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.