"... no valid argument can be mounted that, without prescriptive regulations, employers as a group would force wages down or impose “unfair” conditions on their employees."

What kind of fairy land is the author of this article living in? There is a significant portion of the workforce who only have their current pay and conditions because of regulation. Remove the regulation and the already existing downward forces will cause a decrease in pay and conditions.

What makes the situation worse, is that these workers are the most likely to lack the negation skills, market knowledge and financial stability to be in position to have any effective input into an agreement. Leaving individual employees to negotiate by themselves will lead to many hard working and productive employees, who lack 'business' skills being paid well under below their worth. Forcing (through employment market signals) employees to become highly business savvy and keep up to date with their market knowledge will shift significant resources away from training in core productivity skills, reducing real productivity and damaging the economy.

A further point is that 'market value' does not represent 'fair value' in the labour market. It can be reasonably argued that the supply and demand economics of low skill labour results in a low wage when compared to the market value of the goods or services produced. Why should businesses gain a disproportionate portion of the money?

Simply put, a free market is not an appropriate mechanism to govern the wages and conditions of low skilled labour. While it's certainly undeniable that unions have had some significant negative impacts, it seems increasingly common to not acknowledge the many positive impacts they've had as well. What's need is a balanced system, not more extremism such as what is proposed in this article.

Ah yes, another tirade from the Anti-Marx himself Des Moore, an economically libertarian stalwart of the highest order.

It's rather interesting listening to his various pieces, extolling the virtues of a completely deregulated trade market.
It's just a shame that like socialism, his dream of a pure economic system is a dangerous fantasy that's apt to destroy lives if taken too seriously.

Desipis, you took the words right out of my mouth. I don't know what parallel universe the author is working in but it sure isn't the one in which the low paid workers live. Most of the workers with low skills have to take what they are offered, or else. The same probably goes for the over fifty's who have the skills but have no industrial muscle.

Get real Mate.

Is this guy just a Liberal stooge?

Not been a worker, only an old cockie, but with this work choices, can see who's really got the choice, the one that holds the big end of the stick.

It's back to the old days, like skippers when big storms blew up, came out with, have faith in me my hearties.

Well without any non-partisan lawful arbitration, what else could it be?

I have seen first hand how a Pty Ltd company can, and has exploited the IR legislation to benefit financialy at a workers expence.
I worked as a casual driver (HR Truck). The casual award rate being $15.26 per hour plus 25% loading = $19.08 per hour for 7.6 hours per day. I was compelled to work up to 15 hours per day without taking a meal break. For this I was paid a gross hourly rate of $18 per hour without penalty rates for over time. I was not paid any superannuation
which is required by law. I made enquires to the WorkPlace Ombudsman who refered me to contact the office of workplace complaints. I contacted the Office of Workplace complaints seeking their assistance.
Unlike the advertisement campaign as seen on tv they were not interested in an individual case. Workplaces suggested I negotiate with my employer which I did, this only led to my being terminated. I again contacted the Workplace Office and Ombudsman to no avail.
I have perused the Transport Workers Award 1996 and the WorkChoices Legislation which they currently alledge to adhere to, yet they do the opposite and refused to investigate my complaint.
This is John Howards IR Legislation, which only proves to me it was introduced to hurt the vast population of workers.

"Whichever party is elected the outcome on workplace relations will be retrograde because it will maintain unwarranted restrictions"

Moore knows quite well, the banks and the bosses rely on the the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, and the unions to implement ever deepening attacks on the social position of workers, driving down wages and conditions that ameliorate levels of exploitation. It does not matter how much money the banks and bosses accumulate, new demands will be forthcoming for more. Moore is articulating further requirements, he is a veiled mouthpiece, for the financial elite.

What does Des Moore realy mean by 'unwarranted restrictions'? Despite veiling his real intentions, he means the removal of all and any restrictions on unfettered exploitation of workers. In other words, the new Industrial Laws do not go far enough. He comes out of a right wing organization that supports every form of wage exploitation and increase of poverty. Usually this layer is doing very well thank you - at the expense of workers. The politics this layer express are 'workers have no rights.'

OK All you mugs out there LISTEN UP!

Here is the end-game for John Howard's IR reforms (and all his ilk on the right-wing end of politics). This is REALLY what they want:
Skip all the intermediate steps (saves all the inconvenient "debating in Parliament" and argy bargy with Unions and lawyers) and go straight to this!

1. Abolish all benefits to all workers immediately. (John Howard has nearly done this to date)
2. Those who object to this, should be sacked immediately (and they already have been). They can try to find the money to fight a court case for "unlawful dismissal".
3. Immediately coerce (did I say that!) remaining employees into signing Australian Workplace Agreements that are internationally competitive (this is in the papers every week now); where pay rates will be matched with, and pegged to, those equivalent workers in India (and paid in Rupees) or China (and paid in Yuan).
4. Anyone who doesn't sign an AWA - refer to point 2 above.
5. Offer jobs to any/all of the following:
(a) sacked workers who have since applied to Centrelink (who will be refused unemployment benefits unless they take the job at the internationally competitive (lowest) pay rates on offer);
(b) migrants who aren't used to prior working conditions (John Howard is bringing them in by the boatload)
(c) any other worker in the world who will work for the (lowest) internationally competitive pay rates on offer.
6. Use the highest wages differential of any country (Brazil as a benchmark). Aim to quadruple the spread by 2008 (unless the Rupee/AUD or Yuan/AUD is larger).
7. Anyone who complains about the government will be imprisoned for sedition or as a suspected terrorist under current draconian laws.

Think I'm joking? Read the newspapers again !

Des has a problem with detail here."Labor will effectively remove the problem of unfair dismissal for small business." Last I heard Kevin Rudd was only going to give small business a reprieve of 12 mths exemption and then old rules will apply.

Perhaps Des may have more aptly titled the article "Let them eat cake".

One cannot help but muse at the implications for our longterm social stability with such an exploitive agenda. I think there are very few people out there who don't know of someone adversley effected by WorkChoices, just like our mate Bushbred above.

It's just a shame with Des cocooned away in his think-tank he'll never have the fantastic opportunity to negotiate for pentality rates and meal breaks with an employer.

Actually, that's not a bad idea...let's allow the neoliberal laissez-fair worshippers to have their way for a few decades, then sit back and watch the peasants revolt. You have to wonder if these people have any sense of history. The '29 stock market crash and Great Depression can be very convincingly linked to the lack of regulation of free markets gone mad, and the French and Russian Revolutions occurred exactly because of the absurd wealth disparities that are inevitable without some wealth redistribution and enforced minimum wage agreement.

MULTINATIONALS

When our oceans are full of icebergs and the current engineering is fatally flawed our Nation is in trouble.

So it is with the current neo-classical economics. Competition between nations and unsustainable and uncontrolled growth, motivated by the mantra "greed is good" is devastating our planet, while providing unprecedented wealth and power to the privileged few.

‘Liberal’ applied to this government means neo-conservative policies that are unashamedly totally corporatist, moving into Fascism with continued downward pressure on wages through measures to eliminate unions.

Unrestrained capitalism can deliver increasing benefits in a young nation by developing untapped resources, or in a mature society moving away from the rigidities of communism or the feudalism of an Islamic state. But viewing success from the narrow perspective of perceived national success, regardless of its crippling influences on weaker nations, is both morally unacceptable and economically unsustainable in the future.

Unbridled capitalism has widened the gap between the world's rich and poor and threatening the future of the planet, "Capitalism is not the only valid model of economic organisation".

When the logic of communities acting mutually prevails, it is possible to correct inequalities and direct capitalism towards fairer and sustainable development".

Unfortunately this means fighting old wars between a necessary and revived socialism and the entrenched forces of capitalist power. Western Nations who have adopted the neo-conservative agenda of amassing wealth through force if necessary must desist.

The real threat to the world is not from Islam but from the combined economic power of multinational corporations, whom dictate (policies), influence (political donations) and generally undermine honest democratic processes. It is obvious where this Liberal-National government stands in this conflict, however, it seems to have little grasp of the dangers facing liberal democracies.

A new economic model is yet to emerge, but there is little doubt that radical change is required and will come about. Whether it is through the current war and conflict model or through the cooperation needed through the type of leaders we elect with morality, integrity and vision.

Now what i have to laugh at is you people have a choice to ensure accountability but what happens, we must vote labor,liberal,greens family first and so on.

So really who have we got to blame ourselves.

If you dont like my passion and being honest stiff thats how i am.

You create you enjoy.

You have a choice.

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

Its good to see an independant candidate posting a comment on this page, but the candidate for charlton failed to point out his views on the current topic or who his preferences will be given to.

I do apologise for that and I will comment once i have fully read the complete article.

Now preference well that is up to you.
As being an independent it is just multiple choice so that choice is yours.
If i could preference the people on every spot I would as that is who is important not these parties.

Will comment tommorow with a good response which will be my own veiws and not those of a party.
Anyone for cardboard candidates, These are those who are only there for their parties and not the people.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent For Charlton
swulrich@bigpond.net.au

I look forward to Stuart Ulrichs comment. Hopefully he is a man of integrity, a man who will do his utmost to help all in his electorat.
Australia needs honest politicicians who will do all in their power to change unfair legislations such as the I.R. reforms which only hurt the vast majority of everyday workers.
Do we need more immigration to bolster the workforce of Australia?
Immigration should cease immediately for the following:
Our water resourses are at an all time low with no end in sight.
Bringing more immigrants into the country on work visas only leads to using more of our depleting water from the dams.
Enables employers to take away employees conditions which our forefathers fought hard to gain, often at a sacrifice.

I realise this is an online OPINION forum, but where are the facts and research to back up any of the assertions in this article?

"True, there has been some reduction in labour market regulation in recent years including under WorkChoices since March 2006. That has undoubtedly contributed to the fall in unemployment from 5.0 per cent to 4.3 per cent (in June) and increase in employment of over 360,000, (or about 3.7 per cent)."

Undoubtedly? Really, there is plenty of doubt because the author has made it up out of thin air.

The author acknowledges that low-skilled workers will recieve significantly lower compensation because he believes that is all they deserve. Australia should not be a country where we have slums, homelessness, starvation and poverty. Competing with China's labour force will simply send us into this sort of downward spiral. A truly free international labour market opens up our country to free immigration where our jobs can literally be taken by those very same Chinese, then we will see how little even skilled jobs will be worth in a free market. This is not likely to happen, but is the extreme of what the author is advocating here.

Better to keep laws which protect all the citizens of this nation, minimum wage guaratees and penalty rates that allow us to be a society of humans not a economy of human resources. If businesses pay their workers a bit more, they find that their customers have a bit more to spend.

"If businesses pay their workers a bit more, they find that their customers have a bit more to spend."

Precisely the point I have made several times here already, and that Henry Ford realised nearly 100 years ago. On its own this should be sufficient reason for employers to pay employees well. But it's a classic scenario where each individual business pursuing its own self-interest (trying to increase profits by cutting the pay of its own employees) leads to a result that is worse for everyone, something that laissez-faire-ists like Mr Moore appear to believe can never happen.

JPH: You are correct! Didn't I say this in my earlier post? (You, too, must be a genius !)

wizofaus: Yep, if we keep this up we will be just like that paragon of capitalism; the US of A (God Forbid !)

I must say, I'm glad the posters here don't buy into this stupidity. Far too many influential people have bought into the theories of classic economic libertarianism without genuinely questioning the direction it is taking society.
The abject failure of socialism has meant that the other extreme of economic theory - as extreme and unpractical as it may be - can't be voiced as a balanced alternative to classic libertarianism, thus the advocates of free market economics effectively get a free ride, and those who oppose the unfettered approach are accused of being socialists.
Their economic vision will take us down a very unpleasant path, and unlike socialism, there isn't a centralised power base that can easily totter, and wiht markets being global in nature, it means we are going to be in for a very rude awakening when this system is taken to the extreme.

Hey TurnRightThenLeft, good post!

Why don't we put the shoe on the other foot and ask all these free-market pundits to tell us where they think this is all headed?

Let them put up their ideas of the natural, practical projections of their world view and the "conclusions" it would reach. Some countries give us a hint at where Australia might head (look at USA & Brazil as two examples where the free market has really produced a wide gap between rich & poor).

I'm not an economist, but I know they love to theorise....how about they put up same hard facts and scenarios for us to debate? Is it "Big Brother"; or a a feudal society (with capitalist Kings, Barons and the rest as peasant surfs)?

Anyone got any readings and suggestions for us hoi-polloi to ruminate upon?

how come the moderator is not taking this thread off line i strarted a thread ,pedophiles still rape the forgotten australians , and their was starting to get hits on it yet the moderator took this off the site , so i know break into your debate work relations well ,the goverment employed workers in institutions that raped and abused us children while under the staes care , thats right the goverment is protecting these dirty kiddy touchers, give some response to that from a real victim of the forgotten australians kind reards micheal

huffnpuff, I don't know why it was taken down, though I do note that many of your posts are written in an unstructured disjointed manner that is hard to follow, or worse, in capitals, which many (myself included) find very annoying.
I know that sounds pedantic and it's the message itself that's important, but if you write in a manner that's easier to follow it will help your cause.
It may be an emotional topic, and I dare say that emotion is justified, but if you speak in a more rational manner it will get you further.
I don't say this to be harsh even though it sounds that way, I say it to try and help.

Hijacking threads won't help. As I said, I don't know what the situation with your thread is, though I do know there are currently legal proceedings in relation to incidents in foster homes.
I would suggest it may be likely you have either identified a person or an institution and in doing so, you have either been defamatory, or risked identifying a minor or a victim of a sex crime.
This carries heavy penalties and the site operators would have no choice except to remove the post.

I'd suggest you perhaps plan out a post to start a thread, avoiding mention of specific cases/individuals if you want to discuss it further.

Illuvatar, in relation to things to read - the best book on these matters I ever read, was a book called 'The Worldly Philosophers.'

For my two bob - it's quite a common book and is available from any major online chain - it was interesting because it was readable - it just told the lives of all the major economic thinkers from Adam Smith, to Karl Marx and others, and outlined the effects their theories had on the world.
Many of them led pretty wild lives, I can tell you. They were some pretty good yarns.
It was a short read and doesn't have any of that economic jargon and sludge that can be so damn hard to wade through.

turn right turn left thanks for your advise, it may help me as i am not computor expert , i find it hard to even type , i understand what you are saying , and yes you maybe right as to the post i have been saying yet ,the forgotten australians is a inquirie that was done in august 2004 and a second report done in march of 2005, as it is i dont know how the moderator of this site can be in any trouble as it is i ,i am talking about and i hope of having the door open for the forgotten australians , i was a victim of daruk boys home in 1977and 1978, so where is ive not mentioned nobodies name other than my own , and that the goverment is covering up the truth of what happend to victims like myself , and this is the truth , read the senate inquires and you will see it was not only i a victim at the hands of these pedophiles yet i only mention of what i conceive as a cover up of our australian goverment whether it be labour or liberal, they both need to step up to the plate and own up to the truth ,

By what I see from this article this person has said that deregulation of the workplace is in the best interests and will provide better outcomes between employer and employee.

We see that Liberals have given the safety net, which gives the employee safety but also gives the employer a standard.

We also see that labor and the unions have limited the role of an employee that they have restrictions on what they can do, thus bringing in the role of the unions.
One has to ask about this, is it for the employee, or is it just for union membership and to recreate the union power base, which gives no respect the capacity of the individual employee.

What is also said is about industrial action and as the unions find that this is not important unless of course it can gain them coverage, they are still denying a proper service as those members who pay fees seem to be getting less and less and has been pointed out on OLO many a time.

We also see that when it comes to elections these unions then go quiet and distance themselves to anything that may be damaging to the labor party.

Work choices as I have been told and seen has been beneficial as having spoken to bosses and workers non union, and they have said if it wasn’t for the unfair dismissal laws and AWA’s then they would not have been able to employ extra staff.

Therefore, what we see is a fight between those in the unions and those who want a job but now those who have are now looking down a barrel and are unsure whether they will have a job once labor gets in.

More to follow

People want to work but if employers cannot afford them especially in small business then they cannot employ them. If like the labor party who buys there stuff from overseas, this tells you that it is about cost and if the cost become too high them Australian businesses will go under.

If an employer can sell their goods due to being able to deal better with the employee then that is better. So when it comes down to it , you either believe what the unions and labor tells you or you can see if an employer cannot sell their goods then something has to give and normally it is small business.

What we have found is the unions, labor place their spin about the meat workers, and then Kevin Rudd’s wife’s company and these are used to sensationalize this view. We find the employers of these companies that did wrong just like spotlight, you will find that the large companies who have shareholders are trying to rort the system but being court.

The choice is really up to you and what you believe and you do not have to believe a word I say and that is ok so my views and what I see and think.

Jobs are not about these parties or unions, these organizations have their place but ultimately it is the workers and bosses who have to nut this out and from this greater flexibility and hopefully respect.

It is noted that people keep talking about more money and that is ok but then your goods will go up and then somebody else will get a rise and their goods will go up and it will keep going.
One thing I do need to ask is when there is a pay rise, do union fees go up as well.

Please comment and those from the unions and labor who will most likely bully their way as usual I will answer your questions.

Stuart

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

I will not be able to post again until 9.50 pm saturday night

The fact that the unemployment has plumbed new lows would indicate that market flexibility has helped many formally unemployable people find gainful employment rather than relying on centrelink. This is compared to a handful of lower skilled employees who have fallen foul of unscrupulous employers (who also existed before work choices).

This sudden demand for manpower will shortly ensure that even the lower skilled employees are able to shop around for employment, thus improving their income and work conditions.

This helps all of us too, as there will be far less people on the dole and more taxpayers to share the burden.

Reversing AWAs will ensure that large numbers of those being "exploited" will be free of exploitation on welfare, as the cost of employing lower skilled workers is greatly increased

All these comments are all very well, but........

One has to look at the statistics (as always). It is a fact that, during the Howard government's reign, the ABS statistics have been distorted (thanks, I believe, to none other than Joe Hockey).

These days, one is "employed" (i.e. has a job) if one has paid work for at least ONE HOUR PER WEEK !

I ask you, is that a job? Would that sustain yourself, let alone your family as well. Never mind, that is John Howard's concept of employment... and that is how he is able to tell us the lies about the rising "employment" rate.

Go figure !

Shadow Minister,

The primary driver behind employment at the moment is the mining boom, not work choices. It's also far more than a handful of employees who are on AWAs and disadvantaged. This study on Work Choices (first of its kind) that has some interesting results:

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1967

"This sudden demand for manpower will shortly ensure that even the lower skilled employees are able to shop around for employment, thus improving their income and work conditions."

Work Choices isn't suddenly going to make working conditions that were uneconomical suddenly become economical. Yes, the market will eventually reach some equilibrium, but that level will be well below what has previously been acceptable. As it is, a business that can sustainably pay employees a reasonable amount will be better able to expand when at least some people are actively looking for work.

"This helps all of us too, as there will be far less people on the dole and more taxpayers to share the burden."

Nobody likes the ideal of someone sitting around sucking on the tax payer teat. However it's a more efficient way of running things rather than having the huge social cost of having significant numbers of employed people working 60+ hours a week and yet still being well below the poverty line.

Iluvatar raises a good point about the employment statistics too.

Australia @ Work Report.

For those interested "opinionators" who have time to read the report, go here:

http://www.smh.com.au/pdf/Australia@Work%20The%20Benchmark%20Report.pdf

Happy pre-election reading !

Desipis,

Even without the mining boom the economy has grown faster than almost any other developed nation and the claim that the economy would have been as bad as under labor without it is spurious.

One of the primary drivers behind the mining boom is the AWA aystem which allows flexibility that joint bargaining does not, and the mining houses have made this perfectly clear.

Your comment that businesses can expand more easily when more people are looking for work is true. This is because with higher unemployment, the employees are in a weakened bargaining position and you confirm my point. Your willingness for others to be on welfare "more efficient" seems not to be shared by the people taking up these jobs.

Iluvatar,

The number of people on a few hours a week is almost non existant and is really to include those that would not usually work at all and previously would not have featured as unemployed (e.g. housewives), so this comment is also a furfe.

By any measure the unemployment is a fraction of what it was 10 years ago.

Unemployment was even lower in the 70s, when there was very extensive labour market regulation.

I don't doubt that an amount of market deregulation is necessary for Australia to remain internationally competitive, but a) WorkChoices just generally made a mess of the process and b) a far more important part of ensuring high employment and high productivity is heavy investment in education and training. The latter is how countries such as Norway and Denmark have achieved super low unemployment (1.8% and 3.8% respectively), despite having a very generous welfare state and extensive collective bargaining systems.

Shadow Minister: "One of the primary drivers behind the mining boom is the AWA aystem which allows flexibility that joint bargaining does not, and the mining houses have made this perfectly clear."

Our AWA system caused double digit economic growth in China and India? You learn something new everyday.

"This is because with higher unemployment, the employees are in a weakened bargaining position and you confirm my point."

If you'd read the study I linked to you'd realize that many employees don't even get the opportunity to bargain. Their bargaining power is meaningless if they don't even get to use it. There's also the issue that low skilled, low paid employees are financially vulnerable, in that if they could get another job quickly, losing even a weeks pay in between could mean significant financial hardship. This leaves employees in a weakened position regardless of the state of the jobs market, and means employers can exert significant pressure on employees with little risk.

I also think its quite unfair to force unions and collective bargaining out of the bargaining process, as companies or corporations are little more than 'investor' unions. Howard's push against unions shows his clear bias towards the capital (wealthy investor) side of the economic equation, to the detriment of the labour (everyday worker) side.

WizofAus,

with regards denmark, the unemployment was sitting at 13% in 1994 when they underwent a major labor reform, granting generous unemployment benefits to soften the blow of significantly loosening the employment legislation to enable hiring and firing in small businesses with minimal consequences. This had the result of lowering unemployment to less than 4%.

Shadow Minister.

Please read the article here:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s236260.htm

After reading this would you care to retract your comment, as previously posted?

"The number of people on a few hours a week is almost non existant [sic] and is really to include those that would not usually work at all and previously would not have featured as unemployed (e.g. housewives), so this comment is also a furfe [sic]."

Iluvatar,

The article is question is dated 2001 and the source quoted is “some people say that 210 000 are classed as employed when they should be on the jobless list”. Is this the best you can do?

The author of the article would somehow like to include the people who are not doing the work they would like to in the unemployment register!

For some time my wife helped a friend by working about 12hrs a week when our kids were young and she wasn’t prepared to work more. Was she unemployed?

A colleague of ours works free lance on average 2 days a week. She would like to work more, but as she earns as much as she would in a regular 38hr/wk job she is not looking to change. Is she unemployed?

The article also recognises that 1hr / wk is the international standard. Unless you believe that the international community of economists have got it all wrong and a current affair journalist has got it right, maybe you should consider why.

The present measurement is not perfect, but is the best and fairest measurement that exists in the present labour market. Those throwing stones at it have yet to offer a viable alternative.

I will clarify my comment as follows “the number of people on a few hrs/wk (<10) that want to work full time is statistically irrelevant.”

Shadow Minister

Err.... it's not a competition !

My thesis is simply this:

In the absence of better (more granular) data it appears that this is the best ANYONE can do. (Simple, empirical fact really!)

See here (para 3.9):
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/d1bc8901d3721108ca2572c1002449cf!OpenDocument

and here (para 2.34):
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/1c15cf9774a872dbca2572c100244aa4!OpenDocument

So, I submit to you....how would you KNOW that “the number of people on a few hrs/wk (<10) that want to work full time is statistically irrelevant” if you cannot separate those who work "a few" hours per week, from those who work 50+ hours per week? (Statistics 101).

I do not dispute that someone who works "a few" hours a week isn't employed, they clearly are (a priori), and probably satisfyingly so.

However, I do contest that the inclusion of this category for political purposes, in order to claim the economic "full employment" status is a politicians' sleight-of-hand trick. In doing so I would also submit that this makes the employment estimated almost useless as a measure.