The analogy of making choices in a grocery with making choices by the worker is faulty.

If we don't want to buy something in a grocery we don't have to. If we don't we don't suffer. We can buy something else or not buy anything at all.

However, a worker having a contract shoved at him often has the choice of accepting the conditions or being unemployed. A worker does not bargain with a corporation on equal terms. In fact the only bargaining under Work Choices is, "Take it or leave it."

It was a long hard slog for workers to organise into unions to represent them. Work Choices could restore pre-union conditions.

Well said David F.
This is one of the most specious arguments i have heard for a long time.
The only parallel between grocery shopping and wages negotiation would be if the supermarket existed as the only source for groceries and it put a sign up at the door saying:
Accept our prices and conditions of entry. Take it or leave it. And you couldn't go anywhere else.
The history of Workchoices was example after example of employers exploiting employees.
I just wish these economic theorists would actually go out and experience the world as a lot of people live it.
This article is a joke!

Ah,the parallel universe of economics ,where economic theory is true and not the result of ideological wishful thinking.
All economists should be required to get a real job on a regular basis in order to understand how industry actually functions.

The only "flexibility" serf choices gave was the flexibility to sack workers and lower wages. Where was the flexibility to join in solidarity with your fellow man and get a better deal? Oh sorry thats right Johnny Coward thought unions were evil didnt he. For some unexplicable reason economists do too. I thought economics was value free? How can unions be bad when they are just another part of the market and the market will adjust as it always does.

Supermarkets compete for my custom. Employers dont compete for my labour. Instead I compete against others for the joy of being a slave for eight hours a day. Hardly the same is it.

What a blinkered right wing fool. Sorry economist. Same thing really. LOL

It seems previous posters to this article have one perspective on Workchoices.
I'm afraid that it wasn't mine.
Over here in WA we had a fair bit of labour market flexibility and it seemed to work pretty well. I knew of many people who directly benefitted from their employment contracts and none directly (admittedly a few anecdotally) who suffered. Indeed I knew of some who fought hard not to be returned to the post-workchoices fairness test as it would reduce their wages and conditions as they perceived them.
WA had leading growth indicators and is still doing pretty well relatively speaking. Maybe the rust-belt of the south-eastern corner of the country took advantage. Us dig-it-up states made hay while the sun shone. Perhaps the answer is that the labour market is simply too complex for a one-size-fits-all solution?
There was a time there where experienced and qualified mineral workers were just about setting their own wages. Trades and all manner of others were in a similar position. On the other hand, there have always been skills where demand has dried up.
Why is the labour market not just another market? Because most Australians simply will not let it be.

For those wanting to negotiate with their employer work conditions, AWAs had a place.

The big brother / one size fits all EBA does not suit everyone, and will have consequences to employment, but at least the unions are happy.