Pericles, the idea that unions aren't concerned about businesses staying afloat sounds a lot like Coalition propaganda to me. A union that lets the corporations who employ its workers go out of business is a union that thoroughly deserves to die, as it has failed in its number-one objective.

And, BTW, public servants can and *do* get dismissed if they are incompetent.

Wizofaus says:

>>[Rules and regulations] don't evolve naturally out of free market forces, rather they specifically work to allow the market to function in a manner that is beneficial to as many as the participants as possible<<

This seems to be a classic description of "free market forces", don't you think?

I am not defending lousy management either, Belly. What I will say is that businesses that exploit their workers as you describe should not be in business. However, we disagree in that I believe that the number of such "bosses" is declining, where you believe that without unions, they would proliferate. We shall have to agree to differ on this point.

palimpsest puts it well.

>>[Unions] in small business... can be poison. Relativity's and flow-ons across trades or skills without reference to locality, product and markets is just plain stupid.<<

The days where we can make sweeping generalizations about workers and bosses are long gone.

In the same way that we have travelled a long way since "the old master and servant days " (thanks again palimpsest), and while freely acknowledging that unionism has played a significant part in breaking some of the major imbalances of that era, modern business can continue to move forward without forcing alliances that are not needed.

The problem with AWAs is not their principle, but their practice. In principle, everyone should want, and respect the need for, an individual relationship with the organization that employs them. In practice, there should be no need for these to be specifically codified by governments. Governments, after all, have only a fleeting understanding of what businesses do anyway, so are the worst possible people to set the rules of engagement.

Given that we have a separate set of i) health and safety regulations that are appropriate and enforceable and ii) wage rules that eliminate exploitation, there should be no need for separate legislation at the AWA level.

The government's approach to all this is counterproductive too. By insisting on the "us vs. them" fantasy with unions, they continue to legitimise an outdated and wasteful concept.

Pericles, very much depends on who you talk to. Generally, the extreme pro-free-market types (Friedman/Hayek et al) have been against any rule or regulation that isn't strictly necessary to ensure private property and the value of money are protected (i.e., laws forbidding trespassing, theft and counterfeiting). Just the other day the IPA's Chris Berg was moaning in The Age about how man rules and regulations beset corporations these days. Well...he's right...but corporations only have themselves to blame. Time and time again they've shown themselves to be lousy at self-regulation.

A free market should in principle be able to function just fine without rules and regulation on minimum wages and maximum hours worked etc. But that's exactly what we had in the 19th and early 20th century, and all it meant was that manufacturers so thoroughly exploited and underpaid their workers, that workers had neither the time nor money to create a decent sized market for their products. Sure there were a few enlightened employers like Henry Ford that saw the stupidity of this, but the majority fell into the trap of assuming that what seemed to be an easy way for them to lower costs and increase output was actually a strategy that made sense, when it clearly wasn't, given everyone else was trying to do the same thing.

Pericles laments: "I don't mind defending things that I say, but I obviously can't defend things that I didn't say."

FrankGol says: "But in terms of practical business management, my son says it is quicker, cheaper and more efficient and effective to deal with the union delegates once a year than to go through the nonsense of negotiating hundreds of varying contracts and to repeat it every time his company hires another employee."

To which Pericles replies: "It is a cop-out to delegate responsibility for the welfare of your staff to the unions. It is up to management to ensure that the right people are doing the right jobs, safely and competently, and that they are appropriately rewarded for doing so."

To which FrankGol replies: "I don't mind defending things that I say, but I obviously can't defend things that I didn't say." Thanks for the quote Pericles. How do you get from my "deal with the union delegates" to your "delegate responsibility for the welfare of your staff to the unions"?

For that matter, how do you get from my son saying "it is quicker, cheaper and more efficient and effective to deal with the union delegates" to his being "lazy in the extreme"? Did you notice the four adjectives in his description? In his business, quicker, cheaper, more efficient and effective are great for the bottom line.

How do you get from my son claiming that "his workers are more more productive and more willing to compromise and cooperate when they are working to collegiate rules than when it's dog-eat-dog who-can-get-the-best-contract under WorkChoices" to "treating employees like a herd of cattle"? His MBA long taught him that treating people like a 'herd of cattle' (a la WorkChoices) is death to productivity.

Finally, you give me something I can agree with: "In the private sector there is an absolute measure available at all times. It's called 'staying in business'." Maybe that's why his company has made yet another record profit last year and promoted him to general manager of the whole enterprise. So much for a 'lazy' manager.

FrankGol says "treating people like a herd of cattle(a la workchoices)". Frank my experience as an employer, as a manager and as a worker has been that it is the unions that treat people as cattle, not employers. The old saying, 'there's plenty of room at the top" remains true, and employers everywhere are looking for employees who will take the extra step and the responsibility; and are only too keen to reward such efforts. My union experiences however, have been the opposite. Purloined into others (class) wars, forced to be mis-'represented' as part of a group by intimidation; I want nothing more to do with these bogus, petty bourgouise creeps.

Howards WC only accelerates something that started 25 years ago with financial deregulation and the opening up of our economy, coupled with workers comp and Super imposts on business. Rudds proposed changes undo some of Keatings work and attempt to appeal to the anxiety of workers, real or imagined.

palimpsest

Your "experience as an employer, as a manager and as a worker has been that it is the unions that treat people as cattle, not employers". What's more, you say, "Purloined into others (class) wars, forced to be mis-'represented' as part of a group by intimidation; I want nothing more to do with these bogus, petty bourgouise creeps."

All of that may well be true, for you. But where does the argument go when someone uses their experience to show the diametrically opposite case to be true for them?

Rather than making grand claims about unions - or employers - why not treat each case on its merits? Why not suspend judgment until the evidence is in? The old stereotype of the union (as caricatured in the Coalition ads, for example) has long since gone - except in some people's bitter memories. Your leading trade unionist these days is more likely to wear a suit and have a law degree than to have come off a building site.

You are almost certainly able to argue on the evidence that "Howards WC only accelerates something that started 25 years ago with financial deregulation and the opening up of our economy, coupled with workers comp and Super imposts on business".

But you would be acknowledging that it was the former head of the trade union movement - Prime Minister Hawke and his Treasurer Keating - who saw the need for those radical changes and convinced their union colleagues of the wisdom of the changes.

I'd be interested to know what specifically you would point to when you say, "Rudds proposed changes undo some of Keatings work".