The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > An economist’s view of the proposed workplace reforms > Comments

An economist’s view of the proposed workplace reforms : Comments

By Fred Argy, published 8/11/2005

Fred Argy looks at the new industrial relations reforms from an economic perspective.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All
maracas,
Sorry, my mistake. When I was talking about industrial relations and what is good for Australian business the allied invasion of Iraq two and a half years ago somehow slipped my mind.
The cost of maintaining one frigate and two hundred (?) land troops in Iraq when they would otherwise be maintained in Australia must be absolutely enormous.

That verbal and written warnings you talk about is only for those who are blatantly incompetent or belligerent. (and even then, if an employee has made two cock-ups or twice talked back to the boss, why should management have to wait for it to be done a third time rather than just getting rid of the problem asap and moving on with a new worker) The main problem is those in the grey area who are not overall worth their cost to the company (in efficiency or inability to get on with others) but don’t engage in any specific action that would justify warnings. As a rank and file delegate are you going to tell me that you’ve never heard or a case where management has tried but failed to dismiss someone, unless they also paid out a redundancy package.
The mere fact that management wants to get rid of someone is evidence in itself that they are not of value. It is only incompetent management that gets rid of good workers and in time that company will go kaput anyway under the weight of its own negligence and stupidity.
With regards to regulation there is difference between making a company answer for intentionally selling harmful asbestos and telling them who they can or can’t hire and fire.
With some minor exceptions all the government has to do is just maintain the basic criminal and civil law where anyone (whether individual, business, non- profit association or whatever) must answer for all crimes or tortious actions such as fraud, perjury or negligence. Recently the law in Victoria was changed so that executive directors of companies can now be held criminally liable for the actions of the companies.
Posted by Edward Carson, Monday, 14 November 2005 3:07:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Edward, I dont believe that management is infallable. If they cant dismiss someone who deserves to be dismissed without paying a redundancy package, they are mostly incompetent.
I dont consider talking back to the boss a sackable offence either.
Besides an incompetent Manager who goes Kaput affects the livelihood of the workers in the industry he is supposed to be managing.
With regard to hiring and firing; If management is competent in hiring the right person they shouldn't need to fire too often.
Indeed I think that since rules for wrongful dismissal have been in existence, Managements have had to lift their game in the hiring of staff,take more time, check past employment references by speaking to previous employers instead of just reading 'written references' and bothering to establish if the prospective employee has the qualities required to do the work or accept training.
Regarding my comments on regulation and the dishonesty of corporate management I was seeking to illustrate the fallability of management..... Governments are painfully slow at protecting Workers from Corporate fraud
Posted by maracas, Monday, 14 November 2005 4:13:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sniggid,
In one of your posts you said

“Having presided over record growth in the economy, in employment and in real wages over nearly 10 years, why would the government seek to implement IR reforms designed to harm the economy and working Australians and risk being thrown out at the next election? That is an illogical position to take.”

Howard has opposed every wage case since 1996. This increase in real wages is not because of Howard. That’s a FACT.

Howard despises unions. His main motivation in these reforms is to weaken the unions. This in turn will weaken the ALP. This in turn will weaken the opposition to the government leaving the Libs/Nats the only real choice for the people. Labor wont have the funds to get there message out to the people because the unions will be smashed which is there main source of funding. So basically we will have a dictatorship.

Another side effect of these reforms will be an increase in crime because more people will be living on the poverty line. This is what happened in the US.

Look what happened in New Zealand when reforms similar to the ones being implemented here were brought in. We had mass migration of Kiwi’s coming to Australia to earn a decent wage! So your arguments about higher wages are shear fantasy. Mr Sheen (Howard) is only looking after the Liberals party’s interests and that of his business mates
Posted by MechEngineer, Monday, 14 November 2005 6:53:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Weaken the unions? yes indeed for a while they are going to be in danger.
Weaken the ALP? from this day forwards the reverse is true Howard has refocused Australians and the time will come ,as a direct result of this criminal act, that sees conservatives bought low and a true revitalised ALP federal goverment in place.
That goverment must reform a great deal but do it with class not an axe.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 1:22:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These laws are more about entrenching managerial prerogative than economic reform.

The government has failed to make an economic case justifying its claims that these changes will grow jobs and boost productivity - all of the research, pre and post, the tabling of the bill has pointed very clesarly to the damaging effects these laws will have on the work force from both. There is no economic justification.

In the pages of this journal Saul Easlake has conceded any data supporting the governments clams is equivocal at best.

The idea that market forces will see cohorts of workers voting with their feet is fanciful - while contemporary society is partly characterised by higher levesl of mobility - people make very serious choices about where they live; schools, families life long relationship, regional familiarity keep many people rooted in one place;- what these changes might induce is a larger number of bread winners "on the wallaby" chasing subsistence employment and fracturing families - in fact the Mad Monk has endorsed this life style if people reeeeally want to find a job.

Already employers exploit outworkers, intinerant labourers, migrant workers - does any one really think that lowering the level of protection of workers rights that this form of bastardry will not grow exponentially.

The most insidious element of these arrangemetns is the fact that when an AWA collapses there is no obligation to renegotiate the deal or maintain the status quo; the 5 basic principles kick in after 90 days.

This is not about economics or prosperity ( well for some it is but not the worker ) - it is an exercise in social engineering and revenge.
Posted by sneekeepete, Thursday, 17 November 2005 9:34:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do hope that sneekeepete and MechEngineer enjoyed their day of action protesting about these changes. I am reminded of the hype and demonstration that occurred in 1975, in the IR changes in 1996 and with the GST introduction. These were all warning of dire consequences for the nation. But what happened. Gough Whitlam suffered a huge defeat. The 1996 IR changes are now seen as positive, and the GST has been a great initiative securing financial gains for the States. Now, we move on to labour market reform which will also prove to be a positive step forward.

When the dust has settled and time passes, judgements can then be made about the effectiveness or otherwise of these changes. If they prove to be unwise, the Government will lose the next election. I suspect that in all likelihood, however, you can look forward to more Coalition Governments.
Posted by Sniggid, Thursday, 17 November 2005 4:46:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy