Mutual obligation has always been a theory never put into practice.

People of working age should be “hassled” into finding work as well as being helped to find work if they have forgotten how to or have never tried. The Howard Government did no more in this direction than the Rudd Government. There are still around half a million people on the dole, while high immigration, with all its financial, social and environmental costs, still continues in order to fill jobs lazy buggers are not being put into.

At it again eh ...'professor'!

"And it helps ensure that living on welfare does not become a more attractive option than accepting a low-paid, full-time job."

You and 'Mr Right make a fine couple ...

"People of working age should be “hassled” into finding work as well as being helped to find work if they have forgotten how to or have never tried."

Obviously neither of you have even been made 'redundant' and thrown of the scrapheap in a society ...er, sorry, an Economy that has been "re-structured" in favour of those driven to accumulate even MORE surplus wealth or private Capital that they already possess.

How about 'hassling' employers who only offer low pay and sub-standard working and safety conditions?

All people share basic inalienable needs ... to adequate food, shelter, education and healthcare for example. The opportunity to access decently PAID work at an equitable level in line with community standards is surely a similar basis need. However under the Capitalist mode of (social) production and distribution, the surplus value of 'workers' labour is exploited by a parasitic elite minority, aided and abetted by 'aspirational' members of the managerial class.

And yet, with the exception of the wealthy, we all have to pay taxes, and purchase the food, shelter (housing), education for our children and so on in a 'de-regulated' marketplace, wherein the sellers of food, housing, petrol, education and so on are 'Free' to charge what they decide!

Bottom line! ... You can either have social security (the old name for the American import, 'welfare') OR you can have social INSECURITY.

Sowat,

You appear to be running on ideology rather than reality.

“Parasitic elite minority” and your inference that only the ‘poor’ pay taxes certainly indicate that you haven’t graduated from the idea of class wars.

We do have social security, but it’s not there to replace working for a living.

“How about 'hassling' employers who only offer low pay and sub-standard working and safety conditions?” Yes. Some employers might need hassling too; certainly on safety conditions. As for the “low pay”, the differential between the dole and lower incomes shows that the dole (intended only as an emergency measure) exists because the dole is too high, particularly when add-ons for dependents, rent, health etc are received. There are people out their getting more than the ‘working poor’ for sitting on their bums.

The low paid workers still struggle on, try to improve themselves or work more than one job, while being constantly insulted by people getting almost as much as they do for nothing when employers can’t get enough workers.

I know who I feel for and respect.

Mr. Right, I have a feeling your first name would be "always" typical tory. It bothers me that you contribute to such a forum with the obvious lack of knowledge that you have.

I am sure Peter Saunders appreciates the brief lecture on vulgar Marxism from Sowat, who might also like to enlighten us on the topic of 'inalienable rights' under capitalism. Who would guarantee these rights...surley not the oppressive capitalist state itself?

Sowat

When you have "employers who only offer low pay and sub-standard working and safety conditions" you have employee vacancies, no one is forced to do those work.

These "vacancies" remains vacant until the employer get hassled

Join the real world Sowat

HELPING PEOPLE HELP THEMSELVES
it is said give a man a fish ,feeds him
one time ,
but teaching the man how to fish means he will empty the pond of fish [the capitalist creed]

we have in this world the haves [who have it all]
and the have nots who are inter-generationally oppressed ,

it is a proven fact that it is a one way fall into poverty for so many [thus sticking the boot in to them is so easy]

Being forced to take on any job often means intrenching them into the lower class for ever[they are too busy working [and paying tax] and simply trying to survive to gain any higher qualifications

[being tied into self employed work con-tracts dosnt help them either , it is only a matter of time before they default their contract and get chewed up legally and lose whatever gains they may have thought they had.

howards policy created a generation of poorly educated children, with his short sighted service of the elites and their tax cuts , and adding the extra burdons upon the many allready over burdened ,

he was a moden day version of the victorian era work house oppressor [pretending public service but only serving the party sponcors and the party line [serving the wealthy]

well the wealth now have no burdon [and no workers ] so we import from often underdeveloped countries the skills he couldnt be bothered to train here.

Importing the workers under skilled wage rates that fall below the poverty line effectivly after taxes and charges he saw fit to impose upon the poor ,we had the peoples bank all publiclly owned , to telstra and other assets now privatised
[add that the states privatised infastructures and the poor now wear the added burdons of higher service charges., rents and transport costs as well.

who the heck would want to work to support that?

OneUnder God - I think you put your finger on it when you spoke about the "haves" passing judgment on the havenots.

It is glaringly obvious that the opinions of MrRight and Pauly are not based on any knowledge of what it is like down at the sludge with the rest of the bottom feeders. This is no cause either for condemnation or for congratulation: but it does invalidate their opinions somewhat.

Unfortunately we don't hear much from the people who are really clued up on this issue because they either cannot afford to run a computer or don't have the skills. I think this is one of the reasons such opinions gain ground: they are very seldom argued against by the people upon whom such judgment is being passed.

I know this is an opinion forum and we are entitled to our own opinions - but surely if we are going to bother to post at all we should do so only about matters we actually know something about?

I apologise in advance if either Mr.Right or Pauly have indeed spent years caught up in the toils of Centrelink and Work for the Dole etc.

"These "vacancies" remains vacant until the employer get hassled."

Wrong again dovif1. Through their bosses unions (Chamber of Manufacturers, Farmers Federation and the like) they lobby the 'people's representatives' and Sir Humphreys in Can'tberra to allow poor, foreign workers to come here as "cheap labor" and undercut/undermine the wage standards and working conditions fought for over decades by union members in their collective/organised struggle against exploitation by Mr Greed and those of his socio-economic class.

Romany must have amazing powers of deduction to establish my class position, economic status and current income from a short post about Peter Saunders' knowledge of Marxism. Remember to engage with the argument and not what you think you know about the author...and maybe tell me whether you seriously expect a capitalist (or is it neo-liberal now?) state to grant 'inalienable rights' to workers whose exploitation it is structurally bound to support?

PaulyB - profuse apologies - I had thought the second posting from Mr.Right was yours.