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!