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.