Maracas. Absolutely true. Unions have exploited this fact in the past to raise wages. However, there is still a LIMIT to which above-award wages can rise before they become counterproductive, and a distortion in, the economy. What Howard is doing is swinging the pendulum back to the opposite extreme (from where they once were) so that a greater number of people are included in the system at the floor level. No doubt, long after Howard is gone, there'll be other pulses of activity that boost wages again when they're needed. All I'm really saying is that every cloud has a silver lining: when standards go down, they'll be replaced by greater opportunity. I expect that the system will toggle between the two opposite approaches over time.

Dear maracas,
None of the Aboriginal stockman may have received the award wages, but you didn’t actually mention whether or not there was a spread in their pay or if they all received the same amount.

Be that as it may, management doesn’t pay higher wages to be nice. They will always pay the lowest market price they can get away with but, strictly for selfish reasons, sometimes to elicit higher productivity or attract better workers, they will pay more. This opportunity is limited if part of their total salary budget has to be spent on forced, above market, minimum wages.

Also, you seem to turn a blind eye to the fact that up until now it is always expensive, if not impossible, for management to sometimes get rid of employees who possess at least one of the following attributes: lazy, unpunctual, sullen, disruptive, unpopular with other staff, otherwise possess attitude problems.
Surely a boss with the arbitrary power to hire and fire will ultimately end up with a more finely tuned workshop than one lumbered down with unwanted staff, or expensive redundancy payments.

I find it astounding that some people dare to say businesses will suffer due to Howard’s reforms. What Howard is doing is removing some government regulations from the operations of business.
Is it not a self evident truth that a business will always run more efficiently without the monkey of government interference on its back?

Dear Edward Carson,
No I am not turning a blind eye.
Under unfair dismissal rules an employer is required to warn the offender.Verbally and in writing.
After three strikes, he's out. I know, from experience as a rank and file delegate. The character you describe does not get support from fellow workers or Union unless the dismissal is unjust. As for your final comment about self-evident truths, dont you know about the corporate crooks in business who use the absence of regulation to fleece unsuspecting investors that get exposed regularly ?
HIH and Enron come to mind,Hardie's asbestos ettempt at envasion by going offshore; and still not paying out.
Howard is on his way out and the mess he is creating wont bother him on his generous retirement package.
I guess you also overlook the waste of taxpayers money he has authorised with his subservience to the American invasion of Iraq. If there was any justice in this world he and his "Coalition of the willing" co-conspirators Bush and Blair would be arraigned before a Nuremberg style Tribunal and tried for crimes against Humanity.
The hardship he is imposing on those of us who do not have power is also a crime against Humanity. Tomorrow you will see National and international solidarity of workers against his so called IR reforms.

Maracas

You are clearly very pro union. Fair enough. The Unions and the Labor Party are totally opposed to the changes. They believe that they will lead to lower wages and be generally bad for the country. The Liberals believe they will lead to higher wages and be good for the economy and good for the country.

This week we will see the Senate inquiry where most of the reported submissions will be against the changes. Your rally will receive a great deal of publicity from most media outlets and you will get plently of support from the ABC and the Faifax Group in particular. In the end time will be the determiner of the overall result. It will be pretty clear over the next 2 years in the lead-up to the next Federal election which side of the argument proves to be right. In that sense it is in the interests of both the Liberal / National
Parties and the Unions / Labor Party to have the legislation passed as soon as possible so that the test can begin.

I worked on a Workplace Agreement here in WA before I retired. It was great. We got better salary increases than the Union was able to obtain, and quicker too.

I expect that you will be disappointed by what comes out of the changes but only time will tell.

Sniggid, you are sitting on the picket fence 50/50 because nothing is that equal. It is impossible to be balanced 50/50 except when you want to say nothing at all. That is what you have done. You have just filled up sapce.
It means you are a conservative newspaper editor.
Everyone, but everyone has a leaning, even editors.
To sit on the fence is to add nill comment just like most editors do in the name of being objective.
Objectivity means to argue both sides with argument and reason and make it believable.
It does not mean to say someone else says something or believes something. That is the way to say you have no mind or opinion of your own. Now which side of the fence is your 50.00001 weight of bias?

GlenWriter

The only sense I can make out of your contribution is the first 4 letters of the name GlenWriter as my Christian name is also Glen. The rest is something akin to basic school staffroom gobbledegook. What in fact you want me to attempt to do is to convince you to agree with a point of view that you cannot accept. No argument, no form of words will satisfy you that the proposed changes will be good for the country and for workers. And even if time does show that the country has benefited from the changes you will still not be convinced, I am sure.

The difference between us is not only that I believe in the changes and you do not, but there is the added comfort for me that the changes will most likely become Law and the added frustration for you that you almost certainly cannot stop them from becoming Law. I can only hope that your frustration will abate over time.