I am sorry Richard but you have failed to convince me: Richards mythical Bill is problematic - he has a job with crappy conditions which is good it seems and because the conditions are so bad others will stay in school which is good also- even in an era with historically high school retention - then what.

What happens when you get 300,000 Bills or Wilheminas all accepting cut rate jobs? eventaully the bar gets lower and lower with no gaurantee of any thing in return; the cargo cultists dream of more employment but no one has been able to demonstrate how this will come about and most commentators suggest this will not happen.

And Richards line that with the flexibiltiy to negotiate out costly conditions the employer has the capacity to offer higher wages "if warranted"? Why would they if they went to all the expense of getting rid of the costs in the first place?

Kevin Adrews and John tell us the employee is in the drivers seat in periods of high employment; even so it is highly likely that there will be a decrease in conditions immediateley following the passage of the bill - the size of the change is irrelevant.

In times of high unemployment the downward pressure on wages will will be inexorable - with cyclical changes to employment employees will be required to claw back conditions lost when employees are scarce but it is highly unlikely they will return to the levels once enjoyed.

I mostly agree:

Work relations, enterprise and employment, should not be obstructed by the woes of socialism.

But on the other hand, personal dignity and subsistance should not be obstructed by the woes of capitalism!

The sting of desperation must be extracted from workplace relations: no one should accept unreasonable work conditions just because otherwise they will go cold and hungry. Once that is assured, employers and those wishing for extras and luxuries, should engage in private, capitalistic-style employment negotiations.

The solution lies not in the area of employment, but of welfare:
every human being should be entitled to an unconditional, basic subsistance income, regardless of whether they work, can work or wish to work - being human is sufficient!

It will not be fair, however, if the state provides this subsitance income only to those who have no other income, and it will not encourage employment either, since those on part-time/low-earn jobs would not be any better off by working. Therefore, EVERYONE should receive this income (either in cash or as a tax offset).

Among other advantages:
* it will be harder to conduct useless and immoral businesses (as employees will more easily refuse)
* employers will need to respect employees and provide them with good treatment and incentives (not necessarily financial!)
* the complex, cumbersome and often humiliating, Centerlink mechanism will be scrapped.
* no more cat-and-mouse games between the government and those wishing to not work (who end up not working anyway and living on the tax-payer's money, by resorting to deception)
* part-time work will be rewarded from the first dollar.
* reduce stress, anxiety and crime throughout society.

Richard: I take it this is the "any job is better than no job at all" argument? How wonderful that this new system would provide us with a plethora of low-paying jobs with bad conditions that we can delight in choosing from - and lucky also that those jobs will be available not only to naive young kiddies like Bill, but also to the 50 + workforce who are unable to find jobs in the current system, single parents who are being forced back into the workforce, and people currently eligible for disability payments who, by this government's reckoning, are too shiftless to go out and gainfully employ themselves.

It's pretty easy to say that the young are deserving of cr*ppy job opportunities (especially when you don't have three kids in their 20s still living in your house because they can't afford rent on their own), how might we feel if that was our mum or dad looking for a job to pay the mortgage, something that all these fantastically available "lower paid jobs" would universally fail to do?

Similarly, surely it is breathtaking simplicity (and perhaps economic comfort) that informs the statement about employers who exploit workers - "who'd want to work for a b*stard like that anyway?". You're right, we don't. However a lot of people don't have a choice: they NEED their jobs, and can't afford to spend ANY time out of the workforce looking for another one. Not only that, they NEED the reference that boss might give them to find another job.

Finally, I'm not sure I understand how it is that employers will be rushing to hire the under-qualified to fill their positions: if it is easier to let people go, more people will be hired who don't qualify for jobs? Yes, and then they'll be sacked when they can't adequately perform the tasks required, with no legal recourse whatsoever. How is that a good "long term outcome"?

I am still dumbfounded by this.

As an employer it is so 100% clear to me. Without sounding too red neck, the government must be either extremely deceptive or extremely stupid. I think John Howard has spent too much time admiring America, but what he has forgot is our walfare system is far too attractive for people to accept crap wages and conditions, especially as they get degradated over time with this.

The solution is: Divide occupations into 2 categories, those deemed skilled workers and non skilled workers (but i would not suggest those names).

Many people will benefit from the new IR changes but it is so blatant that many will not. Therefore do the obvious.

No question, these changes will create a great divide, i know that when this happens my employees will be riding the business cylces with me, and rather than keeping a certain number of 'unskilled' staff constant, it will mean i can drop them and pick them up again when needed. I do not have to pay them award and i know there are plenty who will 'take a job' at a poor rate, then set the preceedent for the new ones. It means uni students will have to work more hours for the same pay, it will keep kids in schools but only those that probably would have been enterprise bargaining anyway, it will be a tradgedy for the Australian dream, and it will create very much a class based society.

I am appauled and ashamed that our country does not at least have 2 new systems, protecting the grass roots of society and providing the benefits to the 40% who want it.

How is that hard?

Realist - what do you mean by two systems. Please elaborate. Would all "skilled workers" be paid the same wages.

Seether - You don't make any sense with your argument about unqualified employees. Business owners know better than anyone else that you get what you paid for - you are not going to hire someone who is unqualified just to save a few bucks because in the long term it will cost you. However, if you see something in the person you may invest time and energy to give that person a chance. If that doesn't work out, what is wrong with letting that person go if they cannot perform the job.

t.u.s

No Usual,

I mean divide the systems up so that the skilled could enterprise bargain as they wish concurrent with government plans, but yet keep award wages and third party protection for the vulnerable and/or unskilled who are most effected by this.

Needs Basis, eg cleaning, labouring or hospitality may fall under the third party protection or unskilled category.

Lawyers, Brokers, Accountants, Managers those that enterprise bargain anyway or who are currently paid greater than award can keep the benefit of enterprise bargaining etc

Why is this not simple? it is obvious which occupations need it and which who do not. We dont need to throw a blanket over Australia, we have had the wool pulled over our eyes enough.

t.u.s - I'm sorry if I didn't explain myself properly in earlier post, as usual I ran out of words before I could finish my post.

I'm not suggesting for a second that business owners don't understand HR. Nor do I think that any boss is bound to be a bad boss (mine isn't). And yes, I believe that humans have an amazing ability to expand and grow into new roles.

What I am suggesting in response to Richard Blandy's piece is two things:

a) the "cinderella syndrome" (an employment phenomenon where an employee is hired for their potential, rather than their skills) is rare. This trend may change as employees are harder to find, but while there are lots of people in the job market (and we can expect a massive increase in numbers when Centrelink benefits eligibility tightens) it's not a widespread practice. I'm merely making the argument that the number of people walking into specialist jobs with little or no qualification/experience in their field is next to zero. The prospect of this increasing through this legislation is, I think, a long bow to draw - particularly when access to professional development and training is by no means guaranteed in this package of "reforms".

b) that if a person is hired with a clear understanding that they do not have the skills for the job, how can you then fire them for being unable to do the job? The employer already knew that, and hired them anyway. Was there access to training required to skill up to the needs of the employer? What kind of promises were made and kept on both sides? Where is the cut off? If they don't show aptitude after a week? Or a month? "It's just not working out" seems a little thin as grounds for a sacking, but effectively this is the power being extended to small business employers under this new legislation.

We mightn't agree, but hope that clarifies my argument just a little.

Seether,

No doubt that employees need security and to not be forced into jobs with unreasonable conditions.
What is strange here is why should the onus for providing it be on the employer - especially small employers.

Employers are running a business because they are trying to make a living just as anybody else, including employees. They are neither monsters nor a social relief agency. Both employers and employees should be able to say "Bye-Bye" if they are not happy with each other (why should it be one sided?).

The duty of creating fairness and safety, so that no one needs to be desperate and accept unreasonable offers, is on the society as a whole, which is represented by the government: the necessary taxes should be raised from both employers and employees to achieve it through the welfare system (see my post above).

Well put Seether.

well from the ivory tower of academia we have more drivel.

Why would a worker continue to work for a bastard employer?

1. working in region centres/towns there are often not more than one employer in particular industry. hence workers with particular skill set have to work for that bastard employer or leave town.

Remember that sausage making company in South Australia that killed people by mixing meat that was off(green) maybe Mr Blandy could enrich his experience by doing some qualitative research and interview the workers at the factory to determine why they continued to work for a bastard employer that was willing to kill innocent people for profit. Once you have conducted this research you might discover why workers continue to work for bastard employers.

The rationalisation for the Governments move to change the present industrial relations system, is that Australia has one fo the highest rates of take home pay in the OECD, and that this impacts the viability and performance of our economy. Logically then, their move to alter this by intorducing WorkCoices suggests that the aim of the legislation is to reduce the take home pay of workers, for if this is not the case, why exactly have they spent so much time, energy and money on changing something which is otherwise unbroken.

Therefore, as the planned impact of the bill will obvioulsy be the reduction of workers entitlements in the name of productivity and economic rationalism, the Governments assertion that it will not do so is nonsensical. In addition to which, the other major point about Australia is that we, in addition to having among the highest wages, also work among the highest number of hours per capita in the OECD. As this figure is derived mainly from those Australians working overtime and second (and third) jobs for additional high value (predominately from penalty rates) income.

Why, exactly would the average Australian continue to sacrifice their personal and family life, recreation time etc. to continue to work these extra hours if the economic impact is reduced? The answer is that they will not, resulting in an overall fall in Australias productivity.

Moreover, under the new legislation, an employee will not have the capacity to confirm that their AWA is legitimate and approved by the Employment Advocate, as AWA's will henceforth be deemed to be approved upon lodgement. The average employee (especially the unskilled) does no have the capacity to seek to confirm this by themselves (particularly as so many Australians are both illiterate and innumerate), and will be at a distinct disadvantage in negotiations with employers, especially as this leaves the way open for under-award payments to be made without recourse to outside assistance.

China and India are becoming more attractive places to invest.If we are to compete then our wages will fall in real terms.This is the reality.I don't like it nor do I like the way the Coalition are approaching aspects of this reform.

Let's have an honest debate and look for better ways other than lowering our standards to match those of developing countries.

We don't hear the corporates or Pollies offering to lower their living standards so we can compete.What our the other alternatives if we are to compete with Asia; since our balance of payments blow out continues to accelerate as more industry leaves our country?

Even under a Labor Govt we may have no choice.Do we act now or wait for the reality and banana republic scenarios?This is the reality of the Global market and it does have it's down sides whereby Global Capital diminishes the value of human endeavour by offering billions of poor an incrimental leg up.There will not be enough resources to raise their living standards to that of ours and something will have to give.What are our alternatives?

The direction of Labour Relations in Australia is steadily moving away from orderly regulation.
With a freer labour market employers hope to see a return to the Master/Servant relationship where they exert complete control of their workforce extending to the determination of pay, working conditions, hiring and firing.
The Howard Government has consistently worked to support employer demands by maintaining substantial unemployed percentage through stringent means testing of welfare benefits. This has placed greater pressure on charity agencies.
The major beneficiaries of this strategy have been the hospitality and service industries that are the largest employer of young, unskilled entrants to the workforce, the most vulnerable to exploitation.Effective Union Representatives are faced with exclusion from workplaces to prevent recruitment and organisation in favour of 'Company Unionism'
(I define a Company Union as one where members are recruited on hiring by management and authority signed for payroll deduction of dues. The workers never meet a Union Organiser)
The decrease in apprenticeships in skilled areas has resulted in serious shortages which in turn improves the bargaining power of qualified tradespersons.
The Employer/Government response has been to pirate skilled workers from abroad on workplace agreements.
Meanwhile, employment is offered to unskilled young Australians to join the armed forces to provide back-up support for the American Empire's Globalisation.
There is not likely to be a resolution to this reversion to unprotected work environment without a major qualitative change of Government that values working people .

Realist, maybe that would work but there would be certain occupations where it would not work - those ones that blur the line between skilled and unskilled.

Would collective bargaining be banned in the so-called skilled section. Teachers wouldn't be happy with that.

If this not banned but workers have a choice, are you saying that unskilled people are either too stupid or too spineless to negotiate a contract for themselves.

It just wouldn't work - treating different people on the basis of skilled or unskilled.

Seether - I can see where you are coming from (and your post belies your non-de-plume). I still think though small business will have greater flexibility in hiring people. This might lead to people being sacked as well but from the small businesses I know, they keep good employees, even if they fall into the so-called unskilled category.

t.u.s.

Richard knows that in a perfect labour market there will be an equilibrium between supply (workers) and demand (employers). Theoretically, the following conditions are necessary for perfect competition

1.Perfect knowledge

2.No barriers to entry or exit

3.No player dominates the market

The Australian labour market falls short of a perfect market because it fails to achieve

perfect knowledge - doesn’t exist for non unionised labour who generally have confidential agreements allowing workers in the same workplace often earn $25000 more / less for doing the same work

barriers to entry to skilled jobs are very high – it takes 8+ years to train as a doctor if you can get in. The new IR regulations actually will increase the paperwork involved in hiring new employees - raising barriers to entry - hence rise in labour hire firms

employers usually dominate the labour market. In country towns the timber mill employing 200 workers dominates the labour market, government departments dominate the employment markets in which they operate. ABC Learning Centres and Peppercorn dominate the market for child carers and set the pay rates and conditions in that market.

Applying more [rusty and unfashionable] Keynesian economic theory if you drive wages down you reduce disposable income thus reducing demand for non-essential products. So when the new IR policies really bite if you aren’t selling cheap food then you haven’t got a market for your product. Look at Venezuela, same GDP as Australia, same size population but all wealth is in the hands of 2000 families and the rest of the population ekes out a subsistence living.

Workers whose labour can’t be commoditised or outsourced will retain some bargaining power but educated workers like lawyers and accountants will find their jobs can be done in India, as manufacturing workers have discovered their jobs can be done in China.

If Australia wants to have a vigorous and viable economy then we need to have a vision for economic sustainability rather than the current policy of concentrating more wealth in the hands of the rich and development of a large underclass of working poor.

Richard, I suspect when the University of South Australia, hands you you own AWA stipulating less pay and conditions, you will happily sign it. By your age, you have lived with the present system, and presumably done quite well, and have everything anyone could ever want, however you don't seem to understand that you are only another employee of an organisation wanting to decrease their costs. Wait till you personally feel the sting in the tail in this legislation, and write about your therioes then, luckily for you, that you are at an age where you could retire tomorrow, not all Australian employees are in that happy situation, but you don't care because you are a selfish and greedy old man, aren't you, and yes if I have made a few spelling errors, we are not all blessed with your education either, which probably came from being born into a rich family instead of a poor one

To Confirm,

It would work for sure usual.

It would take all of 30 seconds to find a solution for what you mentioned.

Teachers are skilled workers, forget thier traditional collective bargaining, it is a tool they use in the traditional climate. I know first hand that many teachers will love the fact that they have an opportunity to excel and to be paid in direct proportion to their skill set, not the group skillset.

Good teachers can finally be rewarded whilst those without thier priorities in order will have to pull thier socks up or face a poor individual package. Perhaps the performance of the students (in effect themselves) would be integral finally. we are in a world where we need these type of changes, and that is why i can see that side of Johnny Howards argument. It does not work across the board though.

This is different than an industry like the meat industry for instance, where better labourers will not nessecarily be recognised from the poorer ones.

If people want to collective bargain, go for it, but in the unskilled section. Those with qualifications and in occupations where productivity is quantifiable & measurable on an individual level such as a teacher would reap these changes.

Defining which class an occupation lies is the easy part Usual, and it will work, please tell me why it wont.

The idea definitely has merit but there is still the issue of semi-skilled employees - there is too much room for judgement.

Say a journalist who has worked since being a cadet (me for example). I have no formal skill other than I can write. Am I unskilled or skilled.

I still think it is unfair to ban collective bargaining from some professions and individual bargaining from others. There should be choice for everyone.

If you are a labourer and you think you are better off with an AWA - do it. If you are a teacher and feel better off in a union. stay in it. There should be choice, which is what these reforms are trying to achieve.

There shouldn't be rigidness. Keep keeping it real though.

PS I would love to see some of the teachers dragged kicking and screaming away from the unions. it would be a sight to behold.

t.u.s.

There are two points that the economic liberalist argument is overlooking. The first is fairly obvious and well discussed.

The greater efficiencies afforded to business by a more "flexible" and casualised workforce are not achieved by simply taking away costs that needn't have existed - it is a shift of the cost burden from business to individuals and hence families. Longer and more irregular working hours, less pay, less sick leave, holiday pay, etc means fewer families sitting down to shared meal times, more kids in child care or otherwise away from their parents a times that are convenient to business and inconvenient to families.

Of course, some employees will always be offered better conditions if their skills are in demand, but the overall effect will be hidden and long term. Long term, because the main cost will be burden will be on children, and as a society we may not having to start paying these costs until these children reach teenage and adulthood.

What is the cost attributed to this? The answer: nobody knows because there has been no official effort so far to measure it.

Secondly, workplace and other neoliberal reforms have so far been working from a very large base of governmental infrastructure. Over the last 25 years it has been easy to achieve some "quick wins" with privatisations and liberalisation of social and governmental institutions. These reforms, however, have been supported by the vestiges of strong social welfare, education and health infrastructure. As public institutions are further eroded there will be little protection for individuals who fall foul of the liberalised workplace. The costs of this will not be absorbed by social infrastructure waiting to be privatised or disembodied because it will already be gone. These costs will be passed on directly us and our own inter-relationships that are hidden from the neoliberalist balance sheet.

Richard Blandy should be charged immediately with 'sedition' by the Australian public & placed in a small dark place, where he may ponder the following-
That he is not acting in the interest of the majority.
That the proposed IR changes are a politically regressive move on
the part of the government, in defiance of the basic tenets of
democracy.
That he will live to regret his support of this
idealogically-driven, hipocrisy-laden, almost 'fascist' move on the
part of John Howard & his business cronies.
That he is either an as-h-le or extremely gullible.
As has been said, we need a strong opposition to the IR changes. Support all public, non-violent demonstration & dissent over this matter.
Do what you can.

Indeed Swilkie,
How will Blandly explain his own redundancy in a few years time?

Being a non-economist, I have a couple of what might be stupid qeustions:

Shouldn't workers receive greater benefits to offset the increased risk of being fired?

And, if the risk of losing one's job increases, how will this affect the worker's ability to obtain credit? Why won't banks up their interest rates to cover increased risk for these individuals?

Hopefully the prices of goods and services will drop due to competition if wages fall.

This may seem a bit optimistic but if an employer and employee can both agree then surely it must be an agreement that benefits both parties.

This would be great, Philip - but what if the employer and employee do not agree?

The next step for one who wishes to impose on employers which employees to accept (or keep), will be to impose on individuals who they get (or remain) married to.

Surely people need to feel secure, that they will not be left out hungry in the cold - but it should not be the role of either institution (employment or marriage). It should best be handled by the state's welfare system.

Yuyutsu... wow.. you were up VERY early for your posts.. that's committment :)

FLEXIBILITY
GR flexibility in the workplace is crucial to basic survival for many businesses. You seem to have as your 'business stereotype' a business which has money to burn, guaranteed income, 100% faithful customer base, and margins which can absorb people coming to work but having nothing to 'do' except be paid for doing nothing.

FANTASYLAND
Well, I don't know which section of industrial fantasyland you are wandering around in, glazed eyed and impervious to the fact that Walt Disney slapped it all together, for entertainment, but YANK... I hereby drag you back outside the playground to 'reality'.

REALITY
Now..there you are.. work is slack this month, you see your overdraft ballooning out as you continue to pay people to do 'whatever' you can find for them.. sweep the floor.. re-arrange stores..chuck out useless stuff... do pre-work for product you don't know your goint to sell.... etc...

Or.. continue paying girls to come along and serve customers who now happen to be going to the newly opened chicken shop a few doors away rather than yours... because they are 'cheaper' (but also buy B grade potatoes for their chips, as opposed to your A grade)..etc etc....

I think personally, that we have had it too good for too long, and if you REALLY think about it, we are just reaching the tail end of the 'boom times' which can only occur in an "Empire" environment, where you can control the trade and economics of large chunks of the world to your own benefit.

WAKEUP CALL
We just 'shudder' at the thought of having to grow our own silverbeet in the back yard (as many in the world have to do) shock horror.. no, we want Creches and 'family friendly' workplaces...paid materanal leave,we want want want......
But.. sorry to be a spoilsport, the world is way past that now. Emerging economies can 'trash' us in labor rates and WWAAAAAAAH (crying sound) we can't make megabucks off them by forcing them to buy our opium or whatever...

BOAZ_David says,

"We just 'shudder' at the thought of having to grow our own silverbeet in the back yard (as many in the world have to do) shock horror.. no, we want Creches and 'family friendly' workplaces...paid materanal leave,we want want want...... But.. sorry to be a spoilsport, the world is way past that now. Emerging economies can 'trash' us in labor rates"

So, to paraphrase, are you saying that to compete with developing nations, we have to become one?

If the Governemnt has failed to ask the Treasury to examine the economic impact these new laws will have on the nation - or if they have and as earlier reported refuse to release the analysis because it fails to support their case- what is the basis for the endless assertions made by Costello, Andrews and Howard that we will all be better of EVENTUALLY?

Arguements regarding international competition are a nonsense unless we look seriously at innovation and valued adding and sadly that is far beyond the ken of most Austrlian employers.

THese moves are merely a mechanism to place the control of employee relaions back into the hands of the employers - the old regualtions as restrictive as some might think provided an environment of some certainty.

Business cry out for certanity and predictabilty in the environemnt in which they operate so it is only reasonable for employees to expect the same ; these changes will simply herald a period of over whelming instability and uncertainty for the average employee and be counter productive. Productivty is rooted in certainty of a future and security these laws directly undermine those notions.

I have been doing a bit of personal research into the IR about how people think they will be affected.
The past couple of weeks I have spent a couple of nights a week at Suburban pubs and service clubs chatting to people about how they think they will be affected.
Most think they will be but don't know how.
I spoke to a woman (a nurse from a public hospital) the other day for about 45 minutes while we played the pokies. She was adamant these changes would be bad for her (despite her being employed by a Labor State government)even though she will remain under an award.
Any way she certainly had enough money to lose close to $100 while we chatted.
Maybe this is what the State Government's are fearful of - if (and I still see it as an if because people are going to be better off under these reforms) wages somehow drop. there won't be enough revenue from the pokies.
Certainly, many of the people I spoke to were having a press while grumbling about how they were going to be bent over the table by IR reform.

BTW - This research actually cost me about $150 over two weeks - including gambling losses, alcohol imbibed and some delicious wedges from the bistro. Not as much as Malcolm Turnbull's tax research but money well spent nonetheless.

t.u.s.

Usual,

I wish my pub and pokie expoloits I could write off in the name of research!

You are committed to the cause though. We should not judge people for what they do with their disposable income, just as she did not judge you. She has a right to dust that money, who knows she may not be in the position to over the next few years.

BOAZ,David, if you can't run a profitable business, either take a course, or give it away. The main point of your business seems to be a negative point of view that all small businessmen adopt, I have never met a wealthy small business man yet in my 50 years, they are all crying poor, but manage to own luxury houses, luxury cars, luxury boats, have overseas trips, and go on about their competitors using Bgrade potato's. Hypocricy makes me sick, you have as much chance of getting to heaven, as a camel passing through the eye of a needle.

One of the extraordinary things that advocates of free markets and flexible workplaces (and other "reforms") do is make statements that are just plain wrong. The following is an example from the present article: "There has also been a big turnaround in New Zealand’s economic outcomes following its liberal economic reforms."

Yes there was a big turnaround! It was in the direction of down! Here is the relevant comment by someone who actually knows something:

"New Zealand passed the Employment Contracts Act in the early 90s. As a result employers pushed individual contracts in 1991 and productivity and wages fell. Productivity rose by 5.2 per cent between 1987 and 1998 compared with Australia’s 21.9 per cent growth from 1990 to 1998." (This is a partial summary of an article by Nick O'Malley, Sydney Morning Herald, July 21, 2005, reporting on a study by Paul Dalziel.)

Blandy makes other comments concerning the European Union, for instance, which would benefit from contemplation of the evidence, in this case the comments made by John Buchanan of acirrt (Sydney University) gave on ABC Radio National’s The National Interest op July 24, 2005. Comments which baldly assert economic failure of western Europe are mostly American rhetoric.

Why do people like Richard Blandy keep trotting out these pieces of nonsense. It isn't quite as bad as the incomprehensible tosh spoken by Peter Hendy who recently asserted that with these IR reforms Australia was at last entering the 21st century!

One of the really significant trends in the behaviour of the Australian government is to completely ignore the views of anyone who actually knows anything, in this case, academic researchers on industrial relations, economists and the judiciary, and simply trot out rhetoric. To believe that good public policy can be developed in this way is an absolute disgrace. No, more than that. It is grossly irresponsible. And that is putting it mildy.

Hello all. This is an extract from a previous post when I seemed to be far less disgusted by the moves by JH & cronies -
>>Employers, not employees will initiate the changes progressively after the start date. Employers with less than approx 50 workers usually do not run a dedicated ‘HR’ dept & will probably do nothing proactively. The legal changes will only be apparent when disputes are triggered by individual employees (whatever the reason). It will not be feasible for employers to walk up to workers & say ‘$2 less/hr or your gone’. It will cost them too much time & money.
Conditions for employees in small biz will be eroded by the proactive changes set in forth by the HR heavies usually contracted to companies >100 employees. Workers in these medium-to-large businesses are presently employed under collective agreements (usually Union represented). One by one they will be converted to individual agreements (rendering the Union pointless) & will be offered only what benefits the employer. Only those closest to the decision makers may be in the position to ‘trade’. The average, predominantly ‘powerless’ individual employee will be just that, powerless.
Changes to the ‘award’ system are likely to have little impact, given that awards offered are already nearly always exceeded now. Impact is likely to be felt by junior & unskilled, those already working close to their relevant award.
Social unrest will increase as personal security is generally reduced. Greater load will be placed on charities, govt departments – unemployment (true unemployment, not the bull-hit govt statistics) will increase, probably resulting in a tightening of social security provisions.
(continued) -

(continued)-
All democratic political organisations understand the terms ‘progressive’ & ‘regressive’ in the social sense. This change falls well & truly in the regressive class, & therefore is undemocratic in its implementation. <<
This government(sic) obviously refuses to listen. From my perspective, it’s the time for action. Words & dialectic (argument) are important but we need to match the ideas with positive, non-violent demonstration. We must ‘show’ our disapproval as a first measure. Do we have another choice?
I’ll be demonstrating on 15/11. I hope the rest of Australia will be too….

http://www.humanisten.ch/hi/front/index.php?lang=en
http://www.humanistparty.org.uk/links.htm
http://www.humanistmovement.org/

On Tuesday November 15th tell john Howard what you think of the IR legislation.
Attend your local rally. There are rallies all over Australia.

for details see http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/

Put in a senate submission tonight!

GR
firstly... thanx for not responding to my rather critical post with 'abuse'(Which I often get). I very much appreciate that. My goal is as much to stimulate reflection and thinking as anything.

Your question was "so should we 'become' a developing country"?

There is no simple answer to this. What I will say though, is that

1/ we have to RADICALLY extricate ourselves from the accumulated myths of 'rights' which self interested power hungry ideologically driven Union reps have placed on us, and get back to some realities. Having said that,

2/we also need the 'top' end of business to also do a major turnaround from the obscene 'packages' they seem to feel are justified for them to increase profits of major corporations (by outsourcing to Asia the now too expensive labor from point 1/

The problem we face now, is that many many manufacturing jobs will dissappear bit by bit, (not overnight, and this is the danger.. we don't feel it as a 'shock' just a slow trend)

The other myth that 'value adding' will save us, was aptly illustrated by a company discussed on a forum the other night. They began losing its 'low end high volume' product to China, who then, year by year improved their quality and value adding until one by one, the quality/value added levels of that companies product were taken. Now they are importers.
What about their workers ? Where are they ? gone to other (soon to go) manufacturing jobs ? possibly, and each time this happens, they have less choice. More 'beggers can't be choosers' syndrome.

What will happen to our social fabric when the vast majority of low skilled manufacturing workers are a)Unemployed, and b)Unhappy c) a Liability to the rest in social welfare.

If it ended there its one thing, but banks, back office, IT.. its all going....

The social implications of this are staggering and mind blowing.
We need a national think tank on this from all sides.

SHONGA I am a manufacturer, I live in a 7m x 9m shed, I don't have luxury anything.

"What will happen to our social fabric when the vast majority of low skilled manufacturing workers are a)Unemployed, and b)Unhappy c) a Liability to the rest in social welfare."

There are many policy ideas that can be explored to answer these questions. The trick is get into the right policy debate framework. For example, have a look at the “active labour market” programs in this article:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=75

David Boaz you are not a Manufacturer but yet another failed small business ,that lives in a tin shed. Why dont u go out and get a good job, with decent wages and conditions.Direct your anger and vitriol towards the top end of town and not the poor beggars below you.Stop trying to undercut decent employers who have the brains to make a quid,yet still pay decent wages. Resign from the Liberal Party and invest the savings.Many small businesses do very well, it is obvious u cant. They say a poor tradesperson blames thier tools, and a failed businessman blames the unions.

part 1

Facts of Life in Industrial Relations need to be told. In the early 1990s enterprise bargaining involved the unions representing employees and the employers and were vetted by the independant umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission, this ensured that the public's interest could be protected. Let me give you one example I worked for a union and was responsible for negotiating many of the first enterprise agreements, they formed schedules to the awards. After certifying two in a particular industry we negotiated an agreement which introduced the 38 hr week. When we the union and the employer initially went to the commission it was refused. The commissioner did not believe there was sufficient productivity improvements in the agreement, in short he thought we had beaten the employer into submission. Well we went away gathered evidence on savings as the arrangements had been put into practice and we were able to demonstrate at a subsequent hearing that sufficient productivity improvements were achievable from the agreement.
Sure this was inconvenient for me and the employer but it provided the public a necessary safeguard. If we had beaten the employer into submission then they because of the nature of the industry would simply have passed the costs on to their consumers.

Under both the current enterprise bargaining system and John Howard's system no one looks after the public'interest. No one really looks after those that cannot organise and achieve a pay rise and no one will look after consumers that have little choice but to pay increased costs.

We had the perfect system that gave appropriate weight to the needs of the workers, employers and the public and we abandoned it to take some foreign model because of our cultural cringe

part 2
We are seeing a slow down in labour productivity not because of over regulation but because the deregulation that has occurred to date allows many enterprises from effectively opting out of negotiating with unions for pay increases. Those that negotiate agreements achieve labour productivity increases as a consequence, those that direct their energies to avoiding or discouraging unions avoid pay increases and the negotiations necessary to make changes that lead to productivity gains.

When negotiations were on an industry wide basis changes that could increase labour productivity were available to all companies in the industry, now these changes only occur at an enterprise level and as a consequence may be less or more at particular enterprises.

Facts are that those employers with collective agreements have higher labour productivity than those that don't. The workers have higher wages. Through the 1990 when pay increases were negotiated on an industry wide basis labour productivity increases were higher. NZ which embarked on individual agreements had substantially lower labour productivity.

If we want to have real wage growth without inflation there has to be labour productivity improvement. A system which allows lazy or ideologically driven employers to opt out is not in the public's interest.

Just one final question has Mr Blandy ever negotiated an industrial agreement of any kind or is he one of these observer who develop theories without ever working in the field?

Thanks Realist - I didn't mean to sound like I was judging people for playing the pokies (I like to have a slap and a beer whenever I'm at the pub as much as the next person).
I was just saying that people do play the pokies and maybe that is what the State Government's are worried about.

Like i said - I don't see the changes being detrimental to every worker, they way the unions and Labor are saying - but if it did, playing the pokies might be one of things which suffers with a reduction in disposable income (especially considering it is entertainment). Not putting 10 bucks in the pokies does not affect quality of life but cumulatively it would affect revenue.

We all know the NSW and Vic govt make an absolute killing out of pokies taxes and this would play heavily on their opposition to the reforms. I doubt Mssrs Bracks and Iemma give a damn about the workers. Their big fat pokies treasury though - you betcha, the two of them should be called King of the Nile.

t.u.s

T.U.S:

If the government is so desperate for funds as you claim, that they cannot do without pokies, would it not be easier for them to either:

1. just print more money
2. tax the employer for half what he gained by lower wages
3. require by law every resident to visit the pokies and spend a minimum amount there per week (with death penalty for offenders)
4. send the police to the streets to issue $10,000 fines for J-walking
5. set up road tolls every block
6. hire thugs to hold up people in their home and in the streets, then shake off any money left on them into state coffers.

Don't we need creative governments?

Blow Up the Pokies,

Poker Machines are responsible for many people exceeding their earnings in spendings, thus once you have an addiction, regardless of your wages dropping you will still play pokies, with the majority of poker machine revenue deriving from less that 20% of the total pokie playing population. In fact, during periods of recession etc Alcohol and Gambling revenues can actually increase, in line with crime etc and a more desperate population.

If you are short on money, this is sometimes the only option people know to explore.

I must admit, I hate them, I cannot understand the logic of any intelligent person playing them. you have no control over the outcome, your thriftiness or speculative skills have no bearing (unless in selecting a machine that pays out) so why on earth do people feed money into something with you having no control over winning or losing?

At least with horses, 1 of the field will win, 3 of the field wil place and it relies heavily on the form of the horses and conditions as a general rule. At least an with an educated gamble you are responsible for you winning or losing as you made the selection, and your ability to win does not rely on several people before you having to lose.

Pokies are the most expensive video game ever invented. The joke is on us as a gullible population.

I am somewhat unsatisfied with the extent of the posts to date. Would someone please explain to me how exactly the Corporations power will support a law, that essentially uses it connection with some of the parties concerned, to regulate non-incorporated business', self-employed contractors and non-incorporated small business and partnerships?

This was an approack invalidated by the courts (Dingjan) in 1996(?), and the new laws purportedly removing unfair dismissal protection and redundancy pay obligations from small to medium employers, will be invalid for the same reason (incidentally, as the new laws do not appear to be capable of operating the same way if this is severed, tehy will be invalid to that extent). Additionally, while the wage fixing authority may be supported under the external affairs power (ILO Treaty), the limiting of union access and right of entry is directly contrary to the same, in which case it is unlikely to be upheld as being adapted to implementing Australia's international obligations.

This will remove much of the sting from the new system, however it will not be fatal to the stated aim of a national workplace relations system. However, particularly as the current court is enamoured of strict legalism (see Dixon CJ), it is perhaps time to examine a principle ennunciated by Sir Owen, being the maxim ‘quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud’ (See A-G (Cth) v Schmidt (1961); also see Bourke v State Bank NSW (1991); Vic Workcover v Andrew [2005] FCA 94). This basically means that one cannot do indirectly, what one cannot do directly, and is possibly fatal to the proposed scheme.

Hello Aaron,
I’ll believe your statement at face value, given that my knowledge of the details in your post is near zero. I like your direction, though- the mechanics of the proposed IR changes should be discussed more.
I also have interest in as to why the corporations power overrides existing, non-business bodies (ie Unions) & their existing legal powers. I fear that a lot of the apparent legal contradictions will not be seen until tested during disputes & will end up costing the worker etc a lot more than it does now or is presently feared under the new laws.
I can see the distinction between discriminatory & non-discriminatory terminations being quite blurred, most likely deterring some number of affected employees from taking action. It has been common practice by employers to ‘shift’ the ‘reason’ for dismissal to the legally defendable & it will become more so.
The lessening of Union powers will result in less disputes reaching court, but only because less will be defendable on the part of the complainant. The employee is the loser.
If you have the legal insight required to explain the more controversial points (the devil is always in the detail) of the IR changes please do so, Aaron..
Hedgehog, you obviously have zero business experience. You did not understand Boaz’s last post.

OK,

For starters the the proposed changes to unfair dismissal protection and removing the redundancy pay obligation from small - medium business are extremely unlikely to survive challenge. This is because the affect of these laws is to effect the relationship between parties, even if neither is incorporated, this type of law has previously been held invalid (Re Dingjan; Ex parte Wagner (1996)). From the wording of the relevant legislation the provisions which would be invalid do not appear to be severable from the remainder of the Act/Bill (eg not all employers of less than 100 staff are Constitutional Corporations), therefore it will probably all be invalid.

Secondly, Australia is party to an International Labour Organisation treaty which provides for a national wage setting authority, so this would appear to be supported by the external affairs power. However, Australia is also party to other ILO treaties which among other things, guarantee freedom of association and the right to strike, and of the unions right of entry. Therefore the laws abrogating or curtailing these rights would presumably not be reasonably adapted to giving effect to our international obligations (see eg Polyukhovich; & Tasmanian Dams), however there is some authority that the Commonwealth can unmake any law that it can make (Khartinyeri; CFMEU), therefore it is unclear whether this will be valid, possibly in order to retreat from Australias international obligations the courts would require evidence that the Government was prepared to repudiate these treaties.

Lastly, with regard to strict legalism, and its possibilities please read my previous posts [ http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3687#19583 ] & [ http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=65#19825 ]

Thanx Swilkie :)
I only now just read hedgehogs post.. wow.. quite an attack.
So, I should go out and get a job ? sure.. lets make this January05 and I'll apply to SILCRAFT :)

Hedgey.. Swilkie is right, u did not understand my post.
What I didn't tell you is that my 7x9 living area is part of a 27x 9 factory, on over a million dollars worth of land which I invested in when business was booming.

I'm by no means 'failed', our business is growing. I don't employ anyone except me and the occasional part timer, because business is not 'that' big yet. But even then, if my production increased 10 fold, I would more likely resort to automation than extra labor, leaving just 'final testing' to me.

I did work for an 'employer' for 9.5 years and hated every minute of it, but when you have a family and a mortgage, we do what we have to for their sake.

I left employed work to do my own thing. I put all my super and long service into it. I prefer to fufill my dreams rather than someone elses. I've had the $20,000/month thing and also the $400/month, we have to be flexible in business.

Ask urself this, 'why did Silcraft just re-trench 400 workers' ?

Simple, the Vehicle manufacturer they supply found a cheaper source!

Now, if this can apply to 'business', why can it not apply to 'labor' ?

Why should employees have any more guarantees in this life than those they work for ? Do you think the directors of Silcraft will continue making the same money after those 400 troops are discharged ? duh.

Mate..its not about 'blaming' pe se its about life and the harsh realities thereof.
You seem to think 'someone' out there owes you a particular lifestyle level. Well, newsflash :) 'they don't'

I think many of us are experiencing a crisis of faith in 'how life is meant to be'.
When our pioneers were faced with this, they got in and did what they had to for survival.

I am mindful of a reported conversation between Henry Ford and his workers Union representative when Ford was gloating over his newly automated assembly line.
"There are my new workers....Try and sell them Union Tickets "
to which the Union Rep replied " OK, now you sell them motor cars"
The rush to export Australia's manufacturing industry overseas to the lure of cheap sweatshop labour has it's obvious limitations for the long term.

Who hasn't received a phone call from a call centre in India offering services in Australia while Aussie workers are sacked ?

Who buys re-constituted imported orange juice marketed by foreign owned Parmalat because it's cheaper than the Aussie grown product and resulted in Aussie growers dumping their fruit ?

We will do well to understand that the relationship between providers and consumers is one of interdependence.

Just imagine the chaos that will occur when we can no longer afford to run a motor vehicle because of the cost of fuel and the whole country becomes an enormous parking lot of unsaleable motorcars

I have a subsidiary in Malaysia:

In Malaysia, the government grants foreign companies 'MSC' status, and provides free office space, staff paid for by the government, and opportunities for innovation that Australia cannot offer.

If it is more profitable and the risk is reduced, companies will do it. People forget that for $12,000 a month spent in Malaysia I run 24 staff, yet here i would get perhaps 2 when expenses are counted. This does not mean I am taking anything away from Australia, in fact, I am creating more for Australia by doing this. The production generated from the Malaysian office means that I can afford to support a further 5 skilled workers back here in Australia, so in reality if i did not have this, the value of my business for Australia is reduced as i have less profits, and less staff back here in Australia.

But all this is doing is keeping that country's employment and pay conditions low, as when costs increase to a certain point, eg wages etc, we will then pull the pin and relocate to the next strategic location. But when this pressure occurs, this country will have achieved its goal as it will have used its resources to be brought into the developed world

Aussie workers, blah blah blah. I want to keep jobs in Australia like everyone else, but not when you are paying exorbidant prices for unskilled labourers. Let us become a skilled society, the baby boomers have forced this on us, and leverage off other nations who share different demographics. Let the developing nations be the labour force in the 21st century if it is going to assist that country in developing to our level. How else can these countries apart from foreign investment develop infrastructure and create employment when they have significant micro issues.

I do not support IR changes, even though as an employer it is to my benefit. The end of the day, we do not want to compete with the rest of the world in unskilled labour as we will end up degradating Australian lifestyles.

I just thought it appropriate to mention,at this point that Leightons boss C.E.O Mr. King will recieve $59 million in remuneration this year, a record for a C.E.O. so far, now we can see why the Howard Government has bought in it's IRlaws, to cut wages and conditions, for ordinary working people, obviously business can't afford the outrageous wages paid to Carpenters,Builders labours,Concreteor's ect, we have to lower the overheads for big business, or they won't survive, luckily they can still afford to pay the C.E.O. or the company would come tumbling down, of course it's not the Carpenter's, Builders labourers ect who make the company their money, they are a liability, why don't we source some Asian worker's who will work for lower pay, maybe that move may help big business stay afloat, not much good for Australian workers or our economy, but who cares about Australian workers anyway?

Shonga,

You do what you are good at. In Australia we are not a manufacturing hub etc, so we have to work with our strenghts and be prudent with how we manage our weaknesses. If we dont outsource we will be left behind, or stand still in comparison with the world. We dont make the rules, but we must play the game. Deal with it.

If the leighton CEO has made that company achieve the desired targets, good on him he deserves it. How much money is compensation for the intense pressure, 70hr weeks, shareholder demands etc. You cannot even imagine. No amount of money compensates, and the pressure on your family is intense.

Do you think leighton are going to say "in light of our CEO being renumerated so well, we are reducing everyones wages and conditions".

This is good news for all those at leighton, if he achieved his bonuses. Yes, some get big salaries in failing companies but to attract those capable, you must pay them accordingly. There is nothing that can be done about it.

Tall poppy syndrome, we should be patting him on the back. He would probably be good for a shout!

The mediocre people of this world get narky at people who earn good money. He is the head of a very large company, he is probably a one in a million for his ability, yet you people sitting in mediocrity can riddicule out of Jealosy. If he was productive enough to be renumerated with that income, good on him. You perhaps would rather see him be a wood duck and earn nothing for his family, or just make ends meet.

We are all born equal in this country, many people at the top came from nothing and have a desire greater than most to achieve. People like you are needed in life, we need plenty of pessamistic middle managers. His salary has nothing to do with you, and is not be frowned apon. Get another job.

Realist
But some of us are more equal

I don't know - it seems to me that we SHOULD be strongly critiquing the idea that a person should be able to be paid $59 million, no matter how hard they work. I just don't see that they could possibly be working $59 million harder than, say, a teacher who works with kids with intellectual disabilities, or a doctor treating someone for cancer.

I think the fact that we are able to have justifications for working to drop the minimum wage (which is what one of the aims of this legislation is, no matter the rhetoric), while supporting the crazy bonuses some top people get shows some very messed up public values in our society.

Realist you wrote: Aussie workers, blah blah blah. I want to keep jobs in Australia like everyone else, but not when you are paying exorbidant prices for unskilled labourers.

I ask what constitutes unskilled labourers? Is it because they do not have a Certificate or a degree behind them? Is not experience in any job,building skills? Who is unskilled? I keep hearing these words, but no job list accompanies them. Is the clerical worker with no degree unskilled, is the salesperson selling furniture unskilled? They dont have degrees or Trades. the work they do. Maybe people need to clearly understand that all people who work are 'workers'. We seem to be focusing on blue collar workers at the lower end of the chain of desired jobs such as cleaners.


To hear comments such as Realists, they (workers) are apparently not worth the money being paid for the work they do. Is this the issue here?

The workers have not created the issues facing companies with costs of goods, it is to be squarely placed back into the lap of the Government who instituted the lousy Trade laws and Trade tarrifs. If workers are to lose income, why is not the entire organisation copping it sweet and reducing spending and wages at every level. A smart business would always look at the whole picture, not just focus of the very people who produce the goods and do the production and labour. A smart business employs the right people and then ensures that those people are looked after, as, they are a vital part of the whole.

Treating staff like turnips will only get you turnip soup, treat them like humans and you will get immense benefits,. Happy staff will produce the best work. I have been both an employee and an employer, and have learned that lesson well from both bad employers and great employers.

Realist, FYI,I have been a purchasing officer, working 12-13 hour days, at 100 miles an hour, no breaks, to get through my work, for 21 years, so don't you dare have the gaul to tell me, I wouldn't know what the pressure was like, I lived that pressure for 21 years, but was paid a pittance, less than $30,000 p.a. because the company was able to intimidate me as I had a mortgage, and they knew quite well that I couldn't be out of a job. If you are going to say "you should have applied for another job" save your breath, as working flat out for that many hours per day, all one could do at the end of each day, and on weekends, was sleep, and try to recover for the onslaught of the next week. Nobody could have worked harder, or smarter than I, I had too become inventive, and there are many more like me who after such an effort, have a nervous breakdown, and become completely disabled, and cannot take any further part in the workforce. Are you trying to tell me that Mr. King works harder than I did, I don't think so! however when I began working in 1970, a C.e.o was paid 4 times the average worker, now it's 40 times the average worker, and more. $59 million is an obsene amount of money for any employee to collect, especially in the light of these new IR laws, designed to lower the "real minimum wage" in real terms, over time, like the USA we will have 70 year old's working, because they must, the USA minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, and hasn't risen in 7 years, which of course is the idea of these new laws, introduced here. People like you Realist, see what they want to see ironic you should call yourself "Realist" that in itself is hypocrisy, something you would I assume be very comfortable with.

I can empathise with you Shonga. I too consider the multi million dollar remuneration of CEO's as grossly obscene in an environment where hard working toilers are underpaid.
We need to understand that in reality our society is not a true democracy. Electing a government every 3 or 4 years and then having no say on major issues is not what we expect in a modern democratic society.
Instead we have created a system of patronage. If you suck up to the Party in power you can join the gravy train.
This country encourages the 'Jack' system We reward politicians for lying and business for creating a bottom line for 'shareholders'
So called small business operates on the basis of charging what the traffic will bear.When they grow to the point where they need more workers, the very people who toil to create their wealth become a unit of production which has to be cost effective,not a human being entitled to quality of life. There are few exceptions.
I hear more people calling for a change; A Bill of Rights; an end to the two party system;a new,progressive party;A multi party system;A 'Respect' Party like George Galloway formed in the UK; A Green Party with a broader platform. With each election we see advances in Independent Candidates who are in sync with their constituents. We all have to participate in politics and expose the hypocrits that currently rule us . Its happening in South America where Bush was recently rebuffed trying to sell his "Free Trade Agreement" It must happen here too. People need to talk politics and not be ruled by fear campaigns

Maracus, I wholeheartedly agree with your post, I also think the education system should take some responsibility for the apathy of the average Australian voter. When I was at school {35 years ago} we had a subject named "social studies" where students were taught how the party system worked, the relevance of unions, both employee and employer, and a rough outline as to the beginings of the parties and what they stood for. We were then left to decide which if either camp we fell into. These days that subject has a different name, and is an optional subject. If the student chooses ignorance of our system of democracy and instead prefers apathy, we condone that, which to me is a miscarriage of justice to the democratic system we enjoy, and over time has weakened the very essence of our privilage to live in such a system. Some voters would rather watch The Simpsons than the news, to be informed on local,national and international affairs, so in other words, they don't have a clue what is happening around them, which I think is a tragedy, whatever you vote, I believe the subject should be compulsory again, so people have a better chance of knowing what it is they are voting for, please correct me, if you don't agree.

WE make our choices.

My motto: We must be extremely happy with where we are in life otherwise we would change it.

Wingers dont do, doers dont winge. No more sob stories, I dont give mine out, and mine is probably as good as it gets.

I do not think that our workers should have their pay reduced, I am opposed to IR as an employer and if people would read my posts rather than burr up during the course of my post and dont get the context, I would not have to keep explaining myself.

We are in a period of remarkable change, we are working on a global scale no matter what business you are in, the internet and the ability to invest easily overseas has ensured that.

I sympathise with you for working long hours. But we must compare apples with apples, and you get renumerated the greatest for working smarter, not harder. You chose the industry, so you accept what it entails. Dont complain and say you were underpaid and had a mortgage, do you think you are the only one?

You get rewarded in life by correlating risk with reward. If you chose a nice safe bet for an occupation, you will most likely have a nice safe existance. If you chose to take a risk and do something that drives you, or something that will enable you to get what you want, you may crash and burn but at least you are in the race, you are not a complacent spectator.

Please realise if you are one of thousands of people who do the same thing you will be paid accordingly. If you do something unique or sought after, or work for yourself, you have the opportunity to earn 'non mass' wages.

Get motivated, this guy from Leighton has thousands of mouths to feed, thaousands of families are relying on him to steer the ship. Please do not compare teachers etc to that. He deserves a fair go, if you want to be communists and all earn the same wage, change your voting stance.

Realist
You certainly exposed your bias in that last post.
In Industrial Relations where employer and Employee both work towards mutual benefit there is no comparison with the 'Jack' system.

Dont blame the victims of Corporate greed and drag out the communist bogey for workers who want a fair share of the pie.

If your posts are not the whinge of a bitter,failed capitalist I'll bare my ass in Gowings window.

Failed Capatalist?!

Cheers Mate.

I needed brightening today!

Fair Share of the pie? Well, own a pie in the first place and you can eat it all if you want.

Australia is the lucky country. People come here as imigrants with nothing and create amazing things. People leave home after school with hopes and dreams that they try to fulfil, no matter how small or large they are, and with 2 hands, a heart and a goal they do it.

My best mate had a goal of being a flare bartender. He achieved that, it is not up to me to say if he should do it or not. If it makes him happy, great. If it is his dream, great.

I am not about taking things away from anyone. For the 20th time i am opposed to IR reform. Dont you feel lucky that in Australia if we want more in life, we can get it if we are single minded about it?

Any good employer knows that the engine of the company is its staff, with the CEO/Director merely driving the car. If the engine is top notch, it gets looked after, if it is not performing, changes are made accordingly. That is why IR is bad, employees will be riding business cycles as i have mentioned.

You want pie. I am 24 years old and i have got pie, and started with nothing.

Choices, choices, choices. You want more pie, position yourself to get more pie, or if this pie is not sufficient, choose another pie. Simple.

You get nothing for free, and if you are waiting in your safe existance to be hand fed more as you feel you deserve it, be decisive and ENACT CHANGES. Complaining and making assumtions about failed capatalists is why you are where you are.

Realist - greed, arrogance & the right 'leg up' will get you everywhere for a short while, then it all caves in...
A wages system fair for this country would include a 'salary cap', policed along the lines of the 'NRL' footy system (sounds ridiculous - think about it...). Draw the comparison yourself. No individual or family, for that matter, 'needs' more than, say, a couple of mil a year. Certainly, grade wages according to the usual criteria, but remove the ludicrous public company payments. Use the ATO with expanded powers to audit the contracts of top level managers of public corporations.
The question I ask - Is a corporations CEO worth 80 times more than the head engineer or 200 times more than a producion worker? I think not

Pleased I brightened your day Realist.Capitalism can be a drag.
I dont think you realize what it is all about yet at 24.
I've lived more than three of your lifetimes and in retirement I can spend leisure time commenting on such issues as IR reform.
I've got all the pie I need and I didn't get it for free or through the Jack system. I have a social conscience and hope to contribute my experience and knowledge for the common good.
Incidentally, use your spell checker, Howards Government are demanding a return to the three RRR's, you wouldn't do too well.The correct spelling is: Assumptions;Whinge;Capitalists;Existence;Realize;Immigrants
cheers

Realist, yeah right !
I noticed you had no answer to the C.E.O. of 1970 earning 4 times the average worker, and now earning 40 times the average worker, except to say employee's wages should be lower. I expect you to also take a pay cut along with the workers whose pay you cut...what's that you are far toooo important to take a wage cut, who do you think makes your money for you, Tinkerbell, or the Tooth Fairy? If overheads are too high, surely you must look at your own remuneration, as well as your workers. With your attitude, you may find people who work for you that can obtain work elsewhere, doing so when you cut wages, and it would serve you right, if you are 24 y.o. spoilt brat, then it just might be time you broadened your tiny mind a little, and had your first bankruptcy, they say the first is always the best, good luck, you will need it....and $59 million is still obscene for anyone to be paid per annum, most don't recieve that in a lifetime, imagine how that adds to overheads?

Realist.....is if!
I suggest you watch tonight's news to see what employees think of your dumb attitude...

Thanks for the heads up on the three R's.

I dont have time to be melancholy and correct my spelling, I write quickly and you get the point. Time is important and i ostracise myself for wasting time doing thius in the first place(did i get you mad with that melancholies!). But unlike alot of you, it is on my time, not someone elses.

By the way, I agree with your scathing comments somewhat referencing ages, with you guys impying that age being in direct proportion to wisdom therefore i know &*%$ all. I can understand your comments regarding, I do not hold much for fellow 24 year olds especially as an employer, so i understand with all your wisdom that in 99% of cases you would be right, a 24 year old knows nothing.

If I have the ability to absorb what I have by 24, and to have achieved a little it shows that I am capable enough to give my comments to a few trivial latte sipping skivvy wearers. (please excuse me, some of you who I deeply respect and are not like this!)

i am not saying i know everything, in fact, i have the intelligence to say i know nothing compared to what is out there in the world. But as an employer, a person who has worked from minimum wage not so long ago, as a younger person who will feel the longevity of these changes I have reasonable grounds to comment.

I dont care if you are three times as old as me etc, I respect your age and experience, but to attack me for being younger it makes me laugh. When you are like me that is a hurdle with many older people, until you spend 5 minutes with me and get an inferiority complex.

We need a floor but not a ceiling, whoever supoorts that has no grounds to make argument anymore. Ludicrous.

Shonga, the vitriol you spew at Realist is a measure of your blinkered thinking and your class warfare attitude.

I sure hope you do not have anything to do with young people because your attitude is warped. Telling a successful young entreprenuer you want him to go bankrupt to teach him a lesson is arguably the stupidest comment ever made on this forum.

He has set up a business which gives him money to live on, money to spend in the economy, gives Australians and a handful of people overseas a job. Not everyone expects the Government to hand them life on a platter, yet you begrudge the success of someone who is helping many people including himself.

I may not agree with him on IR, which I think some change is necessary, but your hate and jealousy of the successful is quite sad.

It is not his fault you work your a#$e off and don't have the gumption to change your situation. He has taken a risk, invested in his future probably at great cost. If you're not willing to do the same, too bad.

Keep, keeping it real Realist.

t.u.s

Thanks Usual,

I appreciate the support. It is good a small proportion of people wish you well instead of trying to bring you down.

Misery loves company, I am not miserable and Usual I can see that you are not either.

Good luck and thanks.

Realist

REALIST.....

I think you might have missed my other post..

I speak malay fluently, and have quite a bit to do with the place (Malaysia) I'm interested in some things you said in your other post about the Malaysian Government offering this and that for businesses there..
I uncountable contacts and connections in East Malaysia (Sarawak/Sabah)

can you fill me in on a bit more about your work and those concessions ?

jdrmot@tpg.com.au

Thanx