Well Des still singing from the same song sheet,its all the unions fault,funny I did not know that the unions caused this mess, I thought it was people like you the unfettered free marketeers,no regulations kids in sweatshops no protection for the employee.
Your getting a bit like John Stone another tired old relic of a failed Govt who has found himself a sinecure writing articles and boring everyone to death

John Ryan has nailed it. Des Moore and John Stone are yesterday's men. Haven't had a new thought in thirty years.

Hey, Des, it's 2009. Turn the new century.

The Rudd Government’s IR laws are less worker-friendly than those of the Menzies, Holt, McEwen, Gorton, McMahon and Fraser Coalition Governments. (Notice the missing name.)

Under the Menzies and Fraser Liberals, wages were determined by a centralised system. Under Rudd Labor, they are not.

Under the Menzies and Fraser Liberals, unions were free to strike without a secret ballot. Under Rudd Labor, they are not.

Under the Menzies and Fraser Liberals, union officials could enter worksites without permits. Under Rudd Labor, they may not.

Under the Menzies and Fraser Liberals, pattern-bargaining was permitted. Under Rudd Labor, it is not.

Under the Menzies and Fraser Liberals, work bans were legal without a requirement to dock four hours’ pay. Under Rudd Labor, they are not.

Under the Menzies and Fraser Liberals, lock-outs of workers by management were legal without a secret ballot of shareholders. Under Rudd Labor, they remain legal.

Balance between the workers and employers is desirable but the problem lies with who defines or determines where the balance lies. Who determines how large the share of capital between these two opposing groups.

Corrupt, greedy and ineffective unions are bad in the same way that corrupt, greedy and ineffective employers are bad.

The positive thing about living in a democracy is that when governments push the envelope too far, such as with Work Choices, the people will revolt. When unions push too far (even the ALP deregistered the BLF) modern governments are not reticent about taking appropriate action.

It is because of the union movement that many people enjoy the working conditions of today.

The Workplace Ombudsman/Authority was so besieged by complaints after the onset of Work Choices that they could not cope with the deluge and were forced to hire inexperienced workers (like foreign backpackers) to man the phones. Remember the media reports of the time.

I think even the Howard government did not expect or realise how these laws would result in real reductions in employment conditions and thus standards of living for our lowest income earners. Those with the least power in the hospitality, retail, agricultural and cleaning sector.

To suggest that the Rudd government will give immense power back to the unions is laughable and is reminiscent of the fear mongering tactics of the last election. Such as the myth of job losses without workplace reform (whatever that means). Work Choices proved that lower wages and working conditions did not mean more jobs and there were only job rises in WA and QLD because of the mining sector.

On one hand we have unions saying Rudd isn't going far enough and employers saying Rudd isn't going far enough (the other way) means it probably is pretty balanced.

Mention in this article was made of the common law. The common law of employment is that workers must earn enough for their employer, to keep their job, and employers must pay enough to keep their employees. Any departure from that common law rule, results in unemployment, because employers go broke, and cannot pay any wages at all, and employees are disadvantaged if they cannot earn enough to make working worthwhile. Work has been described as the curse of the drinking class.

Unemployment benefit virtually sets a minimum wage. That is about $7 an hour tax free, and it is simply a survival ration, cunningly devised and paid fortnightly so people are desperate, for at least two days a fortnight. It puts a floor under rents, and ensures that at least 90 billion dollars is injected into the real economy every year. Under Black Jack McKeown, employers were protected from a lower minimum wage in foreign countries, could charge a fair price, and pay a fair wage. Instead of tariffs, we now have a punitive taxation regime on wage earners. Together with the abolition of tariffs, came a flood of unemployment, and instead of paying more for imported goods, we simply have to pay more tax. To pay tax we must produce.

Employers have resorted to capital improvements to replace labour with machines. A fully automated factory can compete with manual labour, to produce goods at a competitive price. Unfortunately these plants can also be built in low wage countries, and the technical expertise of the Chinese and Indians is legendary.

Perhaps the Commonwealth should start to consider that it is really impotent. It can tinker, and play games with the fundamentals, it can impose draconian penalties, but at the end of the day, the same old rules will govern. The Rule of Want, is the driving force of all human endeavour. We want and we pay. The common law recognized the Rule of Want, and employment has always obeyed it. The slewing of the law of want, beyond what an employer will stand, drives up unemployment

The backlash against Work Choices is a knee-jerk fear-based reaction, rather than a well-thought out ECONOMICALLY based response. Political and social objectives have worked against common sense, in the rejection of Work Choices.
In this era of low union interference now coming to an end, real wages, and work conditions, have never been better. Unemployment has never been lower.
And now, precisely when the economy needs increased flexibility to encourage increased business confidence and employment, the government is determined to pursue a popularist pro-union policy that will destroy business ability to control employment costs.
It seems we have learned nothing from the boom years.
Fear, and greed, will put us back into an era of reduced opportunities, unwelcome regulation, reduced employment, higher costs and reduced business activity.
Power to the unions, indeed!