Fractelle, I've got no doubt that many businesses will normally act in their own interests regardless of the impact on employee's. I don't get to negotiate my own conditions.

A lot seem to be intepreting this as a choice between accepting poor pay and conditions and being guaranteed decent minimums, maybe I am misunderstanding them but I think that many are ignoring the bit that with marginal mines during a downturn it becomes a choice for the employer between paying decent pay and running at a loss or shutting down the mine. The employee gets little choice.

What I'm suggesting is that there is merrit in letting people choose for themselves if what is on offer works for them. They can still leave any time they want. I see the need for minimum pay but I also see that there are circumstances where it limit's peoples choices.

No easy answers, I take the view that there are circumstances where allowing people to accept or reject a pay deal that may not be generally appropriate might be better than being unemployed with a home they can't sell in an area with little prospect of other work.

R0bert

Let's compare the analogy, when you the consumer enter the grocery store do you have the power to bargain with the supermarket? do you have the power to say that bottle of Pepsi Max that is priced at $1.65 is too high I want to buy it for $1.55, of course not.
The store is the price setter, there is no market.
Our laws recognise this we have the ACCC and anti competive laws to protect the consumer. So great is the power of the supermarkets we even have laws to protect the suppliers. We have laws that enable groups of suppliers to strike collective agreements with the supermarkets. So if we need to protect the consumers that deal with supermarkets, if we need to protect the producers who deal with supermarkets why not their workers?