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?.

Kenny, you have a very good point, belonging to a union is a work related insurance policy. My union did so much for me, when I was working, I appreciated them so much they went to court to get backpayments I was owed, fronted the bosses when I couldn't get my point across, again when I was being victimised, they are worth their weight in Gold, and now is the time, when ordinary workers should be cueing up to join, without a strong union, working people have NO say at all. It's time to rebuild membership of unions, for our own protection, and to stand up and be counted when the union goes in to bat for you. If these laws are passed, the ordinary worker will need all the help they can get.

The New industrial relations reform has been blown way out of proportion by both sides and its importance has been exaggerated as the governments changes and the ACTU’s incredible opposition is mostly politically motivated rather than economic.

To understand the initial aspect of the reforms you must first understand its motivation. Previous to the current industrial relations the Unions power was unquestionable with compulsory unionism in wage negotiations this being removed in the shift to deregulation instigated by the Keating reforms of 1995 and the Howard reforms of 1996. Since then the Unions power has fallen with the Australian economies recent boom and workers lowering reliance on unions. Union membership has then fallen to 26% in 2005 and the ACTU power then fallen further. The Liberal government would understand this weakness and as the Labor party receive the majority of its income for campaigning from the ACTU and Union leaders a Liberal attack on union membership would be logical. The ACTU’s scare campaign would therefore be equally logical.

Although we would expect nothing less of the government’s motivation to be political the real issue here is the reforms advantages and disadvantages. The ACTU’s main argument is that the reforms will compromise workers and lower wages for employees with poor negotiating power. Firstly the removal of unfair dismissal would sound just by its name alone to worry most Australian workers however it is important to understand the difference between unfair dismissal and unlawful dismissal. Unlawful dismissal means an employee could take a previous employer to court for illegally terminating an arrangement it would also stop employers preemptively from sacking workers for discrimination reasons or sacking employees for using their basic awards or rights such as maternity leave or sick leave. This would contradict the ACTU’s add campaign as a woman is shown being sacked for taking time off to care for a sick child or a man who is forced to change his employment arrangement affecting his relationship with his son.

The removal of unfair dismissal will only apply for businesses with under 100 employees and allow employer’s to dismiss workers more easily. The unfair dismissal laws involve mostly red tape for employers with regulations to fulfill and piles of paperwork for each employee to terminate. The idea behind removing the law is to improve Australia’s dynamic efficiency as better resource allocation occurs. The ACTU argues that workers will become vulnerable to being exploited by employers as a shift in power occurs. What the ACTU doesn’t consider is the reality of the workplace as in small business a dismissal is another cost not a gain this coupled with the law that for full time employees over a year is entitled to have between one and three months pay in order to look for another job this adding to the cost of dismissal. The cost of dismissal coupled with unlawful dismissal will mean that the ACTU’s fear of boss’s forcing worse conditions or workers finding dismissal is unfounded. The Unfair dismissal laws still apply to big business, as they would be able to accommodate the cost of dismissal so the regulations are maintained to protect employment.

The reform is a restructuring of worker-employer relations not the standard of wages or the rights of workers.

The truth is that after these reforms workers with low negotiating power will rely on their unions and political pressure for fair wage determination just as they have for the past 100 years

Unions are important to Australia to keep our living standards ranked 8th in the world. However if unions are given to much power such as occured during Hawke's income and price accord wage expectations may again get out of control and stagflation occurs as a Self-perpetuating situation with cost push and lack of competition policy occurs

Unions will continue its role in Australia however its importance and the power that follows will not be seen again untill the next recession as union membership will quickly rise again and wages are protected.