The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > WorkChoices - not so good: Fair Work Australia - frightening! > Comments

WorkChoices - not so good: Fair Work Australia - frightening! : Comments

By Des Moore, published 10/10/2007

Whichever party is elected the outcome on workplace relations will be retrograde.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
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.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 15 October 2007 3:33:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by wizofaus, Monday, 15 October 2007 3:53:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Desipis, Monday, 15 October 2007 4:30:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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%.
Posted by Democritus, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 8:55:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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]."
Posted by Iluvatar, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 9:51:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.”
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 25 October 2007 9:54:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy