Wow, all these great terms and conditions! A bloke would have
to be a fool, to start his own business and employ people. Best to
just get on the gravy train and suck those employers dry for every
cent!

Eventually it might dawn on some, or perhaps it won't, that for
every job out there, somebody has to take a risk, invest and
create it. Small business is still the lifeblood of the economy
and when enough people fold their arms and decide that its simply
not worth the risk, the union movement will no doubt be screaming
for the Govt to use taxpayer funds for job creation schemes,
as unemployment rises. All quite predictable really.

Personally I don't blame any bloke with a good idea, if he simply
takes it offshore

Yes the Unions rule, yes they won.

Now anyone who wants to start or expand a business will think twice because their risk has just increased and the "workers" still carry no risk, their houses not on the line should the business fail, no responsibility at all.

Anyone with any sense will stay out of business or keep their business small so they don't run into the bullying hordes. The unions don't care about small business, they look after members, who tend to work in the big sites, mines, construction, public service, teaching and health.

There is some momentum in business right now that will keep things running for a while in the Unions favor, but then it will run down. Banks and other institutions will simply see the risks as too great to invest or fund here. There will be whining and blame in all directions.

This is not a good place to run a business, the rights of a person taking a risk to start or run a business are sneered at and not looked after or nurtured.

Most of us will wait for a swing of the pendulum the other way. Collective bargaining has always been and always will be a form of bullying.

Will you, Sharon, be going off to the UN now to withdraw all your complaints about Australia now that you've seen off the evil empire and installed your own puppet government? Perhaps hatred of PM Howard and his government has blinded you to the way the community actually functions.

Oh please, you pair!

We are simply going PART of the way back to where we were before King Johnny took the the throne and still the world is going to end according to you two.

So if any bloke has a good idea he should take it overseas - presumably to a country with poverty level wages, harsh and expoitative working conditions,no such thing as occupational health and safety but oh so cheap and readily disposable labour?

Says a fair bit about you Yabby.

I think making that

Fozz - we've gone back to way before PM (King Johnny if you like to be derogatory) Howard took over to way before PM Hawke and Keating took over.

Again hatred of PM Howard blinds you all, the changes in IR started with PM Hawke and the Accord, remember that?

Probably don't want to because it's easier to have class hatred, ALP born and bred eh?

Clearly not a business owner.

Still nurturing hatred that the Unions want you to, god it's so easy for the Unions and ALP to spin you all up isn't it?

People start businesses because they want to maximise their profit. The risks come with the territory, and neither governments nor workers are obliged to screw themselves in order to help employers scrape a few more pennies together.

After Australians comprehensively rejected WorkChoices, we still get this laughable sob story about the poor, altruistic employers who can't get a single child to crawl down a flooded coal mine without those awful unions getting in the way.

The West tried WorkChoices. Pick up a copy of a Dickens novel and you can read all about the utopia it created, and thank your lucky stars that you live in a country where the rights and safety of employees is protected by the same unions that you like to crap all over.

Well sharon, I read the first few paragraphs and thought 'what a load of crap'!

You state that the new laws will protect workers rights that have suposadly been errodded in the past decade.

Now if tradies (PAYE) earning upwards of 100K per year is your example of 'poor working conditions', then you are on another planet my dear.

I just hope you and your lot are there in a few years to face the music when the wheels fall off. And beleive me, they will. As the previous posters have said, small business will simply STOP EXPANDING and it will be your fault and your fault alone.

Just one more point. How is it that an employee can just up and leave if they get a better offer, yet an employer is breaking the law if they do the same?

And you say you want a fairer system.

Well all you labor voters, you got your wish, now suffer the consequences!

*The risks come with the territory, and neither governments nor workers are obliged to screw themselves in order to help employers scrape a few more pennies together.*

Nobody was talking of being obliged to do anything. But if so
many bells as whistles are enforced by law, that employing
people means its not worth taking a risk, then people won't do it.

Not to worry Sancho, there is a solution at hand. The Govt can
just borrow more and more money, for more and more employment
schemes and the wheel will have come full circle. Your kids and
grandkids can pay it all off one day, along with the interest on
interest etc.

So the new IR regime has taken us back to the Whitlam era or further rpg?

Forgive my mirth, if only that were true. Many in the union movement consider that this is simply replacing workchoices with workchoices lite.

Rehctub, I share your concern that small business may not be expanding in the near future but that has nothing at all to do with the new IR and is a topic for another thread.

Put simply, if an employer simply “can’t afford” to pay the legislated minimum wage then that employer should not be in business! The wage freeze for the most disadvantaged workers in our economy will do nothing to protect their jobs or anyone else’s. The problem is not a cost one, it’s a demand deficiency one.

I’m not sure I fully understand your last question. Are you asking why employers cannot just sack their staff whenever someone turns up offering to do the job more cheaply?

Foxy, my concern with IR laws has nothing to do with pay conditions, more so, I have grave concerns for the re-introduction of 'unfair dismisal'.

I traded through the last round and know first hand the effects it can have.

You see, most small business people are simple minded, often less educated and once the 'red tape' becomes to hard they simply go back into their shells.

With regards to my last question, yes this is exactly what I am saying. Why can it be that a staff member can pick or choose their employer, at will, yet an employer can't pick or choose their staff at will?

I was of the opinion we were all searching for a 'fair deal'.

Currently I have several customers (concreters, chippies, fabricators, brickies, roofers, who are now sitting at home waiting/hoping, for the phone to ring. Sometimes they only work one day in two weeks.

Now given that some of these are under thirty years of age, this is all new to them and they don't know where to turn.

At a time where most workers job security is on shakey ground, now is not the time to make it harder for employers to employ.

sancho: Dickens wrote fiction, it is 2009.

Yes unions helped improve conditions, is anyone denying that? That's a strawman argument, please try harder.

"After Australians comprehensively rejected WorkChoices", oh that was in the "landslide of 2007" election where the ALP won with what 52% of the vote, yep, quite comprehensive. Sounds like a big old dose of ALP spin been swallowed there.

"People start businesses because they want to maximise their profit", shows you have no idea why people start businesses, this is from the "bosses are evil" school of thought, class war rubbish.

People start businesses because they think they can make it work, make a reasonable living, feed their families and pay their mortgage without going broke, they take risks to do it. When the business is a success, and many fail, all the hangers on arrive wanting to share in the proceeds, who didn't want to share any risk.

Successful businesses deserve to be able to make a reasonable profit, without being threatened by unions.

fozz: "Put simply, if an employer simply “can’t afford” to pay the legislated minimum wage then that employer should not be in business!" No, again you don't understand how business works, they simply will have less employees doing harder work and the business will not grow. The unions are self defeating in this way.

"Why can it be that a staff member can pick or choose their employer, at will, yet an employer can't pick or choose their staff at will?"

Oh Rehctub, please be careful. You're challenging the basic double standard that the union movement is based on: All choice and protection for the employee, but not for the employer

Sharon Burrow led a campaign against Workchoices, and now believes that legislation alone will fix the problems afflicting workers and their conditions. This is an interesting article, and we all should be grateful that we had a change of government. The last lot were truly woeful. However Sharon should not think that all the credit for her win, is due to the Workchoices campaign. When Kevin Rudd was able to persuade the Labor Party to get a leader who was not shy about his middle name, Christian, and like it or not, the result we should have had in 2004, was achieved in 2007.

The systemic corruption of Australian life begins and ends with the Liberal Party, but a lot of Labor supporters are in fact closet Liberals, and like the corruption introduced by Menzies, continued by Askin and Fraser. Workchoices should never have survived the High Court challenge. It was and remains illegal, but the challenge in the High Court was mismanaged, and it was beaten 5 to 2. Properly argued, it could have fixed the problem permanently, and what Labor has undone, can be redone by a future Liberal Government if the underlying problem is not fixed.

When the Liberals wanted to arbitrarily fine workers $100,000 for union activity, they would have been ruled out of order, by any properly constituted Ch III Constitution court. Note the lack of a capital letter on court. An arbitrary Court was what caused terror to fill the hearts of unionists. The end of the fair go, for workers and employers came with Fraser, who followed Askin in the destruction of courts, and the transfer of all executive power to the Cabinet.

The key word is arbitrary, and since 1640, arbitrary Courts were banned, because they are Satanic, not Christian. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights uses the word arbitrary, in article 17, but because the Courts arbitrarily override the laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, when it suits the rich, even the newspapers are intimidated. We need a dose of honesty from the Labor Party

It's pretty simple when you get past the spin. The Unions had to get a Labor win to survive. They spent a lot of their members' money (much of it from public sector unions paid from our taxes). They won. They survived. They now have to go all out to lift their profile, prove to those who have never experienced the negative impact of unions that they are necessary and seek to lift their membership levels - read power and influence. So at every step of the re-introduction of the industrial relations club they will have to trumpet their achievements. That's how it is. Get used to it.

It has little to do with working conditions or fairness or working families or worker’s rights or other motherhood statements. If you were Sharan Burrow you would probably do the same thing - fight for your own job and the survival of an organization with a clearly visible use-by date. It has nothing to do with economic reality or rationality or the good of the country. The economy will go backwards under union-induced inefficiencies and Government largesse under the cover provided by Rudd’s hammering of an all embracing global crisis. This will provide a smokescreen for who knows how many years.

Then at some point it will dawn on a voting majority that you actually have to work your way out of tough times; that you can't borrow endlessly, pay people when there is no profit and throw money to whoever may vote for you. Eventually the ad nauseum spin wears off, the hollowmen have used up their last focus group idea and more people than not concede that “Hey, it’s not working Kev”.

How much damage will be done and how far back our national economic prosperity will be set is a function of the time it takes a majority to get it. Until then we’re stuck.

rehctub, (I assume you are talking to me when you say "foxy" - I've never thought of myself as foxy)

It is sad that some of your customers are scratching for work. Things aren't too crash hot for tradies here in central QLD at the moment either. Hopefully they will pick up some work when the school and other infrastructure packages kick in (very soon now). However, the new regime has been in a day or so meaning that these people's problems predate that.

While it may irk some employers that employees can get up and leave if they find a more attractive offer (I bet not too many of them are doing that at present though!) while employers cannot simply sack their workers everytime someone willing to work for less walks through the door, I am glad that this is the case. Millions in the lower parts of the labour market would be so severely disadvanted by the inevitable race to the bottom that we would create a permanent underclass of poverty.

Odo, I'm not sure that you understand how the economy works in macro. If minimum wage rises automatically generated unemployment we would never have wage rises. It has long been the dilemma of the capitalists that workers are also consumers of the goods and services that the owners of capital are peddling and that forcing down wages across the board simply reduces demand for their product. In this way, it is wage cutting that is self defeating.

*Put simply, if an employer simply “can’t afford” to pay the legislated minimum wage then that employer should not be in business!*

Fozz, the problem is not the minimum wage, its the many enforced
bells and whistles. Today there are no guarantees in business.
Contracts can be lost, customers go elsewhere. So employees have to
be cut. Large termination payments can shut the company down, so
everyone loses their jobs. It happened to Melba Industries:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Rudds-job-destroyer-pd20090423-RCRHL?OpenDocument&src=sph

So the best policy, is simply not to hire people in the first place,
rather then risk bankrupting the company, or go offshore, where
such stupid laws don't apply.

We are competing in the real world now. Without flexbility in
the employment scene, we'll just keep relying on mining and
agriculture for survival, forget manufacturing.

But that seems union policy now. Better no job then one not on
their terms. Fair enough, best not to bother employing them in the
first place. Let the Govt borrow the money, until it sinks.
People clearly need pain to learn.

I've always been somewhat bemused by the sqwawks from employers who want to be able to dismiss workers unfairly. The union movement arose directly from the tendency of employers to do just that, or treat the workers upon whom their industries depend with similar disdain in other areas of industrial relations.

As a partner in a small business that employs people, I have no problems at all with treating my staff fairly, as defined by their award and by ordinary standards of common decency. We employ less than 10 people, and all are skilled casuals or trainees who are paid the award wage.

Our business is in a small country town, and neither Work Choices nor the Fair Work Act will make an iota of difference to us. We select and train our staff carefully and treat them well. We don't make very much money, but we can all pay our bills and we provide some essential services to our community.

Work Choices sucked badly and seriously eroded the rights of employees - who are always in a less powerful position individually than their employers, despite the bleating of some. Collective bargaining only evens the balance.

I'm not a great fan of Rudd nor his government, but I think that the Fair Work Act is a positive act of redress - and was, after all, one of their election promises. Now that I think of it, it's pleasingly novel to have a Prime Minister who keeps his promises :)

Yabby, which bells and whistles is it that particularly aggrieve you?

If I remember correctly, unfair dismissal came in a few years after I left high school and was only slashed back with the introduction of workchoices. The whole period in which unfair dismissal was in place was one of continual economic growth, particularly strong towards the end. Unemployment fell to a generational low (not nearly as good as the 2.5% average that we had for the 3 decades that Australian governments both left and right provided conditions that were conducive to full employment but that’s a topic for another thread).

So more than a decade of unfair dismissal clearly did not prevent business from hiring people. Why should it do so now?

The offshoring of manufacturing type jobs has a lot more to do with the pulling down of trade barriers than anything else. No matter how “flexible” (a term that always arouses my suspicion when I hear it) we make our labour force, that fact is that we will NEVER be able to compete with the rice bowl countries on the basis of who can produce more cheaply, with their low wages, poor conditions and low currencies (sometimes manipulated to keep them that way!). 21 million people will never match the output potential of 1.6 billion in China, almost a billion in India, 200 million in Indonesia etc.

We could introduce the same sort of “flexibility” into our manufacturing sector by pulling the wage/condition floor out from under our workers, but what purpose would that serve? We would surely become much more competitive in manufacturing (production cost-wise) but in slashing manufacturing workers wages and thereby destroying their ability to spend money would only result in that percentage of the workforce being subtracted from aggregate demand – an economic depressant.

Fozz, things like redundancy pay and pro rata long service leave
pay, are the sorts of things that can sink a company. Did
you read the URL which I posted, written by Robert Gottliebson?

Fact is that when economies turn down, companies have to adjust
and if adjusting sends them broke, everyone loses, including
employees who might have retained their jobs.

Right now there is much talk in agriculture, about new "awards".
Penalty payments for milking cows, shearing sheep on weekends,
or picking fruit and veggies etc. Are you consumers going to pay
extra, because they were picked on Sunday? No, you want them
cheaper. So that will just be another nail in the coffin for
those growers, more will close their doors.

People who have never run a business, seem to forget what it
actually costs to hire people per hour.

Lets even take a base rate of claimed 15$ an hour.

Add bells and whistles costs, (holiday pay, public holidays, sick
leave, compassionate leave, long service leave etc, it adds at
least 20%, which is also the casual rate addition.

Thats another 3$ an hour so thats 18$.

Add another 9% super, adds another 1.60 an hour, so thats 19.60

Depending on industry, add 6% workers comp and another 6%
payroll tax, its costing 22$ an hour for that worker. That needs
to be paid for by consumers, or the business goes broke.

Now, if we include penalty rates, plus redundancy pay, it blows
out even more.

Last time I checked, China only provided 16% of our imports, so
clearly goods from Europe, Japan, USA, Korea, Singapore etc, all relatively
high wage countries, are a far bigger threat. But I doubt it they
pay their workers Australian bells and whistles

You are correct that China accounts for around 15-16% of our imports Yabby. However, as I suspected a quick check of the ABS shows that they are the primary source of our manufactured imports including 70% of clothing and 60% of footwear. China, together with countries excluding the US, Japan and western Europe make up over 60% of total import volume, suggesting to me that China and other developing nations are indeed the source of most of our manufactured imports. Spend a day going over retail outlets of all kinds and see how many goods you can find manufactured in Europe or the US as opposed to China, India, Indonesia and Thailand.

Many European workers certainly recieve plenty of "whistles and bells".

I think you and I are approaching the same situation from completely different perspectives - you from the perspective of the individual small-medium enterprise while I am looking at the economy as a whole. You may despise having to pay for the "whistles and bells" but the fact is that better wages and conditions for workers create economic opportunities. For example, super is currently the lifeblood of the economies of many small towns in more isolated parts of the country. Without the "grey nomads" many of them would have vanished from the map. So the revenue earned by many small local businesses in such places is being funded in no insignificant amount by such conditions.

Yes Fozz, we import a whole lot of cheap and crappy low value consumer
goods from China. The first to benefit are consumers, because they
can walk into Coles and buy a shirt for 7$, which would cost a fortune
if made locally. Go to Bunnings and the handyman can buy a drill
for 30 bucks, etc.

But do not confuse those with our major imports. The ABS does
not classify machinery and transport under "manufactured" and
that is a major import item, far larger then crappy consumer goods.

Hardly any of our planes, cars,trucks, machines, pharmaceuticals, software,
come from China, but mainly from Japan, Europe, the US, Korea.
These are big ticket items, check your stats.

You failed to mention why redundancy pay or long service leave
are nothing but a lurk.

Yes super is required, but many of those
grey nomads have been saving for years, not just through super.
Over 40% of Australians own shares directly, most of them are
in their 50,60s and 70s. The majority of bank and other dividends,
go to them or to super funds, on behalf of workers.

I certainly do look at the whole economy. You forget that every
cost added to Australian industry costs, makes our exporters less
competitive. When Australian manufacturing industry relied on
the sheeps back for export earnings, eventually they old sheep
collapsed from all the weight. The Australian economy cannot
exist in isolation, we have to be globally competitive.

Fozz, Yes I was reffring to you, sorry about the mix up.

When I reffer to 'hiring and firing' in favor of another worker, it has nothing to do with wages. However, if I have a worker employed who can't bone beef effeciently, then, one arrives who can, why can't I replace the inefficient one with the better one?

What is wrong with that?

After all, I am simply trying to spend my wages more efficiently.

This is where the problem arrises. The inefficient worker can leave if they so choose, for any reasone, yet I can't replace them. Why?

Then you said
So more than a decade of unfair dismissal clearly did not prevent business from hiring people. Why should it do so now?

You forget that a large portion of smaller businesses were exempt from UFD laws in the late 90's.

Is it just coincidence that our ecconomy boomed shortly after this?

Furthermore, do you agree that the only people effected by workchoices where the poorly skilled, the inefficient and the unions.
Do you further agree that anyone who was very good at their job rarely suffered under workchoices as they would simply leave and find another job.

Now if you agree, please tell me what is wrong with that.

What you are about to see is errossion in the relationships between workers and employers, and that's a real shame. It will only take one UFD case within a workplace and all workers will suffer as the bosses will take away many previges that currently exist. And I am not talking about coles or wollies when I reffer to small businesses by the way.

Wow - CJ Morgan and Sancho, I'm on the same side as you! Nice posting about your business and employees, CJ.

When I came to vote in 2007, Work "Choices" wasn't the only issue but it was certainly the biggest issue that made me really angry with Howard. Humour me if I quote the Bible, but I reckon Isaiah 10:1-2 was about the mentality behind Work Choices when it said :

“Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless.”

I've drawn this to the attention of Tony Abbott, but as expected, he hasn't reacted! (I haven't seen too many flying pigs lately either.)

Nice one, Glorfindel - and thanks :)

I can't speak for Sancho, but as an atheist I have certainly never suggested that there is no wisdom to be found in the Bible...

Interesting that rehctub has shifted his parameters - he's gone from complaining about not being able to sack workers if somebody's prepared to do the same job for less, to wanting to be able to sack workers if they aren't "more efficient" than someone else.

In my broad experience of work, there are always some workers who are more "efficient" than others - and they tend to be promoted to positions that are commensurate with their effort and skills. On the other hand, there are the others who do the often onerous work that is required on the basis of a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.

I imagine that boning beef is not a particularly rewarding experience for those who are unfortunate enough to have to do that for a living, and I think it's a bit rich that someone who employs them wants to be able to sack them if they don't do it "efficiently" enough - presumably outside the award conditions that have been established for those workers, undoubtedly by their unions.

I think that the attitudes expressed by rehctub, Yabby et al are clear evidence for the continuing need for unions in Australian industry - not to mention laws that prohibit unfair dismissal of workers.

>> sancho: Dickens wrote fiction, it is 2009. Yes unions helped improve conditions, is anyone denying that? That's a strawman argument, please try harder. <<

Dickens wrote fictional characters set in an all-too-real era. To dismiss Dickens is to dismiss the existence of the Industrial Revolution and the conditions it created. That would fit your argument, but not reality.

It's not a matter of denying, but refusing to mention at all. The failings of unions are so massively outweighed by their contributions that the pissant squealing about them is rendered cheap and petty. That's why any anti-union argument (and I challenge you to prove this wrong) glosses that over and goes straight to the self-righteous chest-beating about small business.

>> "People start businesses because they want to maximise their profit", shows you have no idea why people start businesses, this is from the "bosses are evil" school of thought, class war rubbish.

People start businesses because they think they can make it work, make a reasonable living, feed their families and pay their mortgage without going broke, they take risks to do it. When the business is a success, and many fail, all the hangers on arrive wanting to share in the proceeds, who didn't want to share any risk. <<

Seems you're rather clueless yourself, odo. Most Australians "make a reasonable living, feed their families and pay their mortgage" as employees, so why would someone take the risks of starting a business? (Hint: it's because they think they can make more profit).

Your arguments are contrary to reality. Before WorkChoices was even implemented, employers began sacking workers and offering them back their jobs on much-reduced terms in gleeful anticipation.

I don't believe employers are "evil", but it's a better descriptor than your naive belief that employees take precedence over profit in business.

>> I can't speak for Sancho, but as an atheist I have certainly never suggested that there is no wisdom to be found in the Bible... <<

Wisdom, certainly, but it's the wisdom of humans, not a deity, combined with a pile of contradictions and exhortations to violence.

I don't consider you an enemy, Glorfindel. You're intelligent and good-hearted. But the recycling of archaic fairytales is no basis for modern thought or society. You could do so much better, but instead you choose to chain yourself with unfounded superstition.

And Yabby, if you're still pushing the debt argument, you may as well stick to the tabloids and not bother debating. Howard squandered a boom and moved debt onto the populace, Turnbull has no better plan than Rudd, and, since you obviously haven't noticed, Australia is the star of the financial meltdown and other countries are asking Swan for advice.

Why do you even bother?

Interesting that rehctub has shifted his parameters - he's gone from complaining about not being able to sack workers if somebody's prepared to do the same job for less, to wanting to be able to sack workers if they aren't "more efficient" than someone else.

CJ, this is only about the inbalance in the system between the rights of employees and the rights of employers.

As for the issue of 'boning beef', it is in fact a skill that is obtained and required if one is to call themselves 'a tradesman'.

Now as an employer, if I have a butcher that can only bone one body per hour, then another fronts who can bone four per hour, why then can't I choose the more efficient one? Afer all, I am just wanting a 'fair days work' for my 'fair days pay', or does this senario only go one way?

Our industry is like many others where we suffer from a 'skill shortage', then, when a highly skilled person becomes available, we jump at the oportunity to have them on board, often at a higher rate of pay than the one we have replaced. Is there a problem with that?

After all, it's not my fault the first employee lacks abillity.

Most highly skilled butchers in my industry, myself included, have worked many hours FOR FREE just to better themselves. So why not reward them for their efforts by giving the job to them, often for more money.

I say again, if employees can pick and choose where to work, why can't I pick and choose who to employ?

Please explain why I can't give the job to the better employee and reward them for their skills.

By the way. My industry is renowned for paying well over the award for high skilled butchers. Many of us struggled with school yet earn more than your average lawyer.

My argument has nothing to do with under paying anyone! This is your spin on my view.

*Australia is the star of the financial meltdown and other countries are asking Swan for advice.*

Sancho, I guess in that case Swan will have to turn to Costello
for advice, for it was Costello who sorted out Apra and it was
Apra which kept our banks in line.

It was also Costello who ensured that the Govt was not burdenend
by a mountain of debt, to his credit.

What people borrowed privately, is their affair, not the affair of
the Govt. If you want to go nuts at the pokies, or run up credit
card debt, that is your problem, not my problem. But if Kev blows
out the Australia card debt, it is my problem. Job creation schemes
will be just one part of it.

So it appears that none of the 'anti employer lobby' can answer one simple question.

Q: Why is it that an employee can pick and choose their employer at will and when it suits them, for what ever reason, yet an employer can't pick and choose their employees at will for fear of retribution from the regulator?

So where is Sharon Burrow in this debate. Perhaps she can put some light on this subject as none of her supporters seem to be able to answer my simple question.

So Sharon, I put it to you directly. Why is it that an employee can pick and choose their employer at will, yet an employer can't pick and choose their employee at will?

Employees often up and leave when the workload is heavy, even though employers tend to carry staff through tough times in the knowledge that there is plenty of work on the horison.

Or, is it as I suspect, a flaw in the system that doesn't matter to you or your supporters as it is in your favour.

So Yabby, your argument is that a treasurer who is earning worldwide admiration for keeping Australia's economy going in a depression should be asking advice of a treasurer who pushed the ideology that created the depression in the first place? That's hero worship, not rationality.

And rechtub, employers can employ whomever they choose. There are probation periods to ensure they can sack people without notice if necessary, and if there is a legitimate reason to let them go, the regulator won't do a thing.

As for employees being able to pick and choose jobs, well, if you really think that's how things work, you'll never understand why Australians rejected WorkChoices.

And if we're onto simple questions that always seem to go unanswered, what do the Costello loyalists think he'd be doing now to undo the mess his dogma created?

Can any of the posters who opposed the watering down of Work Choices explain what was inherently wrong with industrial relations prior to Work Choices? We enjoyed very little (or no) industrial disputes, unions were visible but had lost some of the power of the 70s and 80s and corruption had been largely nipped in the bud. By all accounts businesses were doing well.

Funny there were no businesses complaining about unfair dismissal laws back then nor other accepted conditions of work pre-Work Choices. Suddenly when there is talk of returning to those times it is seen as an ALP/Union conspiracy. Ridiculous.

What on earth was Work Choices about and if it was so good why not reveal the intention prior to the election? Losing the election was proof that you can only fool the people some of the time.

Anyone entering the world of business has to factor in all costs of doing business including labour. A business takes on the risk but also accepts the windfalls when things go well - as they should.

Ensuring employees are treated fairly and with respect is not stifling innovation, investment or risktaking. People who earn the minimum wage are not sucking the blood out of their employers. People are not put on this earth just as fodder for the rich to do as they please.

Without labour business would not exist and without business people could not earn a wage but lets at least acknowledge with fairness that a wage should be viable ie. a living wage.

The profit motive is not sacrificed when ensuring fair wages and conditions for employees only those with their sights set on obscene profits.

Pelican, you will have to be more specific about the period you are reffering to. Having been in business for over 20 years I have seen quite a few changes.

And PLEASE for the last time I am not complaining about wage rates.

Minimum wages are applicable to mainly LOW SKILLED WORKERS Get it!

So nobody hear from sharon hey!

Blow your tumpet and hide! It that what we can expect from a person of suposadly her caliber.

"And PLEASE for the last time I am not complaining about wage rates."

rehctub, I was not referring to your posts at all. I was making a general point in defence of the concept of 'labour'.Too often labour is discussed as the proverbial thorn in the side instead of a critical part of business that works best when treated with humanity and respect.

No Sancho, I am arguing that you have your wires crossed in a number
of places.

It was not the system which caused the global crisis, but its
implimentation.

Democracy is the best we have, but it has its flaws. Americans twice
voted for Bush-Cheney and paid a heavy price. For it was BC who
decided that regulation was not required, who appointed Cox as
head of the SEC, who appointed a little old grandma as chief law
enforcer etc. If BC had appointed somebody like Eliot Spitzer,
things would have been quite different. But in puritanical America,
because Spitzer knocked off a few high class call girls, he's in
the sin bin. If that kind of scrutiny was applied to our politicians,
I wonder how many would be left in parliament!

Globally it is well known that it was Costello who was responsible
for the changes at Apra, which is the reason why our banks are
in such great condition. Globally it is also known that it was
Costello which made sure that the Federal Govt paid off its debts,
leaving Australia in great condition to face anything, compared
to other countries, many who had their arse full of debt, even
before the GFC.

Costello received that recognition a number of times, even being
asked to advise the world bank, IIRC.

Swan has taken kudos on behalf of Australia, for the achievements
of Australia did not happen overnight and were set up by Costello.

Credit where credit is due. For the same reasons I also give
Keating credit for the many positive changes that he made, even
if he is disliked by many.

I can only guess what Costello would have done, but I'd say not
go and give away billions of $ for a start. A flexible labour
market would have given business the possibility to hire and grow
where possible. You won't turn an economy around with cash
splashes.

Sancho, you are correct, however, once the probationary period has expired, the employer is bound to keep this employee on, yet the employee is free to leave at will. You've again failed to answer my question.

How is this fair?

And Pelican, I am still confused about the period you reffer to. The 70's and 80's (in QLD) were rocked by continuous power strikes, almost bring the state to its knees. The 90's saw the birth of unfair dismissal, still the most damaging laws ever to hit small business.

Now there was a period, from the late 90's to the early 2000's where UFD laws were watered down and, it was also the time when the boom started. Prior to this many small business operators simply put their heads in the sand and stopped expanding or employing.

So in essence, I have no idea what period you are talking about.

Furthermore, the country has been through the best growth years in modern history. 2000 - 2006 And guess what, Work choices was in place.

What you fail to realize, or perhaps acknowledge, is that most tradies and well quailfied workers had little to fear about with WC as they were very well paid for their efforts.

They earned well, spent well and the wheels turned.

And guess what, WC has been squashed, UFD has been reintroduced and, THE WHEELS HAVE STOPPED TURNING!

All you have achieved is to reintroduce the poorest worker as 'the benchmark' setter in many workplaces.

And you just can't see that.

Well done, take a bow you lot.

I'll bet some of the workers who vated labor and were earning $100K+, who are now waiting for the phone to ring, arn't feeling real chuffed with their choice righ about now, hey!

Hi sharon, I'm waiting!

I agree with Sancho and others who have posted in support of workers' wellbeing.

I mention Sancho because I find his reference to Dickens entirely pertinent to the discussion - history is replete with examples of employers moaning about how they'll go under if they are denied free reign to exploit the least powerful amongst us.

I have been both sides of the fence - an employer of a near useless trade apprentice who just didn't have the maturity to adhere to any sort of work ethic. In that case I ensured that the employee was provided with every opportunity to do his best. In the end the apprenticeship was terminated, but it was done such that we parted on good terms. At that time, as a small business owner, I found the biggest burden what was then provisional tax.

I have more often been in the employ of unscrupulous employers. I also saw the hardship of WC on people who had been loyal, hard workers for many years. All of a sudden they were supposed to 'negotiate' (sign this or you're out) in a completely lopsided arrangement of power.

If business is tough, I don't see why employees should agree to exploitation. How about some of the tax breaks and incentives that are afforded to large companies and foreign companies when they're being encouraged to invest here, being extended to small business.
I think that government does not give enough consideration to the needs of small business.

Btw:

I have also often wondered why I bother to pay union fees. I was very concerned a few years ago at the level of collusion between Union reps and management. However, Unions seem to be the only option we have for some sort of collective bargaining and that's better than nothing.

Some of the things I would really like to see Unions working on - that may even be beneficial to employers:

1. Flexible work time: Like start work at any time between 7.00 am and 10.00 as long as we work 8 hours.
2. Ten or Twelve hour days - work 4 or 3 days per week.
3. Work from home some of the time (say one day per week) using computer link up and phone.
4. Children in the workplace (where possible).
5. Review of apprenticeship arrangements so that they are more accessible to young people and more worthwhile for employers.

In these matters, I am thinking primarily of the impact on family life - it would mean less cost of and demand for child care and it's better for children to be in the care and company of their parents rather than strangers. I think of rather than sacrificing all energy towards neo-liberal economic madness; that as a society we need to take a broader perspective.

Rehctub

You are free to close your business anytime and seek a job with an employer, thus you too will have the freedom to change employers for whatever reason - like better opportunities, moving to another locale, caring for family (any number of reasons people make changes).

NAH! I think you'd rather remain a boss, with employees tenured to YOU until such time YOU find someone else YOU prefer.

Not that I'm suggesting you are hypocritical or self-centred...

*I mention Sancho because I find his reference to Dickens entirely pertinent to the discussion*

Deary me Pynchme, I rated you brighter then that, clearly I was
wrong.

This whole stereotypical nonsense that employers must be rich and
evil, employees must be downtrodden little frail things, is a heap
of garbage!

I remind you that CEOs of companies, earning millions, are in fact
employees.

I remind you that when Rio train drivers in the Pilbara, earning
200k$ a year go on strike, they are not delicate little downtrodden
petals.

In fact if we go back to the history of the Pilbara, when the boys
wanted a few days off, they'd go on strike due to the colour of
the jelly in the canteen. I partly blame the Govt for that. If they
had legalised knockershops up there, there would have been no need to
head to the big smoke to spend their huge earnings.

Fact is that good employees are worth cherishing and paying extra,
for they make money for the business. Meantime an employee who
really does not want to be there, can do huge damage, in terms
of machinery etc.

If an employer can't sack a dud egg, his whole business can suffer
and be dragged down.

Fact is that the harder you make it to fire people, the less keen
employers will be to hire them. Multiply one little small business
by a million and its a lot of jobs at stake.

But best you kids learn the hard way, as small business reduces
employee numbers or insists on only part timers.

rehctub
I am talking the general period post 1986 marked by the de-registration of the corrupt BLF (namely Norm Gallagher) and moving into the 90s and into 2000s prior to the introduction of WC in 2006 which saw a quiet and relatively calm industrial relations landscape.

So why was WC seen as necessary during this period of relative calm? It had to come down to the interests of big business. Give a little take a mile type of syndrome - you cannot trust the big end of town to do the right thing or self-regulate ethics. Not possible - won't happen!

Too many workers under WC were forced to reduce their incomes and conditions particularly those in the already lower income spectrum.

The Workplace Ombudsman's office was inundated with complaints post WC and could not handle the workload as reported in the media during that time.

Pynchme,
Flexible work time: Like start work at any time between 7.00 am and 10.00 as long as we work 8 hours.

Yep, great idear. Now who is going to serve the customers between 7 and 10.

You are free to close your business anytime and seek a job with an employer

Yep, I did exactly that. Sold my business, created hardach for my loyal staff of 8, and later went to work for coles as a butcher.

I gave my staff just one days notice. Why, because they could have left at any time if they had wind of my forthcomming sale.

Beleive me, I didn;t feel good about it at all but my hands were tied.

While at coles I found that I was doing the work of three butchers, yet only getting paid the same amount as the rest of the drones. So, I went and bought another shop,but it proved to me that the slowest worker sets the pace and there is nothing coles could do about it. Why, beacuse they employed to many people and were subjected to UFD laws.

You have now placed many small businesses in the same boat.

Pelican. I'm just a tad curious - if the period from 86 to early 90's was so good, why then was there any need for unfair dismissal which came in in the early 90's? I mean, working conditions, for both employers and employees were almost like a 'fairy tale', so you say.

Another point you make.
WC was abloished and replaced with something like the 'fiar pay commision'. Now this brain child was introduced to help the low paid workers that you say were shafted by WC.

So Krud and the red mastif spent millions on the changes, went to the commision and GUESS WHAT!! NOTHING HAPPENED! They didn't get a pay rise to help combat the increase in living costs.

So your battlers that you tried to save have been shafted by their very own saviours!

Cricky - most jokes arn't that funny!

But hey, their your fools, not mine, so good luck.

rehctub the period I mentioned was up to the introduction of WC not just in the early 90s.

You are dead wrong if you think that ethical employment practices can only be managed by employers/owners without some sort of watchdog even if the watchdog is not always perfect.

Who said anything about fairytales that was your word not mine as unlike you I don't believe any system will ever be perfect some are just less perfect than others. And certainly the retrograde industrial relations stance of the previous draconian government is hardly worth your adoration.

May I suggest your own fairytale view of business and/or employers is worth some self reexamination.

Please do us all a favour and think about the plight of the little man sometime - those who do not have the power to negotiate these so called wonderful rights and conditions that WC promised.

Pelican, your words, not mine.
I am talking the general period post 1986 marked by the de-registration of the corrupt BLF (namely Norm Gallagher) and moving into the 90s and into 2000s prior to the introduction of WC in 2006 which saw a quiet and relatively calm industrial relations landscape.

I say again. If things were so good from 86 to early 90's, why then was there a need for unfair dismisal laws?

Also, UFD laws were watered down around 99/2000 and, it is no conincidence that business boomed.

All of a sudden, the shackles were unbolted and employers were now able to go about creating jobs without fear of being sued at any time.

Now take a simple UFD claim.

Firstly, the employee could have a lawyer present, but the employer could not.

A win, to the employer generaly cost them about three grand, and that's not including the downtime from their work.

Now as for WC, I am not defending it at all, however, I also had nothing to do with WC as ALL my employees were WELL PAID.

But no one can dispute the link between the axing of UFD and the boom of the early 2000's.

I challenge you to speak to a roofer, a concreter, a brickie, a chippy, a restauranture, in fact, any trades person and ask them a few simple questions.

1. Did you vote for labor at the last fed election?

2. If you did are you regreting your choice?

3. Did WC effect your income or deplete your working conditions?

Hi sharon, still waiting!

Wages have long been understood to be a major overhead in any business. The advantage of an award wage system is that it is an equal overhead for every business in that industry, so there can be no unfair advantage. Businesses must succeed by being smarter and more innovative, rather than just unscrupulous.
I would suggest a much greater threat to many small businesses is the size of their competitors.
How for instance, can the average corner store hope to compete with the buying power of Coles or Woollies? These sorts of trade disadvantages exist in many industries, and continue to grow.
As to unfair dismissal laws, I have witnessed the advantages and disadvantages from both sides. We are in the age of 'ratbag rules'. Laws are made to stop the 1 in 1000 ratbag, and disadvantage the rest of us.
I doubt if the majority of companies, doing the right thing will be severely disadvantaged, although I agree being able to find good employees are a major challenge to any business.

*How for instance, can the average corner store hope to compete with the buying power of Coles or Woollies? These sorts of trade disadvantages exist in many industries, and continue to grow.*

Ah Grim, consumers such as you, are of course a clever marketer's
dream come true!

Have you ever heard of a company called Metcash? This weekends
Financial Review contains a detailed article about them.
Shareholder returns have been around the 1300% mark, if you had
bought them 10 years ago.

IGA is one of their banners, they supply 8000 outlets. Their CEO
prides himself as to how many millionaires he has created, all
corner store owners flogging the "support the little local guy"
story. IGA turnover these days is 11 billion $, with 220 million
in profits and 19% of the grocery market.

Its a great marketing story of course.

Next you will be telling us to support Aldi, who now have 200
stores in Aus. In case you don't know, Aldi is German owned by
a couple of blokes who are right at the top rich list on the planet,
in the top 10 IIRC.

rehctub: <"Flexible work time: Like start work at any time between 7.00 am and 10.00 as long as we work 8 hours.

Yep, great idear. Now who is going to serve the customers between 7 and 10.">

Well that was one of a few suggestions and th application of any of them is where one has to be imaginative. It might not suit your biz, but not every job is focused on customer contact or configured the same way.

So as an example, imagine an organization that employs several people who, amongst other things, provide tech support. Instead of only operating during office hours, the company could have their phones answered from 7.00am until 6.00pm - yet not have to pay any penalty rates. Also, for people with child care costs, being able to get home to care for children after school would be like getting an extra $100 in the pay packet. - and the company is not only more in demand by people wanting to work for them, but is seen as family friendly.

Or, imagine a company whose product depends on the operation of one large machine. The company wants to increase production. Rather than having to buy an extra machine and employ extra people so that both machines can be run at the same time; the one machine can be operational for longer hours using the same staff who choose to work staggered hours and are therefore not paid penalty or overtime.

Using some imagination, every idea I proposed could work for both employees and employers. Just think about it.

*Using some imagination, every idea I proposed could work for both employees and employers. Just think about it*

Ah, but that was exactly what workchoices was all about!

Once again Yabby completely misses the point.
Let me rephrase; How can (for instance) the corner store owner compete with the buying power of Coles, Woollies OR IGA, or any other mega company?
The purpose of Workchoices was to break down the award system, to force Aussie workers to compete with rice bowl economies

Zactly so Grim.

Yabby as Grim said you entirely miss the point. Individual employees are in no position to bargain with management.

And meanwhile, Rechtub is still mouthing off about the "advantages", he perceives, that employees have over employers, yet is apparently unwilling to take the plunge himself and become a PAYG employee.

And I concur with Grim and Pynchme, Yabby you do miss the point: individual employees do not have parity with employers. Also, as I and others have pointed out, employment terms could also be arranged with a flexible and reasonable employer - BEFORE workchoices - a misnomer if ever there was one.

rehctub I am also using my words. The period up to the introduction of WC in 2006 is not the early 90s. The period of relative calm effectively started with the deregistration of the BLF (amongst other factos) and went from there.

A period of relative calm does not imply we ignore all other aspects of IR such as unfair dismissal. Or ignore legitimate workplace claims just because most employers are doing the right thing.

rehctub, for your interest in the case of spurious unfair dismissal claims the employer has the right to seek financial redress from the applicant. This is just one example:

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=83246

I can't see a problem with this and it would deter would-be applicants from placing ridiculous unfair dismissal claims. When I worked in HR we won two unfair dismissal cases because our record keeping was immaculate and detailed including copies of signed warnings. In one case a sick leave form was doctored and the case to dismiss was clear cut.

Where an employee is obviously in the wrong there are enough protections for employers even if the process might be inconvenient. But this is inevitable in the interests of protecting those least empowered - workers. Historically, when power is weighted too much in favour of the employer it has proved disastrous.

Equally so when unions are corrupted and hold corporations to ransom. The ideal system has to recognise fairness in considering the interests of employers and employees.

Grim, just because you seemingly lack the innovative entrepreneurial
skills to think of ways to compete with the big boys, does not mean
that others can't. The evidence shows that there are a myriad of
corner stores, right under the big boys noses, doing very well,
thank you. Friendly service, convenience, innovative products,
location etc, are just some of their methods.

Pymche, what you are implying is that as a business owner, you could
not be trusted to give your staff a fair deal. Neither did you
have the brains to understand that great employees are hard to find
and that it pays to look after them, let the dummies go and work
elsewhere.

The sorts of suggestions that you made, was exactly the flexibility
that I used to offer my staff, when I had up to 30 on the payroll,
at various times of the year. I told them the work that needed doing,
the budget for labour for doing it, they drew up their own rosters
to fit around kids, social lives etc. The result was that they loved working here,
which made for a productive business. No union award
could ever offer that kind of flexibility, a win-win for all.

That is exactly what work choices was all about. Only dumb employers
would screw their employees and be unreasonable. Over time, the
best would leave, as somebody else would offer them a job. Businesses
made up of the poorest employees, would go broke over time.

A well run business acknowledges that happy and productive staff are
the key to its success. That is exactly why companies like Google
have come from obscurity, to thrive as they do.

So keep unions there for people like yourselves, who seemingly need
your hands held, but don't hold up productive businesses and employees with
restrictive work conditions, like union awards.

So your employees loved working for you, despite the fact that you were offering less than the award wages and conditions, Yabby?

Grim, things were not structured around any awards, they were
structured around the needs of the business and the staff.

The business was quite seasonal and women with families
highly value part time work that can fit in with the
rest of their duties as mothers etc.

That can create great win-win outcomes all round, if
everyone is flexible.

In all those years, not one staff member ever mentioned
an award, for I'd say that what they were paid was quite
a bit higher then that. For instance when we did packouts,
everyone shared so much a kg and even their kids would
sometimes join in. Often it worked out that everyone landed
up with 25$ an hour or so, which 10 and more years ago, was
pretty good money. Even the kids got an equal share, at
the same rate as the adults, for they were doing the same
work.

Result the customers were happy, the staff were happy
and I was happy.

Yabby, the current federal award for fruit and veg is $17. an hour. If you thought $25 an hour was a fair cop ten years ago, why are you against a safety net of $17., ten years later?
Do you really think Aussie workers should be competitive with countries with lower wages and standards of living?

*Do you really think Aussie workers should be competitive with countries with lower wages and standards of living?*

Grim, that is a terribly simplistic way of looking at business.
At the end of the day, consumers everywhere want value for money.
In our case, we exported to Asia, Europe etc, competing with
product incl China. As our product was much better quality,
we still had a good share of the market. Go to your local
supermarket, you will see Lindt chocolate from Switzerland,
jams from the UK, not from China.

I have nothing at all against a safety net. Where I have a problem
is when that safety net is tied up in ropes, to make it unworkable.
For instance, in the real world, 9-5 Mon-Fri has gone. Now under
the "new" awards being rolled out right now, for some industries
they want double time for weekend work etc. Many people in fact
are happy to work weekends, it fits in with their lifestyles.

Yet those sorts of little jokes are going to push some veg-fruit
growers over the edge, the family will have to do it themselves
or forget the business. Will you pay extra at your restaurant
on Sundays now? etc.

For alot of businesses the numbers simply won't stack up, so they
will have to plan their business model around that, which means that
people who were happy to earn a few bucks on the weekend won't have
that work, its a lose-situation all round, enforced by unreasonable
laws. It makes no sense at all

Yabby, that's a terribly simplistic way of looking at awards.
I can pretty much guarantee there'll be no *new* awards; they're just trying to claw back some of the rights workers had 10-20 years ago, -back when you were paying your people $25 an hour.

"For instance, in the real world, 9-5 Mon-Fri has gone"

Why? If we could do it in the past, why can we not do it now? With advances in technology, chemistry and agriscience, why do you take it for granted that life has to be tougher than it was 10 years ago?
Could it be that the Mon-Fri thing has gone because of the reduction in Mon-fri penalty rates?

Pelican, you said;
The ideal system has to recognise fairness in considering the interests of employers and employees.

My point exactly, how is it fair that an amployee can leave at will yet an employer can't employ at will?

Can anyone explain the fairness in this.

The fact of the matter is that UFD WILL COST JOBS. Fine, don't believe us but be prepared to pay the ultimate price.

The cost of living is rising. Hours are being cut. Benefits will being reducing. Flexabillity within the workplace will be lost to a cetain extent. Manufacuring will begoing off shore and Job security will be a thing of the past.

Well, you lot wanted it bad enough, so now you have it.

And your leader is nowhere to be seen. Well done sharon. Pick a fight then run.

* they're just trying to claw back some of the rights workers had 10-20 years ago,*

Grim, they are not changing awards to suit a changing world.
In the 60s, Australia was a very different place, people are
going forwards, you want to drag them backwards.

50 years ago, going to church was a common occurrence, shops
were closed, so were many restaurants etc. Things have changed.

Some people are quite happy to work on a weekend day, each
to his own. Now if you had an award saying that you can't
compel people to work on a Sunday, fair enough. Not one setting
up punitive barriers, where it makes more sense to close a business,
even if that fruit needs picking or those sheep need shearing.

Now the reality is that there are no more huge tariffs, making
goods prohibitively expensive for consumers. But businesses
outside of mining and farming need to adjust to that changing
world, not drag them back by 50 years. Otherwise Australia
will simply remain a farm and quarry.

Life hasn't become tougher, its simply changed. But live in
the past if you like. That is exactly why we need old
generations to die off and young generations to come along,
as many of our old fart generation seemingly just can't
cope with change.

So no one, not even MIA sharron can answer one simple question.

How can this system be seen as 'fair' to both sides?

Why, because it's just not fair and the end reslult will be LOST JOBS!

rehctub that issue has already been discussed on OLO many times with you and others.

The point is you don't agree with the arguments put forward no matter how reasoned. If you search the old OLO threads on the issues you raised the responses are all there.

Both Yabby & Rechtub claim they have always paid above award wages (although no comment on conditions) BEFORE Workchoices - Yabby's case 10 years ago.

So just what is their problem? They can still pay above award wages if they choose to. They can still fire people if the employees do not perform their jobs satisfactorily; so what are they REALLY complaining about?

Rhetorical question. Their real complaint is that they cannot sack people on a mere whim and pay below subsistence wages, which indicates that their claims about how 'well' they have treated their employees may just be a load of ....

Remain a farm and quarry?
Australia has become a farm and quarry; or quarry, anyway.
50 years ago, Australia had a (small) manufacturing industry.
Another characteristic of us old forts, once we set our feet on a path, some of us have trouble changing course, even when we are going the wrong way.
There's no argument the world has changed since the 70's; there is considerable argument about changing for the better.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/642.html
The median wage in the US has actually dropped, in the last 30 years. In Australia, it (thanks largely to a stronger union background) has merely lost ground against the 'average' wage.
More than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where income differentials are widening. Australia is one of them.
In 2005, the wealthiest 20% of the world accounted for 76.6% of total private consumption. The poorest fifth just 1.5%.
The poorest 10% accounted for just 0.5% and the wealthiest 10% accounted for 59% of all the consumption.
In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much.
Remember when the average Australian household only needed one breadwinner?
When doctors made housecalls?
When hospital waiting lists were measured in weeks, instead of years?
When the PMG had depots in all regions, and linesmen would come out in the middle of the night to repair your phone line?
When customer service meant speaking to a local human being, who spoke fluent english?
When the average price of a block of suburban land was about 20 weeks median wage, instead of well over a years?
And the response of the Yabbies of this world:
It can't be too bad, after all, I'm alright Jack.

*50 years ago, Australia had a (small) manufacturing industry*

Indeed it did Grim, for Australia rode on the sheep's back,
until eventually the sheep collapsed. Luckily Keating saw
the light and changed direction, before we landed up as a
banana republic.

Today the average Australian is better off then ever before.
Just look at the average house. Then it was 13 squares, a
three by one fibro, its nearly doubled since then. Tell me
how many teenagers these days cope without a mobile phone?

Fractelle, your comment shows little apart from the truism
of the saying that "ignorance is bliss".

It seems to me that you don't have the foggiest about what
it takes to run a business.

Yes, we had workchoices here, long before the liberals
invented it. It worked to the advantage of everyone.

What I am simply pointing out is that if you try to
put business back in a straightjacket of inflexibility,
don't come complaining when there are a lack of jobs.
For many business operators simply won't bother creating
them.

That's not just my opinion, but includes people like
Bernie Brookes, the CEO of Myers, who is no fool.

Pelican, you said'
The point is you don't agree with the arguments put forward no matter how reasoned

But nobody has answered my question.

You say that we want the right to sack our workforce if someone better arives, but, isn't that the choice that employees have every day. They can leave at will if they get a better offer yet we can't have the same fexibillity. WHY?

I am not complaining about pay rates, nor about workers rights, I am simply saying, how can this be seen as fair to both sides. After all, these new IR laws claim to be fairer for all concerned.

Fractelle, you say;
So just what is their problem?

This is my problem. Can you explain why?

Small business owners don't have paid sick leave, paid annual leave, guaranteed superannuation. Some of them work 60, 70+ hours a week trying to keep their homes and feed their families. Why don't they have the "right" to collective bragaining? Why can't small businesses fix prices and get a better deal?
Unions are the same thing. They are cartels. They raise the wages of their members above the market wage. Non-unionised workers get pushed into lower paid jobs or into dole queues. They have a detrimental effect on the conditions of those workers.

When workers get higher wages through the free market - through firms competing against each other for workers and workers competing against each other for jobs - their higher wages comes through increased productivity, stronger economic growth and a better living standard for the economy as a whole. Those higher wages are at no ones expense.
It's like a pie. When unions get higher wages for their members they take some of the pie from other workers. When workers get higher wages through the market the whole pie is bigger and everyone benefits - the worker, the employer, the consumer and the investor.

rehctub
That question has been answered before you are just not listening.

I am surprised you would want a system where job security would be so low in the scenario you describe ie. employers allowed to sack anyone at anytime without a reason.

This would just create economic chaos. A nation that invites this sort of low job security will see a huge reduction in spending on products (like meat) so that people can put money aside for a rainy day should their employer decide to sack them for say having a sick day (even if you had swine flu) or a busty blonde walked in that might take the boss's fancy over a older male employee who has a family to raise.

Crime rates would rise - where is the incentive to work if you might be sacked at any moment on an employer's whim. The divide between the rich and the poor would increase with black market employment rising to blackmail people into taking under-award wages just so they keep their jobs.

Yeah great system that. Be careful what you wish for.

I am surprised you would want a system where job security would be so low in the scenario you describe ie. employers allowed to sack anyone at anytime without a reason.

But pelican, don't employees have this right every working day of their lives. The right to leave when it suits them! What is the difference?

Pelican, you havn't answered my question you have simply highlited the rights of employees and the lack of rights for employers.

Now some employers have time lines to meet with certain jobs and, if they loose staff at a crucial point, this can often result in fines for finnishing late.

Do the staff that left them in the lerch have to pay any form of penilties?

Is this fair in your view?

So I ask again. How can you call this system fair when one party can leave at will yet the other can't choose at will?

Can anyone answer how this is fair? That's all I am wanting, is for someone to show how this is considered a better deal for all concerned.

Now I think being able to pay one person more than another was fair, if they earned it.

Or, being able to sack someone who dragged the working standards down seems fair to me. After all, they often get paid the same rate for less input. Is this fair?

rehctub, I really don't know the exact terms of the new proposed unfair dismissal laws. I'm just going on how the system used to work several decades ago.
As I recall, everyone started as a casual. Casuals could be let go with just on hour's notice, or expected to give one hour's notice.
In most awards (that I knew of) there was a time limit on how long a person could be employed as a casual; 3 or six months.
How long does it take, to evaluate a worker?
After the initial period, the worker was made permanent, at which time both the worker or the boss was expected to give one week's notice.
With the advent of Workchoices, permanent employment seems to have become a thing of the past. Casuals are employed permanently, and can be let go at any time. In many situations, Casuals are expected to work long hours without penalty rates, and not complain, or face the sack.
I can identify with your story about working alongside people who aren't pulling their weight, while still getting the same money; we've probably all experienced it in one way or another.
That's why I personally am in favour of cooperatives. Weeding out the non performers could be done democratically.

rehctub
You are the one arguing that people should aspire to more than minimum wage. How can they do that if a condition of their employment is enslavement to one job.

A businessman owns his business. He has to employ people,pay cleaners, maybe pay for some bookwork, for wholesale goods, retail shop fittings etc. He has a vested interest in the business doing well so he can make a living.

Someone who works for the same business does not have the same direct vested interest as they do not share in the profits even if they are the hardest worker in the shop. They provide labour which is part of the costs of business. Their responsibility is to perform well in the job they are being paid for and to follow any IR laws set down by the system or their employment contract such as giving one month's notice (or whatever it might be).

Employees are not slaves and should be able to leave one employer for another. This is sometimes the only power 'labour' has over 'capital' in being able to seek a better wage or working conditions to aspire for all those things you mentioned in another thread about minimum wage.

In an economy where the power is very much vested with the employer there has to be some weighting in favour of the employee. The system just would not work or be fair if the employer had absolute power to dismiss at will

If this does not answer your question to your satisfaction I think any more efforts would be hopeless given your view of the world and how it should work.

pelican, You make some good points in what you say but what you say is not always as it is.

Many employees achieve higher wages through promotions within the same company. Many supermarket managers, some high profile, started with the same company 30 years ago pushing trollies.

Now I understand that we can't have a system whereby the boss can just sack at will, however, this is often the only way to establish a great team, is to keep replacing a portion of your staff when a better worker comes along. In any case, if you are good at your job, usually, you have little to fear.

I employed two 1st year apprentices less than 18 months ago. I have just put them up to 3rd year becasue of their skill levels. Skills which I take most of the credit for as I consider myself well skilled in my indudtry.

Now I am about to sack a butcher as these boys are equal to, if not better than him. Is this fair in your view, or, should I sack one of the boys or worse still take a pay cut myself as a result of my efforts in providing excelent training.

This is where employers need flexability as well. It's my business, I take all the risks, why should I have to justify my actions.

Now I keep hearing about this 'trial period'. Do you realise that once the trial is over, the worker is safe, yet the boss is commited to keeping that employee, even if they slaken off.

Of cause there are systems in place for warning people, but hey, many small businesses will simply not go there. Better to pull your head in than take that type of risk.

Continued
We have simply 'turned back the clock' and trust me, we will be a different world in a year or two, and I will put money on that.

Employees need the freedom to change jobs and employers need the freedom to run their business as they see fit.

One last thing. Casual labour.

Casual labour increased in the 90's as a result of UFD laws.

We also saw more contractors and labour hire placements, all in reaction to UFD.

Besides, casuals are actually better off financially as they receive 20% loading. It is just that they fail to plan and save a portion of this for sick days and holidays. We pay it, it's up to them to save it.

Another cause of casual labour, essecially within retail, is extended trading hours.

None of us can predict when shoppers are going to shop as they have so many hours to decide. So, when you have slack periods you sometimes send people home, or, visa versa when you get busy.

My shop can fluxuate up to 30% at times, without warning or reason. Another reason why we need flexability in our workforce.

You see, for every action, there is a re-action and, in the situation it is unpredictable shopping trends.

A recent change in legislation means that we are meant to tell a casual what time they will be finnishing. How do we know? We may be very busy, or very quiet. Why should we be the only ones effected.

Unfortunately, running a small business can be a nightmear at times and, every hurdel you put in the way can cost jobs and that's a proven fact.

But hey, you got your wish, so now time will tell!

I think then rehctub we are at an impasse and will have to agree to disagree.

We have discussed the ways of removing incompetent employees before so I won't go over old ground.

No system will ever be perfectly fair - it is just not possible but some systems will be more fair than others and it is weighing up the benefits/costs to the whole economic system that determines what we end up with. Sometimes this changes depending on ideology but even then (in Australia) the two opposites are never really that far apart.

Loyalty is a 2 way street, rehctub. I wonder how keen your apprentices will be to stay with you, after seeing at first hand your views on loyalty.

I think then rehctub we are at an impasse and will have to agree to disagree.

Yes I agree, but you can be assured that if it turns out that I am wrong, and I hope I am, then I will be the first to admit it.

Grim
Sorry, but you've lost me. What makes you think I am not loyal to my staff?

My apprentices are over the top as I have done exactly what I promised I would do, that is pay them what they are worth.

Do you realise that by putting my boys up to level 3, actually costs me an additional $300+ per week, from my pocket! That's almost 8 grand!

Most apprentices have to work a full 2 years before advancing and even then some employers play games with them, using book work as an excuse.