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.