The Free Market doesn't work for a society their maybe winners but there are to many losers. That’s the bit the free marketers just don’t get. The other thing to say here is that we looked at the US to see what a largely deregulated employment world would look like and most of us didn’t like what we see. I’m sure some who saw themselves at the top of the heap liked the view though.

In a culture that is based on the anti-ethic of unbridled competition, everyone, including the so called winners, inevitably loses. And most people really do lose. Enormous reservoirs of collective resentment, frustration, and anger thus build up, which will inevitably in one way or another be discharged via a collective psychic purging.

When such an anti-ethic becomes the accepted norm, then the motive to cooperation and sharing becomes systematically undermined. Everyone sits at home in their Macmansion with their security systems and home entertainment system which effectively function as a conduit for all of the worlds pyschic garbage and madness being piped/dumped into their "living" room. Systematic brutality and never ending gore fests as "entertainment". Give the people what they "want".

And by the way it is ALL propaganda for the system itself, with wall to wall messages telling you what you do and how to be. If you want to be "happy" then buy this product, or go to this sporting event or concert---blah blah blah.

Hate, fear, and demonise this group of people, large or small. The boogey-man is out to get you/us.

Competition is really a system of ritualised murder. The winner takes all and the losers?---well tough titties to you.

"When the entire world founds itself on the adolescent motive to aggrandize the individual, then everyone is collectively working toward the destruction not only of human culture and mankind itself, but even of the Earth itself, the very vehicle that supports life".

If WorkChoices was so fabulous, why didn't the Coalition advertise it as a great new policy during the 2004 Election campaign? Or maybe I just missed the ads and only caught the anti-Latham diatribes. And funny how "liberty" (according to this author) seems to involve anti-union legislation on the one hand but greater freedom for bosses to do what they damn well like.

Next time the Coalition might like to tell us what it actually intends to do in government rather than smear its opponents. Unless it wants its butt kicked by the electorate again.

Workchoices was not about liberty. It was about Howard's ideological plan to create a pool of low paid workers that would, by virtue of it's low pay, would increase company profitablilty. An individual cannot bargain on a level playing field with a large corporation. This was tried in the past, before there were Unions and the result is history. Exploitation, misery and an increasing crime rate were the most obvious, along with the obscene wealth of the exploiters.
Get real Mark, there is no chance that Workchoices was good for the average worker. Time to get off the ivory tower of the born to rule attitude and join humanity

Liberty? What Orwellian hypocrisy.

WorkChoices REDUCED choices for BOTH employers and employees. The number of allowable matters in workplace agreements was reduced. There were massive fines just for asking to have such matters included. Compliance costs for employers were increased. Employers, including Federal Govt departments, couldn't understand the laws. The workplace was not deregulated, but massively RE-regulated.

I'm always astonished when I read comments like "An individual cannot bargain on a level playing field with a large corporation" from people like ianbrum, simply because it's not true.

It's not true for a number of reasons (excluding my own success over the last 8 years or so) - but none stand out more than ianbrums previous sentence: "It was about Howard's ideological plan to create a pool of low paid workers..."

If no one could bargain on a level playing field then we would all become low paid workers. By very simple logic alone, ianbrums statement is false. Clearly there are plenty of people who can, and I would argue that in our current environment, that number is greatly increased.

Workchoices was fatally flawed legislation. No one questions that. And the former government was creamed for not managing the change, nor for taking on the smear campaign of the unions properly. But that aside...

People are perfectly capable of negotiating with an employer if they have something that the employer wants. If you present value to your employer then they will pay to keep you, and that's especially true in the current market with the labour shortages we have. I'd suggest that if you don't like your current conditions then go and find another job - there are plenty out there and employers are screaming for good workers.

BN, then the question becomes - how much has really changed since 100 years ago, when employers routinely exploited employees under conditions that today would most would consider shocking, and what happens when the next recession hits and it becomes an employer's market again? Accepted, most employers are little more enlightened, and there is something of an argument that a recession can be recovered from more quickly if employers have the freedom to offer lower wages and fewer conditions while times are tough, but what I've yet to see is a convincing case that extensively deregulating the labour market would actually have a net beneficial effect in the long run (and yes, in the long run we are all dead...but I wonder what Keynes would have thought of WorkChoices).

Ideologues can go on all they like about "glorious notions of Liberty" - but they don't put bread on the table, or roofs over heads. Any policy whose main claim to worth is its ideological purity isn't worth the paper it's written on. And of course as many economists and posters here have pointed out, WorkChoices in the end added a good deal of extra regulation and red-tape for businesses, so failed utterly in its claimed goal of increasing choice and liberty for anybody.

There is a philosophical saying that Love is Limited as Sex is Limited, just as Faith and Trust in our world is still very limited.

That is why the ancient Greeks invented the word Democracy, the ethics associated with democratic reasoning having given us the laws to deal with the problems associated with the above.

Happy Xmas from BB, WA.

THe author was essentially correct.

It was about liberty - but that ideology/concept, call it what you like - as with communism looks fine on paper - but can rarely be operationalised to the extent the aspirations of either model are achieved.

All people are equal and grown ups can freely negotiate a fair outcome - looks great on paper - to argue to the contrary even looks a bit patronising - bt while in essence all are equal in employment rekationships some a way more equal than others - and some are crooks.

"Halt the laissez faire policy trend and progress must stall".

Actually, keep going with the laissez faire policy trend and you end up with international anarchy. Follow the author's logic and the government would have no industrial relations laws and no laws or even opinions on how unions and businesses should operate. Secondary boycotts legislation would have to be dumped because that is government interference. The same goes for OH&S provisions or bailing out banks which lend to people who can't repay the money.

True, capitalism doesn't function well under command economies. Under libertarianism it wouldn't function at all.

No, not really.

A policy that seeks a free market in labour doesn't put onerous restrictions on an employee's ability to seek union representation. And it doesn't place restrictions on both employees and employers on what goes in a work contract. WorkChoices did both. It deliberately sought to prescribe how and what workers and bosses should negotiate.

All sensible people know a labour market without any regulation at all would be utter chaos. Ideologically, the political parties only differ on who that regulation should favour.

Further, DavidJS, the examples of the Nordic economies prove that capitalism is capable of flourishing even with quite extensive government involvement (Finland has been rated as the most competitive economy in the world recently, and is hardly laissez-faire, ranked by the Heritage foundation as having only 39% freedom from goverment). The ideals of libertarianism may be very attractive on the surface, but the proof it works in practice is very thin on the ground.

way to go, mark. keep it up. the more you try to sell howard's dickensian poison, the longer the liberals will wander blind through the political swamplands.

Mark Christensen forgets that liberty is nothing without equality and fraternity. He is arguing from the false premise that Bill Kelty, Paul Keating and other pre-Work Choices advocates of reform envisaged a time when employer and employee could negotiate freely, unmediated by unions or government, each to their mutual advantage and convenience and consequent to that the common good. Neither Keating nor Kelty would accept this Utopian version of their industrial relations philosphy, and "the Liberal party couldn't paint this big picture" of Work Choices simply because it wasn't true. The "freedom ideal" for employees and the left has always been about the freedom to organise with others to achieve optimum working conditions for the majority. The "freedom ideal" for employers and the right is about being free of regulation and controls to achieve maximum efficiency and profitability. Management of the tension between these "freedoms" in a western industrialised democracy obviously requires more than political idealism and more than political skill. John Howard, was no idealist, but an ideologue with political cunning who exploited the disunity of the disheartened ALP for over a decade, but his heartlessness and lack of scruples ultimately made him lose his head in pushing through Work Choices. So how astute was that? Hopefully in Rudd we'll get some combination of leftish idealism and moderate realpolitik. He is after all promoting the Australian "fair go" and fairness is not about libertarian ideals, but about an agreed optimum outcome for all parties. I think his combination of heart and intelligence will bring real balance and progress in the complexities of our federal industrial system. His diplomatic skills won't go astray either.

I am proud to be a union official.
Proud to be labeled thug, evil, anti competitive, what ever those who ran last in the election called me and my proud movement.
I am proud to have been invited no not an invasion, to draw up workplace agreements by good honest bosses who wanted nothing to do with workchoices.
I look at a growing list of me too, isms from todays Liberal leader including the admission workchoices is dead.
I wonder how far some would go in lowering living standards of so many so some can prosper.
I question the understanding of high to middle income earners of impacts of workchoices on already low income earners.
I find the author needs to get out and meet those victims then tell me why we ever expected they should suffer so our country would prosper.
Last workchoices is dead so too is the government that imposed it on us without notice.
The Australian Labor Party must never so badly treat its country like workchoices architects did.
I hope those low income workers will drink a beer to the return of a fair go at work this Christmas.
You can rest easy this ALP government is here for a long stay and will never so badly use its mandate to impose something so unfair on us.

Disclosure: I've worked with Rudd (who's also my MP), attended a semi-private economics seminar with Howard, and knew Mark Christensen for some years.

I agree with Mark's drift, and one of my biggest disappointments with Howard was his failure to lead in developing more widespread understanding of what constitutes good economic policy, policy in the public interest. For example, once when he had an opportunity to explain the merits of free trade, he pandered to protectionist ignorance and said "We have to make concessions to other countries so that they will take our exports." What absolute nonsense! We import because we can raise our living standards, with greater variety, better quality and lower prices for goods and services we want. We export so that we can import! In addition, trade raises our productivity and incomes because we can focus on things which we do well, such as coal-mining, and buy in things, such as tvs and small cars, which we can't make competitively. The community as a whole derives greater benefits the more open is the trade.

Finland was mentioned above. It's transformation began with rapid, unilateral reductions in border protection in the '70s, that was a far bigger factor than the government's role in the economy.

As an employer, my attitude towards employees was (1) they were people first, employees second; (2) that they would be most productive and most likely to stay if they were happy and fulfilled in their work and felt that they were improving their prospects for future employment, e.g. through high degree of responsibility and access to training. One of my daughters now works as an engineer with a global consulting firm which takes a similar approach. In an innovative, knowledge-based economy, you need to be a "good" employer to succeed. Competition rather than IR regulation is the best way to drive that.

The article shows a lot of ignorance and naïvety about human nature.

<<...free market principles aren’t a cold, heartless policy setting.>>

Initially, no. But that's certainly what they'd become given enough time to create a society with a clear and sharp division between the super-rich and the desperately poor.

<<Their shunning of state-sponsored paternalism actually commends a resounding faith in humanity.>>

A humanity that would soon be replaced by predatory capitalism if we had a totally free market devoid of any regulations at all.

Balance is what's needed. Dreaming of a socialist utopia is no more absurd than dreaming of a capitalist utopia.

It is complete garbage to say that employees and employers can bargain on a level playing field. Employees need more than just bargaining 'ability', they need bargaining 'power'. But when it all becomes an employer's market, very few would have any bargaining power at all. Anyone who believes otherwise must be either living in a kumbaya fantasy where greed doesn't exist, or they know full-well the consequences of a totally free market and don't care, because they're in the wealthy minority who'll benefit.

I couldn't stop shaking my head in disbelief of the short-sightedness of the miners in WA wanting Workchoices to stay; obviously not realising how much worse those AWAs would to look once the mining boom was over.

It was argued that the best job security is the ability to get another job immediately if you're sacked, or that any job is better than no job. But personally, I'd rather be living on the dole, while furiously searching for work that was scarce, than be forced to work 100 hours a week and never see my children for a pay check that didn't even cover the rent – all because the economic cycle had decided that it was now going to be an employer's market.

Free market zealots must have a very narrow view of what liberty is. They seem to believe that liberty is something to be afforded. The rest of us can have all the our liberty the rich decide we can have.

With most things in life, there is some good and some bad. With work choices, the negative aspects overwhelmed the good.

However, the previous labour legislation had numerous faults that made hiring people very risky for small business. I have seen friends held financial hostage by employees fired for gross misconduct.

The cost of an HR / paper trail systems routinely employed by large businesses to prevent against such litigation is crippling for small businesses. The new legislation has the opportunity to:

- Provide uniform and simpler legislation,
- Provide exemptions for small mom and pop business of say less than 20 people.

To reverse all the changes from the last 10 years would be to forget why the people dumped the labor party then as they have the coalition now.

A J Philips wrote "Balance is what's needed. Dreaming of a socialist utopia is no more absurd than dreaming of a capitalist utopia." Very true, only left-wing fanatics dream of the former, I don't know of anyone who envisages the later, as opposed to a basically free market approach in a mixed economy but with a much smaller government. Some years ago I read many studies which found that economic growth was fastest when government constituted around 22% of the economy, rather than the 40-45% which is more typical.

Of course, economic growth isn't an end in itself. It needs to be a major focus in economies where people live in poverty and disease, at least until the stage where reasonably comfortable survival is assured and people can focus on other goals, such as spiritual development. But trying, as I do, to promote policies which make the best use of our resources without favouring vested interests opposed to change for selfish reasons, or arguing that if we are going to incur costs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we should adopt measures with the highest benefit-cost ratios, does not prevent anyone from pursuing spiritual development, from contributing to society, from being unselfish. I proudly wear the badge "economic rationalist", and for 30 years voluntarily helped people practise Vipassana meditation (giving up because of serious illness which affected both my own practice and my ability to serve). I regard honesty and integrity as far more important than further economic growth in an affluent society (or a non-affluent one), but that doesn't make economic growth a non-option. And I think the pro-liberty policies which underpin free markets are also most conducive to self-reliance, self-realisation and dissolution of ego.

And, no, I neither have nor want a big house, plasma tv or luxury car

Faustino, I guess my question to economists such as yourself is what do you see as the problem with Australia aiming towards a most socialist type economy, as per many Northern European economies? Almost all of them are doing exceedingly well on both economic and social indicators, yet have much stronger government involvement in the economy, and high levels of labor market regulation (though more typically through collective bargaining rather than legislation).
Ultimately I believe the level to which the government intervenes in the free market to assist with wealth distribution and supports services that benefit us all is best left to democracy – and generally, polls in Australia indicate that the bulk of population do want to see more government spending on services, and do expect that pay and workplace conditions get legal protection. Looking at a country like the U.S., where government spending on services (other than the military) is minimal, and employment arrangements are largely left in the hands of the employers, it’s hard not to disagree with them.
I've read quite strong arguments for both conservative and progressive economic policy, though the conservative ones appear to me more based around ideology rather than actual evidence (indeed I’ve read more than one commentator state that it doesn’t matter what the outcome is, it’s the achievement of liberty that matters). In most cases I fully agree with the ideological principles of liberty and individual responsibility, but they can’t be considered in a vacuum (and further, most conservative governments seem to only apply that ideology to economic issues – when it comes to personal decisions on marriage or abortion or euthanasia or drugs, they’re all to happy to be interventionist and paternalistic, apparently assuming individuals aren’t capable of rational self-determination in such areas).

WoA,

You asked: "how much has really changed since 100 years ago, when employers routinely exploited employees under conditions that today would most would consider shocking, and what happens when the next recession hits and it becomes an employer's market again?"

I hope you're not seriously asking this question. Even in it's most stripped down form, Workchoices provided significantly more protection than 100 years ago. But that's not really the point, is it: We have a situation in this country where a mining boom will provide jobs and growth for decades. It's not realistic to be imagining us to be fighting on the wharves for scant jobs - other things will change long before the end of the mining boom.

And then you say "Faustino, I guess my question to economists such as yourself is what do you see as the problem with Australia aiming towards a most socialist type economy, as per many Northern European economies"

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

This is the myth about the Scandinavian economies. It is not all peaches and cream. If you want Australia to have the brain drain caused by those tax rates, suicide rats going up and up and so on... Well perhaps we have different ideas of what Aus should become.

The evidence is that socialism doesn’t deliver, free markets and free trade do – higher living standards, more opportunities, more employment, more freedom, more scope for innovative, entrepreneurial behaviour. Evidence that some Scandinavian economies have at times done well with a high government share of GDP doesn’t invalidate that, there may be culture/country-specific factors at work, they might have done better with a bigger private sector.

In my experience, a very high proportion of government spending is inefficient and ineffective, and not driven by concern for people’s welfare. Keating and Howard, for example, both spent excessively to lock-in support from particular segments of voters. In general, governments and bureaucrats seek to cultivate dependency rather than independence, because it strengthens their position. I don’t think that this in anyone’s interests, I believe that the welfare of each individual is enhanced by development of self-reliance and responsibility, and governments undermine that. A small-government approach is not only economically effective, it is also conducive to the well-being of individuals.

I think the greatest good for each individual, and for society, comes from spiritual development; and that’s something which takes place within each individual; governments but rarely provide an environment in which it’s easier for people to develop self-awareness, wisdom, I think it’s easier with less government, more self-reliance.

I grew up very trusting of authority, but gradually found that those in authority were, in general, either ignorant or not focussed on community welfare. I’ve worked for the UK, Australian and Queensland governments. I did find good ministers and officials in the first two, very few in Queensland; but the most disinterested tend to be seen as a threat by those with more selfish goals, and rarely carry the day.

Re democracy, of course governments reflect society, to get better government and a better society (with higher levels of honesty, trust, compassion etc) we need genuine leaders, people with insight who can help others to develop insight, but these are few and far between. I’d give Bob Hawke some credit here, in spite of his massive ego.

Not too coherent, perhaps; at word limit.

BN, I wonder about your assumption that we won’t be fighting over scant jobs at some time in the near future – there are a large number of factors looming on the horizon that combined could potentially result in a significant levels of economic downturn within the next 5 or so years.
Asking “how much has really changed” is a very serious question – it’s a question about human nature. I’m not suggesting that WorkChoices is less protection than we had 100 years ago, just questioning the idea that we shouldn’t really need much protection because employers all know that it’s good business sense to treat employees well. Good employers knew this 100 years ago, but they clearly were thin on the ground.

No, of course not all is peaches & cream in Scandinavia. But I’ve never read anything about those countries that have made me think “gosh I’m glad I don’t live there” (other than perhaps the weather). And yet I seem to read such things on a weekly basis about the US (my wife grew up there and feels the same way). Where is your evidence that the suicide rate in Scandinavia is high and climbing? And how does it compare to similar cold climate countries with long, dark, depressing winters?

I’m not suggesting Australia should try to turn itself into Finland or Denmark, but it does seem that many of the more serious problems we have could be best addressed by improving government funding for public services. If this can be done without raising taxes, fantastic, but if not, then I don’t believe the majority of Australians would feel their liberty or sense of personal responsibility had been substantially encroached upon were we to look at increasing tax revenue, provided of course we could see that the money was being spent well.

Faustino, “socialism doesn’t deliver, free markets/ trade do” is a false dichotomy. The Nordic countries are still market-based economies, but have stronger social spending than we have here. I’d like to see evidence that increasing social spending in Australia would have a detrimental effect.

"Free" market.

Thats funny.

wizofaus, I asked National Forum to forward to you by e-mail a paper I wrote last year. I couldn't see the OLO e-mail address at the time, I'll send it again via them if necessary. In the meantime, Merry Christmas!

WoA,

I wonder what these factors are that you think means that essentially full employment is going to boost up to a situation where postential employees are going to be scrambling for scant jobs? A recession in the US? Some would argue that that's already in place now. China taking a downturn? Maybe, but not enough for us to lose tens/hundreds of thousands of jobs. A terrorist attack? Always possible, but unlikely (again) to remove hundreds of thousands of jobs.

While you would never say never, the liklihood of us needing to fight for jobs is remote in the next 5-10 years.

Look at the mining boom - there are estimates of up to another 100,000 employees being needed in the coming years. If you're stuck in a deadend job now, you could do worse things than head west and get yourself a higher paying job!

"Asking “how much has really changed” is a very serious question – it’s a question about human nature. I’m not suggesting that WorkChoices is less protection than we had 100 years ago, just questioning the idea that we shouldn’t really need much protection because employers all know that it’s good business sense to treat employees well. Good employers knew this 100 years ago, but they clearly were thin on the ground."

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Sure, things were worse 100 years go - no one is denying that. But it's an employees market at the moment, and it will continue to be for some time to come. So, make hay while the sun shines (no pun intended).

Well, there are a large number of current risks to the global and domestic economy over the next 5 years, even leaving aside a terrorist attack or a war:

* Subprime crisis worsening
* US recession
* Baby boomers starting to retire en masse
* Oil supply squeeze (anticipated by both IEA and EIA)
* China growth pains (including possible environmental crisis)
* New government, possibility of haste/inexperience showing through
* Foreign debt obligations coming home to roost

Two or three of these at the same time we could probably handle. Four or five and it might be a different story.

FWIW, all my life I've worked in an industry (I.T.) where union involvement and workplace regulation has never really been an issue. So I'm certainly not personally worried about the effect of loosening labour regulations, I'm just yet to be convinced it's of all that great a benefit, considering the risks.

WoA,

I agree on a number of fronts - I also work in IT and have had the pleasure of doing so in a number of locations around the world.

The BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) should be more than enough of an engine of growth for the world for some time to come, so even if a couple (or more) of the events you mention do come through, any downturn we face certainly isn't going to be long lived, and certainly won't be enough for 100K's of people to be out of a job.

Speaking of IT, the liberty mentioned in the original article was well recieved by me for a simple reason: I've always wanted to negotiate more with prospective employers and this legislation opened the doors to that. I've always wanted (for example) to trade away annual leave simply because I never take it and would rather it as cash in my pocket.

It's a shame that more people we're willing to milk our economic environment while the times were good. While WC was poor legislation, the idea behind it was a good one and if it had've been implemented in a better way, more people would have benefitted. Mores the pity that this wasn't the case.

"Work Choices" is a logical extension of so-called “liberty” in a prison Australia de-facto is to cover a populous traditionally supposed to spend their independently-from-dole-payer-yearned income on pokies et al.

Why should working slaves be better than those policing through “Job networks” and “Family assistance” seemingly FREE citizens?

Except for most employees, to trade annual leave for pay is almost certainly a bad idea - many employees will take up the offer thinking only of the short-term benefits, only to realise 1 or 2 years' on that their work efficiency and relationships outside of work have suffered considerably.
I accept that provisions could be made for allowing it as a special case* - but were it to become common practice, a lot of people could end up significantly worse off.

I wonder if 2 years before the Great Depression, anyone could have reasonably anticipated such an event.

* Actually you can do it now, by quitting your job and reapplying. Not sure how many employers would be keen on this!

WoA,

"Except for most employees, to trade annual leave for pay is almost certainly a bad idea..."

This statement shows exactly what's wrong with the platform pitched by Labor - blanket rules or statements like this do not take into account individual circumstances or preferences. In the last 10 or so years, I've probably taken 4-5 weeks of annual leave in total and I'm perfectly happy with my situation (except that I can't trade away my leave as I would like to). And I'm not Robinson Crusoe on that.

By denying all people (read: not just those earning over 100K) the ability to negotiate what's right for them, you're denying them the ability to make their working lives into what they want. In short - you're denying them liberty. And given that most of us spend most of our waking time at work, it's pretty important that our working life is as close to how we want it as it can be.

And BN, if you could find a way to grant that liberty to the relatively few people that genuinely would benefit from less leave and more pay, but avoid the risk of it becoming common practice, or worse, a method by which unscrupulous employers could bribe more work out of their employees than would otherwise be reasonable, then I would be all for it.

"Liberty" is not some magical goal that automatically gainsays all others. Even if it were, it will ever be the case that granting more liberty in one area subtracts from liberties in other areas. You want the liberty to earn more money and work less hours - I want the liberty not to have to worry that any potential employer will attempt to persuade or cajole me into that arrangement, which infringes on my liberty to spend precious time with my family and give my brain a much needed rest.

Ultimately, here I agree with the classical liberals, who generally took a utilitarian approach - when choosing which liberties are more valuable, we need to look at those that bring "the greatest happiness to the greatest number". If that means a few individuals lose out, then so be it. Far better than society as a whole losing out.
And fortunately, with democracy, the "greatest number" tend to get their way. If it truly were the case that the "greatest number" valued more money over more leave, no doubt the laws would be different.

WoA,

"if you could find a way to grant that liberty to the relatively few people that genuinely would benefit from less leave and more pay, but avoid the risk of it becoming common practice..."

Tell me, why should we stop it becoming common if that's what people want? Or, to put it another way, why restrict the market? I don't have statistics on how many people would go for it, but if the group I travel in is indicative, then about half of the population would go for it. Given the demand, shouldn't there be the option to provide supply to that demand?

"a method by which unscrupulous employers could bribe more work out of their employees than would otherwise be reasonable, then I would be all for it"

And here we are full-circle. In the current market, if you're a valuable employee then one of two things will happen:

1) You'll be able to negotiate to get what you want, so this isn't an issue
2) Unless you're in a very specific field, there'll be a demand out there for your services, so you can negotiate with someone else and get another job

The rub here is that you've got to be a valuable employee. If you're not then you might be apprehensive, you've got no one else to blame but yourself.

"...I want the liberty not to have to worry that any potential employer will attempt to persuade or cajole me into that arrangement..."

You forget that workchoices always had conditions in it that said that people couldn't be forced into AWAs (whether that was enforced or not is a different story). Labors position, however, is that you get an EBA or CA by default - there's no liberty in that if you earn under 100K. Labors position certainly is the lesser in terms of liberty.

BN, there have been many studies done that show the negative effectives of an unhealthy work-life balance, from broken families to the serious health effects of high stress levels etc. etc. Believing that you are somehow immune to such outcomes doesn't make it true.
Further, if you really do want to work that many hours, go and start your own business.

Regarding negotiation for better conditions, even if I accepted that the vast majority of employees do have that amount of negotiation power in the current market, and that current market conditions are almost certain to remain in place for the foreseeable future, then I dispute the fact that society or the economy as a whole will be better off in an environment where constantly moving from job to job is the only way to get reasonable conditions. If the law allows it, employers will tend to put pressure on employees to change workplace conditions towards something that employers/superiors see as beneficial to themselves individually in the short term, with little thought as to the larger-scale long-term effects. Stability and security are important to people for a whole host of reasons, not least being the effect it has on how people spend and/or invest the money they earn. Again, plenty of studies have been done on this very issue. If you are going to argue for granting more liberty to employers and employees to negotiate workplace conditions, show me some sort of proof that it actually has a net long-term benefit: it maybe unfortunate that certain individuals lose out with the current arrangement, but that on its own isn't sufficient justification for change. After all, most of the current legislation was put into place because previously the majority of employees were unhappy with the workplace conditions imposed upon them by employers, and democratically insisted upon it.

WoA,

I should be clear - while I work in IT, Human Resource Systems is what I actually do, so Human Resources is something that I'm quite familiar in, and the reality is not quite as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

Different people work in different ways and their requirement for things like annual leave (and a whole host of other "entitlements" (and I use that word loosly)) will vary based on the way they work, what they do, their age and stage in life and a whole range of other factors.

But none of that precludes people from having a time where in their individual working lives (be it a short period or a longer one) where it's adventageous to trade away certain conditions in exchange for something else, be it money or something different. And earning over 100K should not be the determining factor for this ability as Labor suggests. Again, Labors position is denying people the liberty to engage in negotiations if they want to.

"...then I dispute the fact that society or the economy as a whole will be better off in an environment where constantly moving from job to job is the only way to get reasonable conditions"

So, you're saying that people shouldn't be out on the hunt trying to find better packages/jobs/conditions for themselves? Do you stil believe in cradle-to-the-grave jobs? Perhaps this mentality of yours applies in other parts of life too? Are you really saying that people should just stay where they are and passively accept whatever the award or EBA or CA gives them?

Perhaps then you and I have very different opinions on advancement in life.

Cattle has a liberty to snore in shores.

That is an Anglo-feudal liberty for “Auzzy” staff.

Actually, BN, I've never held the same job for more than 3 years, and quite possibly never will. But nor have I ever felt the need to change jobs because the employment conditions were unreasonable. Further, my own personal situation gives me about as much flexibility as I could ever reasonably want - I can work virtually whatever hours I want, from home as much as I like, and recently negotiated forgoing a pay-rise for a reduction in hours. So if the current Common Law contracts allow that much flexibility, it's hard to complain about them.

However, I don't disagree that there will be circumstances where, all else being equal, it does make sense to allow individuals even more flexibility in their work arrangements. And yes, a 100K salary is a rather arbitrary cut-off (I wonder exactly what percentage of people do earn over 100K a year). I don't pretend to know if there really is an ideal set of workplace rules that ensures that everybody gets the best deal possible, but WorkChoices certainly wasn't it.

WoA,

It seems that you and I have more than a couple of things in common - the longest I've been with an employer is about 3 years too. However I've almost always made the move for bigger and better things - pay and conditions are part of that equasion.

"However, I don't disagree that there will be circumstances where, all else being equal, it does make sense to allow individuals even more flexibility in their work arrangements."

Why not? If the employer and employee are both getting what they want (all things considered), why shouldn't there be additional flexibility? Why shouldn't people be able to negotiate for whatever they want?

"I don't pretend to know if there really is an ideal set of workplace rules that ensures that everybody gets the best deal possible, but WorkChoices certainly wasn't it"

Again, we agree. Workchoices was a pretty sloppy piece of legislation which was implemented in a pretty poor way. If there was a good thing to come from it - project managers should take note of what happens when you don't manage change! However the notion behind Workchoices (employees being able to negotiate) was the right one - I just wish it had've been implemented better!

Is the Opening Post some sort of joke? A delusion maybe?

The ulterior agenda of WorkChoices was to strangle unions and thus the funding they pass onto the Labor Party.

Cripple the workers unions ... see their membership base dwindle.

Over time, slashing the financial underpinnings of the Labor Party.

Leaving Labor unable to effectively campaign against the Liberals.

One big party left standing.

A Liberal dictatorship.

It is an integral part of the WORKCHOICES agenda.

For workers, a never-ending downward spiral of wages and conditions.

You will have no collective power - your unions legislatively sidelined.

Bosses and their unions will have it all, and you will be under the heel, ground into the dirt ... just where the lousy Liberals want you.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/pm-of-ulterior-motives/2007/09/29/1190486626917.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Actually, there is one workforce for a higher race of the UK-linked biologically privileged nonenties and other one-for biologically inferior non-Anglos haveing no choice but piss off from this hopless racist xenophobic spot as the best option.

That is what all your empty discussion of.

Actually, there is one workforce for/which is a higher race of the UK-linked biologically privileged nonenties and other one - biologically inferior non-Anglos having no choice but piss off from this hopless racist xenophobic spot as the best option.

That is what all your empty discussion of.