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?