I can exclusively reveal that David Peetz, Professor of Industrial Relations at Grifftafe, and another academic involved with the recent and highly questionable study on Workchoices, is another socialist bitterly opposed to labour market reform. Clear and incontrovertible proof can be found in his address on Radio National.

Furthermore, Peetz has been described as "a leading opponent of free labour markets" by Gerard Jackson, who also strongly criticises the right-wing H.R. Nicholls Society in the very same article. In fact, Peetz's industrial relations views have been promoted and endorsed in the Labor 'e' Herald. And union lefty Greg Combet has even offered the following glowing reference: "David Peetz's research demonstrates clearly that individual contracts are the antithesis of modern, productive employment relationships".

In another article, Peetz wrote that "WorkChoices is not about increasing productivity or prosperity; rather, it is about increasing the power of those who already have the most power and resources, and in doing so taking power away from those who have the least, and from those who would challenge the power of the mighty."

As evidence that the study is little more than a hatchet job on the Government, consider the following facts:
1) The study was partly funded by Unions NSW.
2) Both of the academics responsible for the research are leftards who oppose economic rationalism and have very strong views on the virtues of collective bargaining and the awards system.
3) There are very apparent problems with the study's methodology.
4) The study is very critical of Workchoices.
5) The findings have been released just a couple of months before the federal election.

John Buchanan and his lefty Grifftafe comrade David Peetz have both been exposed. I would advise both of them to include a disclaimer in an research that they conduct. That way all of us will be able to be aware that the research has not been conducted by academics involved in a selfless pursuit of truth, but by ideologues who support left wing causes.

For the full story: http://leonbertrand.blogspot.com/2007/10/other-workchoices-researcher-lefty.htm

The only interesting claim you make above is

"3) There are very apparent problems with the study's methodology."

That the study was backed by union funding and conducted by left-leaning academics is good reason to suspect that aspects of the study's methodology may be questionable (seeing as it's rather unlikely such a scenario would ever lead to a report concluding that WorkChoices was fantastic), but isn't proof of anything in itself. Indeed, what finally convinced me that the government itself knows that the consequences of WorkChoices have been less than ideal is that the only criticisms they seem able to make of the study is to call it "contaminated" and biased. Were they instead to have made specific and valid criticisms of the study's methodology and conclusions, the case for WorkChoices might still have a leg to stand on.

That's right - keep shooting the messenger.

Avoid discussing the points raised and it will all just go way.

People have already made up their minds about Workchoices and the more it's mentioned, the more they are reminded and the more entrenched their views become.

It's a bit like Basil Fawlty's "Don't mention the War" but they keep running their political ads about it, expecting that everybody will change their minds.

With you Wobbles, besides with the Fed gov deliberately withholding information what hope in accurate summation of Workchoices can there be.

Of course if Workchoices really were working - would it be necessary to cut access? See The Age below:

Academics' access to AWAs cut
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Michael Bachelard
October 9, 2007

WHILE the Federal Government has attacked academics whose study of WorkChoices it disagrees with, it has also stopped researchers from getting crucial information to study the effects of the industrial relations system.

Workplace Authority chief Barbara Bennett has written to two researchers in recent months denying access to samples of people's individual contracts — Australian Workplace Agreements — citing privacy.

Before WorkChoices, her predecessors allowed access to AWAs, protecting privacy by blacking out names and addresses. But Ms Bennett has said she "would need to seek the agreement of both parties to an AWA" before releasing any.

Ms Bennett's predecessor, Peter McIlwain, gave evidence to a Senate committee last year that 40 per cent of WorkChoices' AWAs stripped entitlements to public holidays; 52 per cent reduced shift loadings and 63 per cent cut penalty rates.

No more figures have been released, but 11 months later, the Government introduced the fairness test to combat bad publicity.

Academics, even those previously sympathetic to the Government's IR policies, say the non-disclosure policy has left the public, and the politicians who formulate policy, flying blind.

"It's disappointing when people try to stop research because they are insecure about what the outcome might bring," said Macquarie University academic Dr Paul Gollan."

Continued....

Continued

"Associate Professor Gollan co-wrote a study in 2001 with another of Ms Bennett's predecessors, former Peter Reith staffer Jonathan Hamberger, which argued against the proposition that AWAs were harming workers.

Professor Gollan said the Federal Government should invest much more in research. "Probably 95 per cent of people WorkChoices doesn't negatively affect … But today, you can't even find out who they are because you just don't know how people are disadvantaged."

Gary Rothville, a lawyer who has argued the employers' side for 30 years, most recently for Collins Street firm Arnold Bloch Leibler, said access to information was a "fundamental principle" in industrial relations.

"Lawyers have a professional duty to reveal all relevant facts to the court. It would be interesting if politicians would adhere to the same stricture," he said.

Monash University academic Professor Richard Mitchell said he believed the Government was "worried about what research could uncover, but they are trying to obscure that by talking about privacy issues".

And Melbourne University's Colin Fenwick said it was "striking that the Government puts so much emphasis on this policy instrument, but does not seem to have carried out research that would support its central tenets".

But Ms Bennett defended her decision, saying all AWAs were now lodged electronically, making it more difficult to mask who the parties were.

Asked if the authority should simply print out the agreements and use a black marker to obscure names and addresses, she said, "It isn't a conspiracy." Saying that "we're listing information as much as possible", she admitted that her "ability to get information will improve".

Yeah right Ms Bennett, the gullible believe you.

I must admit, I'm pretty unimpressed by these 'revelations' that you AJFA, and the likes of Albrechtsen et al, are putting forward.

As other posters have pointed out, it is indeed a case of shooting the messenger.

Quite frankly, I don't care if Marx himself did the report. I want to see more commentary on the substance.

I noted in Howard's initial response (before they adopted the 'attack the man, not the topic' angle) they tried to use ABS figures.

Then of course, the head of the ABS came out and refuted their figures could be used in any way as an endorsement of workchoices.

The other point to note in reading Howard and Hockey's responses, was that they didn't actually address the substance of the matter.

They claimed that the ABS figures proved that growth was occurring, wages were rising, and all is fine and dandy.

But that completely ignores the fact that it's an issue of comparison - you can't just say wages have risen and that's the end of it, because much of that can be chalked up to general economic conditions.

I have yet to see a response from the government that in any way addresses the key platform of the report, which is that workchoices is worse when compared (and note, it's the comparison that's the key here) to collective agreements.

Which in itself is quite pathetic - they could at least come out pointing out that people on AWAs are typically in the more high paid sectors and try to spin in more favourably, then at least we'd have the beginnings of a debate... one that I suspect they would lose, however.

Which is why they're attacking the man instead. It's far too much of an electoral liability to let slide.

You see the same tactics in OLO threads, from those who aren't any good at honest debate. Though it's rather disappointing our government follows the same line.

As an academic could I point out that it is extremely difficult to present a report such as this without being influenced by personal beliefs. Unlike data which can be replicated by repeating the experiment this study relies on a great many "human" factors.
Nevertheless, having now looked at the study, I (and a number of colleagues) believe the overall methodology is fundamentally flawed. However critiques of the report are unlikely to be given much credence in the media!
There is little doubt that the study was politically motivated - and that the authors have stumbled badly by stating their personal convictions elsewhere

It's hardly fair to say they "stumbled" by communicating their beliefs elsewhere, seeing as that ago some time ago.
Communicat, I'm curious to see what work you and your colleagues have done in analysing the study's methodology. And, while I'd hardly except to see a Today Tonight segment objectively dissecting the report, a paper like the Australian has plenty of talented writers that would arguably be motivated to write such a piece. And if The Age is happy to include the occasional article by John Roskam or Alan Moran, then even they should be happy to include an article that details inadequacies in the Australia@work findings.

Let's put the labels aside - how about a moratorium on the words 'left' and 'right'; they put thinking to sleep - and focus on the content and methodology of the report.

Communicat , as a self-styled academic, and having now looked at the study, you say that you and your colleagues believe the overall methodology is 'fundamentally flawed'.

Here's your chance, and challenge, to say how it is flawed. Leaving aside the allegations of 'political motivation', please give us an account of the flaws in the report.

Here it is, make no mistake this thread is important, here within its posts you can see the decline of John Howard.
Forget the polls, forget in one term the massive swing from total control to total defeat.
Watch the refusal to understand policy's, good and bad ones win elections.
Not defaming the other side.
Not refusal to see some things are failures not kill the messenger threads like this.
Post election, watch authors like this will put the blame for this defeat on workchoices.
Honesty has its part to play in politics, conservatives must confront the reason the polls are so bad, except the judges ruling.

Very briefly Frank (1)the data base was too narrow and (2) the questions were framed so as to elicit negative rather than positive responses.
(1) may be a result of the amount of the time and money available to do a project. (2) is either inexperience, incompetence or deliberate.

Communicat

Can you tell me what the benchmark figure is for a data base to be considered broad enough?

Can you give an example of a question framed so as to elicit negative rather than positive responses?

Can you tell us how much time and money was available for this project, and how much you think is adequate for a project of this type?

You give three possible explanations for your assessment that this was a poor project -either inexperience, incompetence or deliberate. Can you tell us which of the three you lean towards wih your reasons for that choice?

EXCLUSIVE: Workchoices Instigators Are Righties.

Hello?

AJFA - lets apply a little of the scrutiny to you, that you're applying to this researcher hmm?

A few from the blog:
"Brown the Clown"
"Media Watch increasingly absurd and irrelevant"

And from here at OLO:

"anyone who would resent having to answer some questions about our values wouldn’t have a very good attitude towards migrating to Australia"

OH NO! You're a RIGHT WINGER! Don't listen to him!

Actually, I think the argument I just put forward is bulldust - in precisely the same manner as the topic of this post.
It should be about the report itself.

Now to Communicat - your posts on people such as Julia Gillard also hint at a right wing attitude, but I see you're now addressing the report.

But with all this talk of bias and dodginess, I'd need to see actual examples of what you're talking about, and given that I've seen no solid analysis from places such as The Australian, or even much from the Liberal party, I'm exceedingly sceptical.

Well obviously only peers of these academics would be best placed to comment on the methodology, however concerns have been raised already.

I at least don't hide my political views. If i did want to hide them, I wouldn't have a blog now would I?

The other facts I have cited are also pertinent. They constitute evidence that the study is little more than a hatchet job on the government

AJFA. I hope your level of zeal in investigating corruption can be directed at the current chief scientist and ANY GOVERNMENT INQUIRY TO DATE.

Get to work. Or shut up. Because your focus here indicates you are a partisan yourself, a bigot if you will. Your own words to describe and persecute a researcher is PROOF of this FACT.

I'm more willing to believe a researcher than some sh**-faced hack like you

Actually Communicat, I'm not even sure it's possible to phrase a open-ended question without your own personal bias affecting how you ask it, so it need not be a choice between "incompetent" and "deliberate".
Almost certainly the report has highlighted negative aspects of WorkChoices at the expensive of potential positive aspects, and has probably exaggerated certain claims or cherry-picked data. Everyone does it, intentionally or otherwise. But you have to demonstrate that it's been done to a sufficient degree that the overall conclusion (that WorkChoices has generally not been kind to lower-income/lower-skilled workers) is wrong. Or better, attempt to demonstrate that although on average lower-income workers have seen salaries fall and/or conditions reduced, either a) this was necessary to ensure Australian business remained internationally competitive, and hence able to employ anyone at all or b) this is a short-term phenonema, and there is good reason to project that pay and conditions will improve considerably in coming years.
There is almost certainly a grain of truth to both those claims, though I am personally highly skeptical that WorkChoices will actually benefit anybody very much in the long run, because it will inevitably lead to less equal income distribution, which is neither economically nor socially sustainable (see
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1083 for a partial explanation of why it makes no economic sense).

I don't have the report to hand Frank and I think that any further comment would probably become political - something I was trying to avoid.
Examples of questions designed to elicit certain responses are common in research - I have been guilty of it myself!
Something like, "Which of the following do you support (a), the death penalty by firing squad (b), by lethal injection (c) by hanging" instead of "Which of the following do you support (a)the death penalty by firing squad, (b)by lethal injection (c) by hanging (d) None of the above"
Both questions are designed to elicit a positive response in favour of the death penalty. (By answering (d) are you opposing the death penalty or just those forms of the death penalty? What is needed is a further option which allows the respondent to state that they do not support the death penalty.
I am sure you have seen this sort of thing and worked it out for yourself. Some political polls do not take into account those who refuse to answer or the fact that people feel under pressure to state a preference...
Social science research has a lot of "social" and often very little "science"!

So Communicat

Yesterday you believed the report was 'fundamentally flawed' and there was 'little doubt that the study was politically motivated'.

This morning you were sure that '(1) the data base was too narrow and (2) the questions were framed so as to elicit negative rather than positive responses'.

This afternoon when challenged to put up the evidence for your claims, you suddenly 'don't have the report to hand' and 'any further comment would probably become political'.

So instead you give us an absurd example of a hypothetical question that is skewed to get a predetermined response. Nothing at all to do with the study that you condemned.

So my guess is that you haven't read the report and were just crapping on because the Government didn't like it and tried to tried to besmirch the reputations of the researchers to deflect attention from the content of the report.

You claim to be an academic. Pigs fly too!

I agree Frank - there's something very suss about Communicat's supposed academic critique and his/her inability to answer your questions meaningfully.

AJFA I like to laugh, thanks, from your first line you had me in stitch's.
I can exclusively reveal? come the story was out there days before!
Costello and the minister for miss information sorry IR had it hours before on ABC radio.
I however can tell you its the voting public you need to talk to.

Frank I was (a) asked to remain apolitical (which I did) and (b) give an example (which I did). You did not ask me to refer to the study so, in an effort to remain apolitical, I took an example that I all thought all members of the group would understand.
I stand by my other comments and, as I will now be away from the computer for a while, you may howl me down in my absence. (However I would warn you that the laws of libel apply even to this list.)

Communicat

A most unconvincing 'explanation'.

This is the first reference to a possible libel action that I've seen on OLO - which is a very robust debating ground.

Threats of libel actions are often used to intimidate and silence. For my part, I am happy to continue to rely on a fearless defence of truth and discussion that is in the public interest.

You may do as you please.

Frank - I am about to leave for the airport so this will be very brief but the sample was too small...8000 sounds like a lot but it is a drop in the ocean and it did not include the unemployed or many young women who were intending to go on leave to have a child. The interviews were conducted by telephone - never a good idea if you want people to tell the truth. Random sampling? Maybe but this is notoriously difficult to do.
Questions? "Does an award play a role in your pay and conditions?"
- should be something like "Do you believe...and if so, how?"
And a statement like "More and more is expected for the same pay..." is framed in a way which will produce agreement.
Hope you know understand what I am getting at...I assure you I have read the report. I'll be away for a few days - dare I say doing some research!

Those are quite random accusations Communicat. I don't think they necessarily equate to the bias you want to believe is in the report to discredit and smear the researcher with. As you say, libel applies to this thread also :-)

Perhaps you could check actual current government commissioned research to see if we have a corrupt, unaccountable government that is buying data that favours it with impunity. The methodologies you are quibbling over would seem to apply to a lot of research, particularly government research (and particularly the kind that they hide and keep locked away from the public. You know, WMD and the lies spread by our traitorous -or incompetent- intelligence agency etc...).

Communicat, if that is the best you can do, then I'm not the least bit concerned about the study's methodology.
8000 is a large sample - my wife works at a market research company that does Australia-wide surveys all the time, and the most responses she's ever had to deal with is a couple of thousand.
Yes there are known issues with random telephone interviews - but there are issues with any style of interview, and statistical methods to adjust accordingly. I could certainly see, for instance, that workers unhappy about WorkChoices are more likely to want to take part in such a survey.
Why on earth should it make a difference whether you preface a question with "Do you believe..."? And "how" is a different question altogether.
I agree the last question is a little loaded - but if anything it seems likely to encourage people that have remained on an award to answer in the affirmative, as it's a common human trait to feel like "more and more is expected" of them.