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.