The strange thing about the pursuit of self interest is that our brains have evolved to like sharing and giving more than receiving. If you measure the activity of the pleasure centres of the brain - read Shermers "the mind of the market" http://www.michaelshermer.com/the-mind-of-the-market/ you will find that 98% of people have higher activity in the pleasure centres when they give than when they receive. In fact many experience the equivalent of pain when they receive if they know they cannot reciprocate. This leads to the apparent resentment of many welfare recipients who are not given the opportunity to give back.

We are a sharing, giving, receiving species and yet our economic and increasingly our social systems are based around the idea that we only want to take and to consume for ourselves.

It is time to change our economic structures to encourage giving. Take a look at http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/a-competition-for-ideas-to-benefit-the-world/ and you will see one change to our economic systems to benefit us all by encouraging giving through lower consumption of common goods.

when you find out what democracy is, you can begin to talk effectively about politics. this is more difficult than one would think, as even educated* people think oz is a democracy.

it is not. there is no 'by the people' in the rule 'of the people' in oz. that's why there is very little 'for the people', either. i well remember when i first saw lincoln's famous three phrases quoted in the 'sydney morning herald'. there were only two phrases. this is oz's leading newspaper, blatantly participating in thought control.

this writer is an ignorant fool. one can pity him, but he has swallowed the world-view of the people he purports to oppose. this kind of opposition is not much better than support for the greedy.

* educated: displaying the habits of thought and speech approved by the rulers.

Excellent and insightful article.

It is an interesting point you make in regard to power. We have all been conditioned to believe that unions can become 'too powerful' but not many question or articulate in the same way, Employer Power. Do we perceive that Capital holds legitimate power while Labour (unions) do not and only succeed via struggle in industrial action.

The author speaks about the economic exchanges between capital and labor. The balance between these two is not always smooth and yet the relationship is naturally symbiotic.

Symbiotic is defined as: "the living together of two dissimilar organisms, as in mutualism, commensalism, amensalism, or parasitism".

'Two dissimilar organisms' but nevertheless having to compete with each other for a greater share of the profit usually to the detriment of labour.

Perhaps Capital is perceived as 'King' in the relationship because it is seen as the creator of wealth, while labour's contribution is largely undervalued. At the same time labour (in union form) is viewed as a body to be feared and hence suppressed (to varying degrees) in the event that labour would want a larger piece of the pie.

The battle between unions and employers will continue to be adversarial if the pursuit of self-interest is not tempered with a sense of justice and recognition of the part that labour plays in creating wealth (and more importantly goods and services).

How is this to be achieved? Unfortunately history shows us that the human race continues to repeat the mistakes of the past. The current financial crisis may turn things around a bit in terms of the pursuit of reckless and relentless capitalism and lack of regulation. Perhaps, this crisis will have a flow-on effect for labour and for the idea of community rather than individualism and greed.

Sadly much of the Australian industrial relationshions system
is still based on the British system of "them" and "us".

Far more enlightened thinking has been common in parts of central
Europe for decades, where both employees and employers realise that
they do best in win-win situations, as one needs the other.

Entlightened employers soon realise that their business is only as
good as their employees and it pays to reward the best of them with
extra, for they generate the wealth and it pays to make sure they
stay with the company.

The union award rate system is flawed in that one size fits all.
A top employee is paid at the same rate as the slacker who does
as little as possible. There is no reward for effort.

Yes there are union officials who are more concerned with their
own ego, then what is best for a company and its workers. Yes there
are plenty of managers who are pretty bad at their jobs and who
need a course in people skills. There is fault on both sides and
that is what differentiates good from bad companies in the end,
as both employer and employee need one another, for a company
to thrive.

Good reply pelican, however the other replies seem to push a wheel barrow not address the thread.
Those who truly know me remind me often I have far too much Passion about workers rights.
Rather too much than too little.
I wait endlessly for us to address the hundreds of issues in IR we, the union movement must.
Yes anti union management is stronger than most think.
Just consider this I have confronted university graduates who have IR jobs.
Gave them a copy of their own company policy, added work cover policy , law in fact to them.
Showed proof they had acted against both policy's.
Then after 6 weeks been given an apology, we got it wrong your claims are right we will fix it.
Yet another 6 weeks passed and still not fixed.
My only option? it was ,has to be, a sneak raid with work cover.
I will be called a radical unionist because safety is ignored by some one trained to oppose unions in every way.
Free advise is not always bad advice.
This concerns the supplier of PPE to labour hire workers who are compelled to wear it on site.
No one has noticed they are not doing so.
How hard would it be?
To send even a child, to inspect PPE for each new worker?
Such failure to even act on union issue enforces militancy in the long run as our only way to get results ,this is one of our very biggest and best construction groups, not a back yarder.

The article is an 'also ran' :)

How easssssy it would have been... to save mr Shermer all the time of his research...and it's cost.. by simple going to the Good book.....

ACTS 20:35 the words of the Lord Jesus "It is more blessed to give than to receive"

Interestingly, this passage indicates that the Lord said a lot more than is recorded in the Gospels, because that saying is not. Clearly Paul is quoting from traditions which were not included in the Gospels.

Nevertheless, they are the Lords words, and they are true. We did not need some psychologist to tell us that.