It is heart warming to see some one attempting to set out osme economc justification for the imposition of Howards new regime - and by his own admission the evidence is equivocal.

It is the fact that the evidence to support Howards bold assertions is abiguous at best that requires most right thinking peole to be very sceptical aboiut his motives; there is no clear economic case for these moves and what the government presents is a mere raft of slogans with little meaning or real substance.

On balance the evidence suggests these measures will do littel to boost productivity, employment or well being - in relation to the latter is is highly likely the moves will run counter to the health interest of the comunity at large.

Many of the proponents are suggesting that the development of a working poor free of the debiltating reliance on welfare will be a good thing. The down side of that is the pressure this new class of persons will bring to the market place is down ward when it comes to working conditions and this class grows it will tend to feed itself; the only beneficiries will be employers with reducing wage bills

I feel these IR laws are important and like debating the issue. Similarly the terrorism laws are worthy of debate as well.
But judging by the thread going on about ID and evolution, the real passionate debate is about science and philisophy rather than industrial law and sedition.

and it peeves me because I don't really care about that debate either way.

Shucks.

t.u.s

What a surprise, a millionaire economist, coming out in support of Howards IR laws, Greenspan is correct we do equate workplace flexability with job insecurity, because that is exactly what it means to us. We can't feed our kids on the minimum wage, send them to school, and give them a life. It is alright for these millionaire economic guru's to babble on with b$%*%@^t, they don't have to live on it, and I doubt with all their economic expertise, that they could. So Saul, take you ooblygook, and you theroy and go back and play with your models, with have nothing whatsoever to do with our reality. Of course in Greenspan's country the USA minimum wages are $5.15 p.h. and havn't increased for the last 7 years, yes Howard's IR policy, will create more jobs, with starvation wages that noone could live on, so we will have to work two jobs, with starvation wages to get the same amount as we now get, and as a result our family/relaxation time, will become non-existant, thanks for your informed view Saul.

The new IR legislation ignores research that shows that unsure, stressed and unhappy workers are not the most productive. Sure, they may work hard, especially if the boss is looking. But why take an interest in the firm or the company? Why be careful with equipment, save and not wasteequipoment, materials or stationary, if the boss may replace you if they can get someone cheaper.

Happy, end encouraged workers are not only more productive, but also more creative, and are more likely take an interest in the welbeing of the company.

be

be, and so say all of us, you are spot on if you are paid properly, and treated as an asset to the company you will be more productive, the opposite treatment brings the opposite result. Good Managers strive for the former strategy, the also ran Managers settle for the later, so you can always tell who you are working for, a Manager, or an also ran.

I think it comes down to this the new IR laws may well be good for the economy, but are they good for individuals?
The new laws will increase the gulf between the haves and the have nots. It’s pointless trying to compare our living standards with other countries because people don’t compare themselves with Americans or Nigerians they look at the Jones’s down the road. I read a piece in one of the papers a few weeks ago were people were complaining that they could not claim their nanny on their tax? Yes nanny…One of the people interviewed called people earning sixty grand the working poor.
There is plenty of flexibility in the current systems (for white collar) extending these rules into the bottom end of blue collar workers will leave those people open to exploitation. One thing is for sure though if the liberal think this could be the final nail in the coffin of unions they are very much mistaken. Unions are like flood insurance most people won’t buy it when the skies are clean. Time to check when your fees are due….

PS I wonder how many poly’s wives or mothers worked as claeners, or fathers worked on unskilled assemble lines or maybe were unemployed for a while?.