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.