What is it that has made so many people furious about work choices.

In the past few years we have seen record wages paid, record employment created and minimal disruption to work sites as a result of 'stop-work' meetings. Yet, so many people are so infuriated by work choices.

Having been sefl employed for the best part of 20 years and as a result having employed many staff over this period,I have seen many a system come and go over my time. Some of which have worked and some that have not.

What I have whitnessed in the past two or so years is the tightening of the labor market and the ease to which employees can find alternative work if they are not happy with their current employment.

My understanding of work choices is that the minimum wage is quite low, for unskilled workers, but allows for the rewarding of high performing employees without the interference of unions and alike. This is evident by the wages being paid for trades personel.

Brick layers are being paid upwards of $800 per day. Plasterers $500 per day, eletricians $35 per hour as emplyees.

Law firms commonly charge $400 per hour for solicitors and $250 per hour for senior clerk staff.

If work choices was so bad how then did we get to a stage where we see these levels of wages being paid and the rewcord low unemployment rates we are currently experiencing.

I am niether a supporter or knocker of work choices as I have always rewarded my staff on their efforts and abbilities and I am firm believer that over regulation of the work industry leads to the protection of lazy, low performing staff who, by their very actions lower the standards for productivity within the workplace.

So I ask anyone out there to explain to me what was so bad about work choices. And please don't quote extracts from the pollies.

The work choice is against the Union movement and of cause against the minimum standard.
1. The work choice has created huge problems to migrants as it lowers the minimum standards and migrants are not enough strong to claim their rights.
2. The work choice has created huge problems to women, especially the sole mothers as it lowers the minimum standards and sole mothers or sole parents generally are not enough strong to claim their rights.
3. The work choice has created huge problems to older employees, after 55-60 as it lowers the minimum standards and they are not enough strong to claim their rights as they know if they lose their job it will not be easy to find an other one.
4. The work choice has created huge problems to young employees as it lowers the minimum standards and young people are not enough strong to claim their rights.
The work choice has given so much power to employers, if they use it they could create huge problems to employee's life.
Employees want to plan their life, they want to enjoy their life on their free time, the work choice has created huge uncertainties on employees, and high stress.
For employees the work choice seems like a big monster which threatens their standard and leave them in high degree without Union's protection.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

I could write one thousand posts telling why work choices was so bad.
And not scratch the surface.
Former salesmen for the dreadful thing now say most who passed it did not know it reduced wages and conditions of workers.
If you read my posting history you will surely find I try to have balance and understanding of IR issues.
Workchoices was a grubby over reaction to some radical grubby actions of some unionists.
While those at the top of the tree survived mostly unscathed the bottom felt the pain from day one.
It took sons and daughters rights at work away, it took the wifes who worked to pay house loans rights away.
It was crafted to do so, to destroy unions not knowing even non unionists understood even for those who are not in unions pay standards are set ,even minimum wages by unions.
Bur while we are free to remember workchoices we will never see such a betrayal in this country again, this mornings polls say loudly and clearly it was a failure.

In a nutshell, WorkChoices was bad because it tipped the balance of power wholly to the employer and away from those who have least negotiating power - the employee. This was despite the pretence and facade that AWAs, for example would allow 'flexible' working arrangements.

It was the Coalition government's bias in serving the interests of business over the interest of workers by devaluing the role of unions. A fair system would ensure a balance between the rights of workers and the rights of business.

Employees' pay and conditions were at the mercy of the goodwill of the employer. Where the employer was fair like rehctub, this was fine, but as recent history has already shown, this was not the case for most working in lower income groups ie. those who could least afford a drop in pay.

In some industries like mining and IT, workers benefitted by flexible arrangements and were able to secure higher pay and other conditions where their specialist skills were in demand. You cannot compare industries like this with the lower paid sectors such as hospitality, retail, unskilled labouring (to some extent). Workers on lower incomes faced a real reduction in wages due to loss of penalty rates and shift allowances such as the case with Spotlight and Darrell Lea (who relented after media and public outrage).

Former DEWR Minister Joe Hockey on a Four Corners report acknowledged that some of his own Ministerial colleagues were not aware that WorkChoices allowed loss of penalty rates. Unbelievable but true if one accepts this line.

AWAs were in the main not individual agreements that were worked out between employers and employees after roundtable discussions. They were in the main uniform and blanket contracts which were identical and which reduced pay (abolishment of penalty rates).

There is not enough room as Bellys says, there is a whole thesis worth of arguments against WorkChoices.

OK so I get your points about work choices and please understand that I am neither a supporter nor opponent of work choices.

What I can't understand is the huge growth rates of employment experienced while work choices was in place.

Now to your comments on the lowering of minimum wages under work choices.

A butchers base rate (QLD) is around $16 per hour. Very few get paid this amount as they quite simply would not work for this. Interesting though is the fact that the ones that do get paid this amount are paid so due to their lack of skills within the industry. I ask you, What is wrong about that?

I also feel that our skill shortage is partly due to the fact that unskilled workers, in many cases, are paid higher wages than trades people. Traffic controllers are a prime example.

You see when a minimum wage is set within an industry, it leaves very little room for negotiation between poor workers and outstanding workers because once a poor worker finds out about it they take it to the union and all of a sudden the employer is under scrutiny for being what is considered 'unfair treatment of employees'.

I have always believed that you should be paid for the work you achieve rather than how long it takes to achieve the work, which in most cases is the case today.

As for the comments about equal pay for women and men, there is no reason in the world why women should be paid less than men provided they perform the same task, carry the same responsibilities and work under the same conditions. It is just that most women that feed this argument want it both ways.

They can't on one hand ask for equal pay while on the other be allowed to carry less, play only three sets of tennis or get a head start in a game of golf.

Equal pay for equal work. There would be no argument from me!

rehctub

Not all men have the same level of physical strength. For example, on a construction site are you suggesting that the brickie who can lift the most bricks get a higher rate than those who haul less?

They all work the same hours in the same conditions on the same job, but if some men are shorter, less strong than others I guess you believe that they should receive less pay.

And what is wrong with setting a liveable income as a base wage? Everyone pays rent or mortgage, buys food, clothing, transport - why should some people be paid what is not much more than slave labour? Where they need to work 2 or 3 jobs just to keep a roof over their heads? I'm not talking plasma TV's, just the basic necessities and a little cash left over for a night at the movies. Too much work and no play leads to much resentment.

A good employee can always negotiate a better deal, but there has to be a minimum standard, just as there is in many things - standards for construction, roads, drainage, electrical wiring. If we achieve a higher standard than the basic - all to the good and there should be incentives for this like; bonus, pay rise, shares, all these things can be negotiated.

What work choices did was eliminate incentive AND choice.

Beware of any thing that has to call itself 'fair' or 'freedom' or 'choice' or 'equal' - I've observed that many systems with these names as part of their titles rarely are anything of the sort.