Jeff, good piece. As the experienced Union member that you are I would have thought you'd know by now that employers want to maximise profit - that is what they are in the game to do. Paying workers as little as possible whilst maximising their own income helps to achieve this goal. This is how it has always been and how it will always remain. These struggles will continue infinitum.

130 awards for 10 000 000 people working.

This has all the flexibility of a straight jacket.

No wonder full time jobs are falling away. This has probably more to do with fair work than the GFC.

If I was hiring for a non standard job I certainly wouldn't take any one one, but would hire a contractor.

Rather then "modern" awards, unions seemingly want to take us back
to the dark ages of the 60s, in a changing world.

So learn the hard way. I certainly would not start another business
in Australia, but take it offshore.

But you clearly think that Australians will thrive without employers,
so be it. Job creation schemes will be the next proposed solution!

Ah whatever lol, I simply don't care anymore. Some are just too
thick to learn.

Yep Yabby has it.

Keep the wages low so we can compete with offshore companies. In fact we should lower them further to barely subsistence level similar to that enjoyed by workers overseas.

There will be all these cheap goods to buy but no-one left other than CEOs and directors with enough money to buy them.

Yabby despite wages in Western countries being higher companies are still enjoying generous profits - sometimes profits can be obscene if they are gained at the cost of everything else. Society is not just a profit margin or an economy.

Bikesusenofuel - with all due respect, of course employers want to maximize profits, they are not part of some benevolent society and in addition have taken risks.

The workers risk is in their choice of employer and of course the type of work they do, they can simply down tools and seek another job in an instant if it suits them

An employer has to get funds to start a company, for a small business it's probably borrowed against the family home - if all goes wrong he loses everything, unlike the worker who just toddles off.

The larger employer is beholden to investors to maximize profit, that's called business.

Workers good - Employers bad. So the unions have a presumed attitude that employers are evil, trying to "rip off the workers", thus instilling the "class war" mentality.

That's a great starting position, so not only do you have all the risk and stress of starting and running a company, a bunch of intimidating bullies can come and disrupt your workplace at will.

Jeff talks about evening things up when he really seems to mean utter and total control.

Employers will not invest in this climate, and this will all end up a mess - we'll have huge unions, with no jobs demanding the government with our taxes, create employment .. sounds like socialism (by stealth)

I was in a union when I was young and watched them destroy the workplace by incessant demands and overbearing work practices. Yes they did some good for the workers, but there was never an attitude of fairness or give and take, it was open bloody warfare to get as much as possible and then some more.

Pelican

A lot of people wants to paint all employers as big business, making millions in profit, when in fact more then 70% of workers are employed by small business and a lot of the big business are not doing very well.

The writer said "Awards will protect important matters like minimum wages and penalties for working unsociable hours", and make the conclusion that employer should pay out of their own pocket for this.

Sorry, it is not the 50s, communism is dead and the world does not work that way. Most restaurants are not making millions, and by forcing them to pay higher wages, a lot of them will either close, hire less staff, or charge the customer more.

All this will mean is that there are less restaurants, less people employed and we pay more for going out to eat, so we go out less. That means everyone loses.

Pacific brand is another example, underwear made in China cost less than 1/2 the cost than made in Australia. Pacific brand did consult with the government about this, it did not work, so they took their business and the jobs overseas, and everyone loses.

What Fairwork Australia is Kevin Rudd/Julia Gillard attempt to repay the unions for getting them elected. The union paid the ALP millions add ran ad campaigns to get Kevin Rudd elected, in return Kevin and Julia will bring in Union friendly laws. In the meantime, people who took the risk to start business suffers, workers loses their job, inflation goes up (lower national output), but the ALP and unions increase their membership.

It does not matter how many time you put Workchoice to try to bring emotive support to you (lack of a) argument. Law that will destroys jobs and make us pay more for things should always be opposed

*Keep the wages low so we can compete with offshore companies.*

Now where did I say that Pelican? The real problem here is, lovely
and caring lady that you are, with a huge and generous heart, making
many sensible posts, when it comes to economies and how and
why they function as they do, you don't have the foggiest.

*Society is not just a profit margin or an economy.*

That is easy to say if you have a job with the Govt and are doing
well, as seems to be your situation. Not so good if you really
do want to work extra hours to make a few extra shillings, and
nobody is there to give you a job.

Somehow you seem to think that Australia does not need to compete
in the real world, to pay its bills. So what do you largely have
in the East? An economy based on building ever more houses for
ever more migrants, as you all trade houses with each other.

Now if you want to enforce little jokes like long service leave,
redundany pay, double time and a half or whatever for picking
grapes at night, when wineries are going broke as it is, double
time for picking veggies and fruit on Sundays, these guys are
simply going to say stuff it, and you can import your fruit and
veges, along with everything else.

What we need is a flexible labour force, as business has to be,
for there are no guarantees about next months orders.

Create conditions where business can thrive, more employers, people
starting and developing businesses, means labour is better off.

Its not the cheapest labour that is best for business, but the
unions refuse to acknowledge that, in their one size fits all agenda.

But then you don't care about the economy or jobs, fair enough.
So bring in ever more migrants to build ever more houses, its one
of the few things that Australia is good at

Well Jeff, firstly, I hope you are not like your 'guttless leader' SB who picks a fight then never returns. Please don't take any advice from this 'waste of space'.

Bikesusenofuel,
employers want to maximise profit - that is what they are in the game to do
So, if employees are forever chasing better pays and condition, arn't they in fact doing exactly the same thing, Trying to maximise their profits for their services?


Let's just see what pans out in the next few years but I for one am prepared to state that that the jobs market will head south.

We are about to enter a new period. Many first home buyers have been lured into the market and they are about to feel the pinch of higher interest rates and a weaker jobs market, and you lot think you are clever.

I am about to work sundays myself and sack two staff as the new rates make it not worth my while to employ staff on sundays. It's a pitty, they are more than happy with their pay rates and conditions, but then some people just can't help but interfear with others lives, even if those whos lives are effected were more than happy with things as they were.

Was anyone on this site personally effected by WC?

My staff to will be worse off but hey, you wanted it, now you have it.

But hey, at least you have the GFC to blame.

Yabby
I am a paid contractor and get paid per hour depending on current projects. With recent government cuts, work sometimes dries up here and there but that part-time arrangement suits our situation.

My husband has never worked for the government and has always been in the private sector. We own our house and don't have any debts but we are sensible with money and have simple needs. I have not always worked in the public sector and for a long time worked for private companies and for a short time ran a business, although probably not as fraught with fluctuating markets as those in the wine industry or other agricultural pursuits.

Yabby, you don't have to be an economist to question the health of our profit culture and the extremes to which it has grown.

Logically there has to be incentives for business. We have lost that old "a little bit for me, a little bit for him" value system. More and more it has become everyone one out for themselves. Businesses must factor in the costs of doing business including a fair and equitable industrial relations system. Labour seems to be perceived by some employers as a necessary evil.

I saw this attitude shift first hand and moved out of HR work when the writing was on the wall. HR people became spokespersons for the company and adversarial towards workers, instead of advocating for fair win-win situations. I saw it, could not change it and fled to more worthwhile pursuits.

There are many trained economists who disagree with each other Yabby. Each side perceives the other to not have the foggiest. Fog is in the eye of the beholder. :)

Businesses need to make money. Some will treat staff badly to try and achieve that, others will realise that you don't generally get the best from people who are unhappy.

As a counter to the title of the article it could also be said that "Unions want to undermine workers sense of personal value".

The union movement relies on workers having little or no sense of individual power, united we stand, divided we fall etc. It does not want workers to feel in control of their own careers and choices as they may feel less need to hand over their hard earned's to keep union bosses employed. Some union people really do care, some union battles have been vitally important but much of the modern union movement seems to be more about trying to make people feel that they need unions (and the ALP) than about the welfare of workers.

R0bert

So where's jeff!

Here we go again!

Oh well, I guess 'Jeff' is just another 'gutless union rep', any wonder with the leader he has.

Now I for one reject the statement that employers don't want an award, in fact, an award makes life easy for everyone, it's just that awards (retail) have not taken into consideration modern day working conditions.

Extended shopping hours (QLD till 9pm weekdays) have placed a great deal of presure on small retailers as rather than have to catch the shops before they close, shoppers now can literally come home from work, have dinner, watch a lille TV, then go off and shop anytime before 9pm every weeknight.

The new awards 'FINALLY' recognise this as our 'normal trading hours' and we can now trade for longer without paying penilty rates as previous to this our 'normal hours' ceased at 6pm and for that, I am greatfull.

Now I just have to find staff who will willingly work these hours, but with jobs becomming short, I will have a better chance.

So in response to 'MIA Jeff's' claim that employers are all evil, go F#*k yourself!

Workers basic rights were trampled underfoot by Work choices, and the Australian people narrowly defeated them, but the legislation made to introduce them could again be legislated by a new Liberal Government, unless the basic underlying system is fixed. What succeeded was Kevin Rudd’s attack on the rusted on Christian Vote that the Liberals had taken for granted, arguing that Workchoices was unfair, and unjust. It was the alliance of Rudd with a large number of Christian ministers, urging fair work laws, that shook the Liberal hold on power.

There were laws making Workchoices illegal in place all the time. These were in the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) and S 268:10 and 268:12 Criminal Code ban slavery and legislate to make it an offence to not apply the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both of these sections were in place the whole time of Workchoices, but the Labor lawyers had missed them, and Mick Keelty was very diligent in not enforcing them.

Both of these pieces of legislation say it is a crime against humanity, to launch a widespread and systematic attack on a civilian population, and that was what Workchoices was. Had the Criminal Code provisions been enforced a jury would have had to decide for Workchoices or annulled the legislation, because it relied on draconian fines, of up to $100,000 to be imposed summarily. The Federal Court was to be used for this purpose. The workers on the Mandurah Railway in WA were actually charged. It was very intimidating.

These two pieces of legislation must be enforced by Commissioner Negus, if Workchoices is to be permanently killed. All Judges and Magistrates in Australia need a visit from a member of the Australian Federal Police with a copy of the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) in his hand, and a smile on his face. Part of their job is to educate first and prosecute the slow learners. The legislation makes enforceable the right to jury trial in all cases whatsoever. If you haven’t got a copy of the Criminal Code Act 1995 get one

I go to church with a barrister. His work mostly involves prosecuting drug couriers lucky enough to be caught in Australia. He says they are mostly fairly desperate for money, and often are users of drugs, so a term in rehab does not do them any great harm. He was, though a law professional unaware of the ramifications of S 268:10 and 268:12 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth).

Perhaps I am a bit thick, but I have been tracking this legislation since it was enacted by Paul Keating’s government in 1995. To my barrister friend I pointed out that the States have mounted a widespread and systematic attack upon the civilian populations of Australia, using Judges and Magistrates. These two sections restore, by the paramount and superior power of the Parliament of the Commonwealth the Rule of Law in Australia. It was enacted with a time delay of five years so the States could get used to it. That was extended by a year, but in 2001, was made law.

What it does is ban enslavement in S 268:10 and make it a crime not to apply the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 268:12, as crimes against humanity. To make us slaves the States had to give Judges and Magistrates the power to take us without jury trial, and imprison us. The State since 1900 has been creeping the bar up, on what constitutes an indictable offence, and gave Judges power to imprison, without reference to a jury. In 1900, the bar was three months, and then only for crimes not involving property. All civil and criminal matters were tried by a jury as of right.

Myopic lawyers drafting Workchoices, failed to see they were unconstitutional. An attempt to challenge them in the High Court failed, with two strong dissenters. With better argument it would not have failed. A basic understanding of the law, by our legislators is essential, and serious enforcement by the Australian Federal Police will ensure the law is fair to everyone. The States must be better educated on Constitutional law

*Logically there has to be incentives for business. We have lost that old "a little bit for me, a little bit for him" value system.*

Pelican, that really depends on the company and management. Fact is,
a great company is only great, if it has a great team of employees.
You don't retain them by screwing them, wages being just one part
of the equation.

At the end of the day however, every cent paid has to come out of
the pockets of the customer and in a more competitive market,
some employees do if fact overrate their value to the company.

The thing is, it is in the unions interest to keep maintaining
the "them and us" warfare approach, for it gives them a reason
for existing. Do not forget, union membership had dropped to
all time low levels, clearly people thought they did not need a
union to negotiate for them.

So the image of a "war against employers", is maintained by some
unions, if it is justified or not.

The thing is, if you have a stubborn and inflexible labour supply,
doing business becomes that much tougher and a whole lot of
would be entrepreneurs simply won't bother, or go offshore.

Australia's answer, rather then create new and globally competitive
industries, as exist in Japan, Korea, Europe, USA etc, all high
wage countries, is to flog off more Australian real estate
to foreigners. It keeps the shillings coming in, but its hardly
a solution.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/chinese-buyers-fuel-topend-property-boom-20090918-fvga.html

.

Workers basic rights were trampled underfoot by Work choices

So Peter, did many people actually get screwed by WC, or, was it the fact that peoples basic rights, as you put it, were degraded but not acctually used against them by employers?

I for one don't know one single person in my industry (retail) that was screwed by employers during the WC ira.

As I have said on many occasions, I have never under paid anyone, nor would I. In fact, if the award wage was to fall I would not reduce my existing staffs wages, new ones perhaps. At least until they proved themselves.

I still think the majority of 'anti WC people' were not effected by WC, rather, they just can't help but get involved in someone elses problems. Commonly know as 'control freaks'.

Good Question Rehctub. I don’t think good employers ever screw their workers, because they realize there is a partnership between them that depends for the continued survival of the business on mutual goodwill. However, in some of the very large businesses there is no real goodwill, it’s just a job and workers are a commodity, to be used and disposed of when the business climate deteriorates. The fear felt by some employees is almost palpable.

There were 100 workers on the Perth –Mandurah Railway construction who went on strike over a safety issue, and were severely threatened by the Federal Government under the Work Choices legislation. It provided for $100,000 each in fines for striking as they did, and as you know lots of ordinary working people don’t carry around $100,000 in their back pocket. It was designed to instill terror into the hearts of workers, everywhere.

If you haven’t read Michael Crichton’s book State of Fear, you should, to understand that creating a state of fear, is one of the weapons used by governments everywhere to impose their will upon the people. The Poms used the threat of transportation, firstly to America and after they were booted out of there, to Australia, to put the fear of God into the hearts of the Irish Catholics. The English Catholics, after they broke with Rome in 1533, under Henry VIII rightly feared Rome, and used transportation to create slaves of the Irish, in order to resist reintegration with Rome. Cromwell resorted to outright murder, and in the eleven years of the republic, between 1649 and 1660 murdered a third of the Irish population. He also destroyed the Catholic Churches and estates everywhere, so a very large state of fear was generated.

What stopped the state of fear was the strict requirement of the English law that separation of the power to judge and the power to execute judgment was observed. This was only extended to English Protestants, and not to Roman Catholics, and only under the Protestant Kings, and the turmoil Cromwell exploited resulted from a departure from these principles

Peter the clown

Yeah having 2% unemployment are horrifying

Having record wages, even through Work choices are treating people as slaves are horrifying too, If Work choices are horrifying, why had averages of working Australian fallen since workchoice was abolished

Yeah there are some people who will abuse the system. But overall it is an employer and employee relationship/ You need to give both employer and employee incentive to employ each other, to not allow small employer to sack staff (if the work is not there) will push small business under. Which is bad for employers and bad for employee

Yabby and others

Of course the best employers create a solid partnership with their employers. A good and smart employer knows that a loyal, well trained and committed workforce requires some effort on their part as well as a good work ethic on the part of the employee.

In today's Canberra Times there was an article about Bob Brown's call to rein in executive salaries with a cap of about $5M. Surely no-one is 'worth' more than $5M for the work they do. I am not talking about profit but salaries. There might be a problem with implementing this unless it was a global effort - which knowing the US will probably fall flat.

Last financial year half of Australia's top companies awarded 10% or more pay rises to executives - despite the recession.

It is this sort of system we want to sustain? Where the poorer paid make the greater sacrifice during difficult financial times.

rehctub
Why is it a concern for you for people to protest about WC regardless of whether they have been affected or not. You mentioned on another thread that you weren't a supporter of WC.

Do we stop protesting about burglary because our homes have not been robbed? Do we perpetuate the selfish society by only raising concerns only when they affect us?

It not only takes a village to raise a child but to ensure the most vulnerable are not so disempowered as to get a fair go.

The real clowns in this world don’t wear Clown Suits, they wear wigs and gowns, or simply a business suit, and sit in the temple selling not doves and changing money, but instead selling justice.

It is time real clowns woke up to the fact that despite eleven years of seriously corrupt and incompetent government, the laws to make these clowns stop laughing, passed by Paul Keating’s government remain on the books.
Just so the real clowns know what they are facing:
Paul Keating’s government amended the Trade Practices Act 1974 in S 45 so that to exclude any person from full participation in our representative democracy, has been illegal since 1995.

The Trade Practices Act 1974 provides remedies against these clowns, but clowns who call themselves registrars in the Federal Court and High Court relying on the arrogance and impracticality of their unelected Judicial Officers, and their undemocratic and despotic rules, have not seen the train coming down the track to demolish their world. S 45 Trade Practices Act 1974 was applied to all corporations including the fully corporatised State and Federal Courts in 1995.

The clowns who have been taking very large executive salaries, are all responsible for the conduct of their corporations, and if the corporation offends, they should pay. Maybe they get danger money as CEO’s.

The Workchoices legislation was in direct conflict with the common law, but clowns had a circus in which only clowns could play.

The banks lobbied Government to be exempt from the Trade Practices Act 1974. However, the Government imposed the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 giving the same conditions as if the Trade Practices Act 1974 applied to them.

Paul Keating’s government enacted the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth), The Evidence Act 1995, (Cth) and the National Competition Policy Act 1995, but clowns in both Federal and State Courts, have refused to compete in the delivery of justice. We have nothing to fear but fear itself, and the cure for fear is a fair just and impartial judicial system, available to all without fear or favor

*Surely no-one is 'worth' more than $5M for the work they do. I am not talking about profit but salaries.*

Pelican, in principle I agree with you, but in practise this is
harder to implement, then at first might seem.

So if we go back to the fundamental issues, if a company is to make
a profit, an employee should be paid a little less then they are
worth to the company, so that the company comes out ahead, or they
go broke.

Now we saw an interesting case in the global banking industry, where
Obama limited the salaries paid to banking staff to half a million
Dollars, for banks which had obtained Govt aid.

So what happened? As it happens, there are in fact traders working
for banks, who regularly generate tens of millions to hundreds of
millions of $ for their employers. Really smart dudes, who are rare
but they are around.

The moment a cap was put on their salaries, banks from other parts
of the world moved in and pinched them, for they knew that these
guys were gems and would make them alot of money. So its a global
issue.

Really great CEO talent, especially in some industries, is not easy
to find, so again one sometimes needs to search globally to find
the right guy and boards commonly get it wrong. A CEO with bad
judgement can lose a company billions!

When Westpac nearly went broke in the early 90s due to bad management
decisions, they turned to Bob Joss to turn the bank around, which
he did very well indeed. But you are not going to get that kind
of talent moving family around the world, unless its worth their
effort.

So in terms of "fairplay" or "morality" you might have a point.
But in terms of a straight business decision, whatever they pay
a CEO in $ terms hardly matters, compared to the damage or good
that they can do for a company, by showing really good or really
bad judgment. Tens of thousands of jobs depend on that.

Workers and Employers have the same basic rights, but the playing field has been uneven because employers are usually able to resource lawyers who will fight their cases for them, provided they are given plenty of money. Paul Keating’s government evened up the playing field, between 1993 and 1996 when he was defeated, but Bill Keelty did not pursue employers on behalf of the Queen, because lawyers probably told him he couldn’t.

Here are the tools a member of the Australian Federal Police needs to serve us as proper Policemen of the Constitution.
FOUR CASES

To understand the Australian Constitution it is only necessary to read and understand four High Court Cases with a peek at a fifth.

CASE 1: is here: The King V Kidman which states that the six Justice streams from the King through the States became one only at federation in 1901. http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=495

Case 2: established the “Kable Principle” which states that states cannot then subdivide that Justice stream by local Legislation. http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=225

Case 3: Is the extract from the Pape decision on the 7th July 2008, where the High Court confirmed S 15A Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth) automatically avoids any law made contrary to the Australian Constitution. http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=203

Case 4: is Lane V Morrison which states that an Officer cannot be a court, and defines courts to include all Parliaments, and any gathering in the name of the sovereign, who in Australia is Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second. http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=503

If you read and understand these all the rest of the law becomes understandable and certain. The article on the Judicial Process on the same website, with the reference to Murphy in Metwally, and Holdsworth on the common law, should give a potted version of all that a lawyer should know but his mummy never told him. Since most Australian Federal Police Officers have a degree of some kind, this law is not beyond them, and Australia can look forward to a century of peace and harmony based upon a better education of those who have the work to do, keeping the peace

Yabby
I agree it might be difficult to implement, unless there was some form of global agreement.

Although I wonder if there are quite a few managers out there on their way up the ladder who show potential that could take up the reins on a smaller salary. $5M is nothing to sneeze at afterall. In fact I wouldn't mind betting that they may do an equal or better job than some of the existing CEOs who have walked away with bonuses despite losses and depreciation in the value of shares.

Perhaps we also need to reward CEOs and executives who manage to retain staff during difficult times and still stave off severe hits to the profit margin. With built-in agreements that people's jobs will be saved if management take a small pay cut, middle management a lesser pay cut with no cuts to the lowest paid employees such as cleaners, retail assistants, bank tellers, hospitality staff or whatever roles are relevant for that particular business.

*Although I wonder if there are quite a few managers out there on their way up the ladder who show potential that could take up the reins on a smaller salary*

Pelican, there possibly are. But the problem remains, to find
people who can show great judgment in picking people with great
judgment. Fact is that many board members who pick CEOs, don't
have it. So often past performance is what is used and it often
still does not work out.

*With built-in agreements that people's jobs will be saved if management take a small pay cut, middle management a lesser pay cut with no cuts to the lowest paid employees such as cleaners,*

Once again, the numbers hardly stack up. Take Wesfarmers, who
IIRC, employ around 300'000 people in their Coles, Bunnings,
Target, K-Mart and other businesses. If you cut a million $
off the CEO salary, that works out to $ 3.30 per year per
employee. Even if they employed only 30'000 people as a smaller
business, that would still only add up to 33$ per employee,
hardly enough to make a difference. But the decisions that
this CEO makes, has a huge effect on the jobs of all those
employees.

What we really need is a better way to evaluate top management,
which is another story altogether :)

See there are some interesting stats comming out of the US.

Obbama has placed a 'sealing' on exec salaries in the banks where the gov has helped out.

Now the rest of the world's bankers are poaching these guys for their extrodinary tallents and the 'controlled banks' are powerless to do anything about it.

Take our top execs. I have a fishing buddy who earns about $5millon per year as a trader for one of the big banks. Very high presure job.

Now these guys make 100's of millions for some of our banks through trading, so a $5millon pay packet is chicken feed compared to what they produce for the banks. Most businesses pay around 15 to 20% of turnover in wages, so if the big banks only pay these selected few say 3%, what's the problem. Perhaps they should be on $20 million per year. At least then they would be on a simmilar level.

Yabby
You make some good points. Overall there has to be a better way for business to include workers in other aspects of business.

There are strong arguments and evidence that democratic workplaces fare better than others. This does not mean that managers stop managing but there is more consultation with all the stakeholders in the business (Yes...I went there...the dreaded stakeholder word).

rehctub
It is the job of a trader to make money for the banks that is what they are paid to do. Traders are not the only people making money for the bank, all the employees play a part in the business even if they don't 'bring' the money in. Without employees, the money the traders bring in is moot.

In my experience there is a great deal of stress and pressure at the bottom of the ladder where you are have the skill and knowledge of the coalface but are so disempowered as to have no input into major decisions that can only be derived with knowledge of the coalface. And then having to put up with re-inventing the wheel numerous times.

Getting back closer to the topic, that is why workers need protections, otherwise we face a highly insecure economy and greater pressure on governments (taxpayers) to fill the gaps. Employers have their own interest/lobby groups or Employer Unions, why not the same advantage for workers?

Pelican, a few points here.

Traders are not your average 'bank johny', in fact, they are a very selected group and are under emense stress as one error may cost the bank billions. There are very few 'real traders' in the entire world.

Now as for worker V employers rights, yes, I agree. All's rights must be protected, but, during the past decade or so it would be fair to say that anyone who wanted to work, did work, as there were plenty of jobs around and demand for labour was huge. Many who did work would have been un-employable in normal circumstances, in fact, a trained monkey could have found work a couple of years back.

Now my beef is, now that the demand has dropped, or in many cases, 'stopped', one can't expect employers to pay these 'low skilled workers' what they were getting paid as they are once again 'un-employable' to a certain extent as there are more workers than jobs again and many have much higher skill levels than the ones who currently hold the jobs.

In fact, many top line tradies were gobbled up by the mines and, this allowed 'second rate' tradies to take a strong hold in the main stream of employemnt. Many were simply 'under qualified', but hey, after waiting up to 3 months to get a sparky, or a plumber, you simply took what you could get.

As I have said to Belly on many occations, by all means protect workers rights, but not the unrealistic rights that have been achieved during the 'boom times' of recent years.

Now if you 'boss haters' can't understand this, then it simply comfirms that you are 'one eyed' through and through.

You take what you can get in the good times, but don't give an inch when the tide starts to go out again.
Keep pushing and your jobs you are trying so hard to protect will simply go 'off shore'.

*Overall there has to be a better way for business to include workers in other aspects of business.*

Pelican, oh on that one I agree with you, it is the difference between
good and bad management!

I spoke to a guy at a wire company once. He had been there 30 years
and had never seen the boss! I used to load my export cargo at the
airport. There were huge disputes there between workers and managers,
as the managers would hardly associate with the blue collar workers.
If they'd treated them differently, a whole lot of things would
have been different there.

If I was the boss of a large company, there would be a suggestion
box right on the shop floor, encouraging workers to put forward their
ideas to improve the place, etc.

In fact one can perhaps take it too far, which could be my personal
mistake as a manager. In the end, I had to fire two members of
staff, as I included them so much in how the place was run, that
on both occasions they thought the place could not operate without
them and stopped taking notice of what I or my manager were saying.

But I don't think that is a legal issue, more a management issue.

Given that workers have a major stake in the ownership of virtually
all major ASX companies, I still think it should not just be super
fund managers making all the big decisions, but workers should
have an input, via the fact that they are also owners of the
businesses.

rehctub

I am not minimising the pressure of traders merely also recognising the role of other workers in the big picture. Doctors and nurses are under immense pressure not to make mistakes too.

Think about what traders really do and consider that they don't actually produce anything just shuffle money around similar to a casino game. Their role has only been allocated high status and big bucks due to the economic straightjackets we have built for ourselves.

A keenness to protect workers' rights does not mean one is a boss hater. I have been a boss. I am sure you can see that advocating for one group does not mean you ignore the needs of the other.

Bosses and workers cannot have equal rights per se as they hold very different positions within an organisation that is why it is important to get the power balance as reasonably fair as it can be

Pelican; A keenness to protect workers' rights does not mean one is a boss hater. I have been a boss. I am sure you can see that advocating for one group does not mean you ignore the needs of the other.

I continue to go over old ground, but you either don't recognise my point, or, you choose to ignore it.

As I have said many time, I have no problems protecting the rights of employees.

But, when the overall jobs market slumps, due to a lesoning demand, then some of the rights obtained during the 'boom times' must be reduced as well. Otherwise, we will have an in-balance.

If you truely want to be fair about this issue, then you must agree that what goes up, must also be allowed to come back down again.

If a builder builds say 50 houses per year in boom times and makes say $20K per home, then he would pay anything to have contractors/staff. But, if the market falls and he only builds say 30 per year, with decreased margins due to increased competition, then he should be allowed to trim back on wages/contractors costs as well. Back to the 'basic wage'.

Everyone must share in both the 'gain' and the 'pain'. They (staff/contractors) have certainly shared in the 'gain' during the boom times. Your basic hourly rate for a sparky is now $80. Ten years ago they were lucky to get $30 per hour. So I think the realistic figure lays somewhere in the top third of the current rate.

The builder has slashed his margins, just to keep the wheels turning, why not the worker/contractor as well?

Now I am not suggesting we slash wages, but, if we continue to pay $80 per hour to sparkys, it will simply cost jobs as the builder will become a contractor instead of a builder as the benefits of employing are no longer worth the risks. One would be better off as a worker, rather than a boss. But hey, there are fewer jobs!

So here's another 'piss cutter' from Krudd and his crusaders.

Flexabile working hours for child minding.

The new IR laws will allow all workers who have young children, or who are carers for disabled up to 18, the right to request more appropriate working hours to better suit their needs.

So, the employee has to make such a request (in writting) and the employer can either grant such request or deny on 'reasonable business grounds'.

Sounds fair, hey!

Trouble is, the term 'reasonable business grounds' has no definition within the new laws and, if the employer denies such a request, the employee 'has no grounds or support for rejecting the refusal'.

Can you believe it!

So, in a year or two, or how ever long it takes for these wan-kers to decide this law is unworkable, they will just waste more millions re-writting yet another botched piece of legislation.

And to think their supporters thought they were the smarter of the two lots we had to choose from!

Where's Jeff. Perhaps he can put some light on this subject, if anyone can find him that is. Maybe he is busy with Sharon!