it all before Australia knows the truth and the polls show it.
yesterday a Ferrell boss asked for reductions in his next agreement, for months he and me[the union ] waded thought it bit by bit.
We ended up with a document much the same as every one else in the industry.
3% wage increases each of 3 years far below par.
Each step he agreed with until he put the final draft to his legal service provider.
Nar you can do better using workchoices was the advice.
so already low income casual workers asked to take wage cuts from existing agreement of $3 an hour, meal allowance[fixed in award]of $3 less.
someone like Julie gave that advice.
Happy ending coming up Ferrell boss forgot his EBA has 18 months to run, that HE asked US to redraft it!
A book inspection may well cost him much back pay and his AWAs he will impose after will cost him his staff!
Better wages are available same work next door.

Good god. It's like politics for preschool with some posters in here.

Australia 1st. Very amusing. Now that I know the precise definitions of crud, I can quite easily apply it to your post, which offers naught but 'crud' in terms of analysis.

But Julie Vickers, yours really takes the cake in terms of spotty reasoning, largely because it pretends to be addressing issues. You've offered no real arguments, just a parrotted line. "Trade unions are bad. Save our economy."

Fess up. You're a Liberal party stooge right? this sounds like their MO, but earlier posters are right insofar as it's not working. You'll have to actually engage with posters here, or you're turning off more voters than you're assisting.
You need to understand that blatant propaganda like that isn't working any more.

Now. I'm no fan of trade unions but when you say "We need to do a lot more to destroy Trade Unionism and seperate them from all other workers" you reveal yourself to be a conservative simpleton.

What's a union? A workers co-operative, that has banded together to exercise some influence when negotiating for workers conditions.

Clearly unions have gone too far in many instances, however, to destroy trade unions entirely you have to rely on market forces. This is fine when your economy is booming, but there is to be an inevitable slowdown. This is when workers rights need to be protected.
Economically libertarian theories have their own flaws, but few are willing to acknowledge that, which is why a socially libertarian system exists.
Your proposal would encourage a system like the US, where waitresses for instance, can be paid an absolute pittance, and a full time job on minimum wage can't support someone.

Honestly - pick up your game JV. As it stands, you're insulting our intelligence.

Some posters seem intent on impressing us with their wit, yet only the letter t separates them from reality.
If you look a little closer you will see the same radical ideas that took away Howard's massive mandate and poll lead.
Blindly ignoring the public will never share their views but still talking as if only they understand, well they in fact have no understanding.
A lifetime of trade unionism has not blinded me to reality, not made me unaware of the simple fact some unions by their actions are the enemy of workers.
That my party the ALP while to me is the only current option is not perfect.
But what is the aim of the blind and often uninformed hate toward ALL UNIONS?
And toward every ALP action?
I think Julie is far too impressed with his/her own wit or is it spelled twit?
And just maybe unable to understand any issue.

Lay off Julie Vickers. Can’t you see that she is sending up Felicity McMahon and the Liberals? Look at how ridiculous her language is:
“Now look here….Bully Boy Unionists gave unreasonable information….The Workplace Fact Sheet which gives you your rights and obligations….because Barbara Emmett assures us. Our Government would not pay large sums of money for adverts and tell us untruth….”
(Wednesday, 5 September 2007 1:24:31 AM)

“Now Look John Howard has been misunderstood.
We have nothing against Collective Bargaining….give our Companies a chance to make their profits. $16 dollars an hour is a reasonable wage and Carers should think their selves lucky that they have a job. It is important that Companies do make big profits….We cannot allow Trade Unions to have right of Entry to check on other employees wages….their devotion to the Company and their supervisor. It is not logical that all employees should earn the same money for doing the same job….All this rubbish that some teachers have to teach in hard to teach schools. This is why we must bring in Performance Management on teachers so that The(sic) Principal(sic) can favour who they want for promotion and higher pay. We must have all teachers on individual work place agreements….Behavour(sic) Management is the responsibility of the class teacher and not the Principal, Deputy or Head of Department.
(Wednesday, 5 September 2007 1:44:26 AM)

“Here we have organised labour and that is not good for prosperity and profits….Foxtel needs to reduce the rental charge to bombard their viewers regarding the management of our economy and the dangers once the Trade Unions hold our country to ransom.”
(Thursday, 6 September 2007 11:37:06 PM)

“We need to do a lot more to destroy Trade Unionism and seperate(sic) them from all other workers.”
(Friday, 7 September 2007 1:13:13 AM)

I know the Liberals have moved to the Right, but no real Liberal would go over the top like this.

Belly a great advantage of unionism, which many people who can negotiate their own working conditions overlook, is that they are negotiating for better conditions than those available under the award.

This means that if all union members work a 38 hour week with penalty rates for overtime, shift work and week end work then a worker signing a contract should make damn sure that their pay exceeds the pay they would get under a union award and their hours of work are better.

A classic example of this in action is the 17% leave loading which many white collar workers are/were entitled to. The leave loading was initially paid to Carlton & United Brewery workers so that they could afford to take their annual leave, to reduce the level of industrial accidents occurig on site when workers returned from "annual leave". Prior to the leave loading being granted the brewery workers used to work during their holiday break because they needed to make up the additional income they usually got from shift rate penalties.

Another example is the first group of female workers who got unpaid maternity leave entitlements were teachers whose unions negotiated that right about 25 years ago.

If you don't have strong unions then all workers will have worse conditions.

Examples of weak unions are those covering rag trade employees, shop assistants and bank officers. Bank tellers in the banking chamber are employed for 5 hour shifts, to avoid meal break entitlements.

You know i am really trying to work out who are you trying to kid

Kevin Rudd has already told business to make awa's for five years.
So awa's will not be going away.

If wages go up will all labor supporters still support these australian companies or buy their stuff from overseas.

Wages go up the cost of product goes up

People cannot afford to buy australian as cheap imports comming in

What we get is high unemployment
Bankrupsies as people are layed off due to company going broke

Or is this all about the unions and union fees

Is it this is just about a pay rise for the union masters.

I can see what is happening but hey since you lot are so smart and believe what these parties and unions tell you it may just take you longer to understand the other part of the picture.

No australian companies no jobs.
No jobs less taxes
Less taxes lower benefits
Lower benefits, what now labor and what once was the unions.
No union fees people need to eat

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

Tapp, the cost of products rises because the corporate profits are rising faster than the level of wages.

Any financial planner trying to get you to invest in the stock market will tell you that profits are as high a proportion of GDP as they have ever been and their share keeps rising. Wages on the other hand are a falling share of GDP.

When companies ship their product across an international boundary they have the opportunity to sell the product from the company it was produced in at a low price to their shell company incorporated in Nauru. The Nauru holding company onsells the product at an artificially high price to the australian consumer. Whats the advantage, the company takes its profit in the jurisdiction with the lowest taxing regime.

So Stuart Ulrich if you want to keep jobs in Asutralia think about taxing companies on turnover not profits as well as increasing tarriffs.

A basic lesson of Economics 101 was that America was an economic powerhouse in the early twentieth century because its workers had high enough disposable incomes to be able to purchase goods so that companies could sell their product to domestic consumers rather than having to export their product.

Companies will find that as Workchoices forces wages down that consumers will no longer have the money for that cup of coffee, take away lunch, new shirt or jeans. In short when wages fall then consumption will fall, people will still need to eat but they don't need $160 Country Road jeans when the same article is $40 in Target.

If the ALP get in then people on existing AWAs can stay on them for 5 years but new hires would be hired under an award or a common law contract. Do you think that AWAs would have to be dismantled after 5 years or would people on AWAs move to new positions with better pay and conditions. Keeping AWAs for 5 years is a very hollow assurance.

Or vote Liberal and find out what Senator Nick Minchin has in store as Workchoices Mark 2.

Hey remember it is rudd who told business to fix it for another five years.

Instead of them running out rudd is not looking after them by labor or union standards.

Look at the business some dont make that much profit and only just make payments.
But then that is all about the worker.

The more we get rid of small business the faster the larger ones take ie target.

What you will get is no small business big business will buy overseas as they want big profits.

Higher wagers equals less australian product
Higher wages equals less work
more unemployment.

The unions are worried about their own jobs and not the workers, just look at NSW transport and privatisation.
The unions knew but didnt stand up for the workers, now jobs will be lost just for the sake of labor in power.

My spelling stiff, i dont care what the party thinks.
What i say is honest and straight.
And if all you can winge about is my spelling then you really are pathetic and have no idea.

I will call a spade a spade.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton
swulrich@bigpond.net.au

Stu down load Ispell it is one of a few that you can use, my spelling without it is by far the worst in these pages.
You are right however spelling has nothing to do with the facts or worth of any post.
However I do not agree with a word in your post other than that.