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.

Fractelle

A brickie who lays bricks at say 1000 per day would expect to be paid X for his/her efforts, however, how does this brickie feel when one who lays only 600 per day, for what ever reason, gets paid the same.

The answer is, the brickie who can't keep up is usually the last one to get a start. What is unfair about this? It's what is commonly known as 'horses for courses'. Much the same as if you put a brickie (and I'm generalising now) in an office and expect them to keep up.

As for the worker needing to meet their commitments, what the employee fails to see is what is actually behind the business that provides to opportunity for work.

Take retail for instance.

Because of changes to trading hours, which in turn has seen the shopper turn heavily towards to chain stores, the small retailers sales can vary up to 30% in any one day or week. How can a business operator plan for this? Answer, they can't, so this is one reason so many retail staff are employed on a casual basis. Another is the remnants of the unfair dismissal laws. Don't get me started there!

So in summary it appears that work choices was bad for the lower sector of the work force. Well skilled workers and hard workers seem to have been well looked after in recent years which makes me think that the people who hate work choices so much must be the ones who are either poorly skilled or don't want to work hard.

Furthermore, with the average mortgage being somewhere in the order of $300K, how do you possibly expect to service this debt on a 38hr week job.

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?
Fractelle,
I wonder how Olympians would feel about receiving a Silver medal for first place & a Gold for second place.
Seriously, the most fair system is reward for effort. It's only those on good money who usually complain about the cost of tradesmen. I remember this school teacher who found it outrageous that a mechanic should be on a higher hourly rate than he. When I explained to the schoolie that with his leave pay, his sick pay, his employer funded Super, his 11 weeks holidays, his study leaves etc. he actually earned more than the mechanic. The self employed mechanic had to pay work shop lease, power, insurances, freight, tools, machinery & wages. The schoolie just went quiet & walked away. Is it fair that someone in an airconditioned office should earn so much more for posting a letter than someone who works in grease & dirt. Yes, an educated person should earn more IF he/she contributes MORE than a less educated person. But, I draw the line when education is put on a pedestal for no reason whilst a tradesperson who produces much needed goods is deemed less of value.

rehtclub, I see your points about workchoices, but this phrase is in need of clarification. You state:

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

What's not to understand?

The growth was occurring due to the economic situation in Australia, which, as has been frequently pointed out, is being boosted by the resource sector.

Workchoices had very little to do with this unemployment situation. I'm sure if you observe graphs and unemployment rates, you'll find they were consistently dropping before workchoices entered the situation.

Then when they continued to drop, as the general trend had been showing regardless of workchoices, the government claimed that this was the factor causing it.

It may have helped. It may not have helped. I strongly suspect we would have had a very tight job market anyway. One thing I can say for certain is that while workchoices may have had a minor effect on lowering unemployment, this is like saying that adding a single bucket of water to a swimming pool increased the amount of water in it.

Actually, a more accurate analogy would be adding the bucket of water to the swimming pool while it was raining. Sure, the cup filled it some more. But wouldn't the rain have done that anyway?

What we have now, is a situation, pointed out by opposition treasurer Malcolm Turnbull, where regardless of whether or not we want to admit it, there is a relationship between the housing crisis, inflation and unemployment.

We want to have all three at optimal levels, but what people don't want to acknowledge is that there is a tradeoff.

And what is wrong with setting a liveable income as a base wage?
Fractelle,
There's nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is the huge amount of funding being handed out to people who do not contribute a fair %age in return in comparison to those who do.
For those who are unable to pull their weight through no fault of their own we should have a support system & afford them a liveable quality life.

There is nothing wrong with casual labour for the very reasons that you state, a fluctuation in sales and inability to be able to forecast. No-one is disputing this, and WorkChoices did not invent casual labour, it has always existed. There are some issues with casualisation of the workforce when it is not warranted like within some public service departments but that is more to do with creative accounting, but that is another story.

The increase in the number of jobs was nothing to do with WorkChoices and preceded its implementation. It was a resources boom which led to this increase and this is reflected in the fact that WA and QLD experienced the highest growth in jobs. Also the figures on how employment figures were calculated was a bit suspect when it came to light that even those working under 10 hours a week in a casual job were counted in 'full' employment statistics. Don't always believe the hype.

The minimum wage merely sets a minimum standard, employers have always been able to pay above this standard - this flexibility existed prior to WorkChoices. Minimum pay is just a safety net albeit not always (in some cases) constituting a 'living wage'.

Rehctub you say that hard workers and skilled workers have been looked after as though those in the lower income groups are not hard workers. For someone who is neutral on the issue you sound like a supporter. Did I misunderstand you?

Waitressing can be pretty hard work and the hospitality sector was one of the worst offenders under the new IR arrangements and many businesses chose to remove weekend penalty rates regardless of how hard their staff work.

I truly am amazed that some think workchoices gave us the near full employment we have.
Surely it is clear the mining boom did that?
And while wages are going up for those even servicing those industry's they are not doing it in others?
Workchoices saw casual Labour hire folk get truly shafted in construction.
I have put the figures out there on tens of work sites a casual worker same task same skills can get $550 a week less than the bloke along side him.
And if work choices stayed? in a falling economy? great pain for every one
It was little more than putting the burden on already low income workers .
For every well of worker two hard done by ones existed at the bottom of the heap.
However read Hockeys quote understand the man told lie after lie in defense of workchoices while in office Joe what price your honor mate?
The lost income for casuals is based on a 65 hour week and includes casual loading not paid on overtime, productivity not paid and much more.
No firm has not agreed with my figures it is a fact.
A cw3 casual with casual loading can be $3 an hour worse of in wages alone, than the full time worker same classification covered by an EBA.

Pelican you make reference to the fact that the hosp industry is worst hit.
Have you been to a restaurant on a public holiday?

Did you pay a surcharge?

If so, what do you think the surcharge is for?

Also, what other industries do you know that regularly receive tips for their efforts. Do we count these tips as wages, or do we simply choose to ignore them.

As for me being nutral, yes I do consider myself nutral to a degree. I also reward people on what they achieve. The minimum wage does not do this.

Dear Belly
Lets look at overtime and penalty rates.

If someone works 20hrs per week overtime the employer has to pay heaps extra yet the employee receives only a portion of this in their pay packet because of additional taxes.

What I would like to see is that all overtime and penalty time be paid at ordinary pay rates, including public holidays, saturdays and sundays but TAX FREE. This would ease the burden on employers and give the employee much the same in their pay packets. The extra money earned would be spent and in any event the government would get the GST.

*and many businesses chose to remove weekend penalty rates regardless of how hard their staff work.*

So Pelican, would you then agree, that if you go to a restaurant or
pub on the weekends, they would be quite justified in slugging you
with a 50% extra service charge, because its the weekend?

Well yes...I would pay the surcharge and have done so - not just in restaurants but with other services open on public holidays. I understand business is there to make money but employees have to earn a decent living.

Weekends are traditionally family time or non-work time. Penalty rates were introduced to ensure that this family time did not become just like any other day of the week. Penalty rates aided in reducing opportunities to exploit workers on the weekend just as paying more for overtime meant people were being rewarded for working above and beyond the normal expected hours. If they have to work under these conditions then there is reward.

Tips are not wages and in Australia tips are not as forthcoming as in the US where hospitality staff income is so low that they could not survive without tips.

It is interesting to note though that in those sectors where wages dropped there was no marked decrease in prices for the consumer and who knows if consumers were paying the surcharge regardless of whether the employer indeed paid their staff at the higher rates.

Rehctub I am not sure what you are saying about the minimum wage - we all agree that in general the minimum wage is TOO minimum but employers have always been able to pay above the minimum wage. WorkChoices did not change this. An employer CAN choose to pay more, it has always been so - award wages are not set in concrete.

No system is perfect that is for sure but it is about getting the balance as close as possible to fair for both parties.

People seem to forget that unions are just lobby groups in the same way that the Business Council of Australia, The National Farmers' Federation et al lobbies for the rights of their members.

rehctub you may be surprised but some time in the future we may see something like that.
It is time for the next step in IR but we should not over look how workchoices took over time rates away from those who needed them the most.
Remember a casual worker gets a loading to cover, public holidays, sick leave, annual leave, should we ask why then that cw3 casual got $550 a week less than the full time worker?
Why his/her loaded rate was so much lower than the full time worker?
Workchoices
It took the loading of over time, even if the only work he/she got that week was a Saturday and Sunday shift it was treated as unloaded overtime.
However for those who work overtime each week why not an all in higher rate of pay? for all hours worked?
It may be the future but it can not work for those who work only some over time.
Do you think any government would let us work tax free hours?
Remember for some it would see 30% of all income tax free, love it but unlikely.

Belly
I am sorry but I don't know what cw3 is but boy the full timers must be on a fortune if they are paid $550 per week over and above casual rates.

So was it work choices that was so bad or just some parts of it?

What is so wrong about 'paying peanuts for monkeys'?

Why should low skilled workers, or lazy workers for that matter get paid award wages when there are heaps of options out there for them to better themselves.

I remeber employing a handicapped fellow for cleaning duties through a special employment group. A great guy who got on well with the rest of the crew. This guy was delighted to have a job.

One problem, I was entitled to pay him 65% of the basic wage for a period of 26 weeks (they paid the difference) then if I kept him on I had to pay him full pay rates. I pleeded with them to allow him to work for me at 75% pay rates for as long as he worked for me but they refussed, so, rather than use up his 26 week allowance I terminated his employment so he may get employment in a more suitable workplace. He was devistated but the truth was he quite simply was not worth full wages. Not his fault, nor mine. At that time, around 1996, there was a minimum wage in place.

One more point. Please note that all of my employees are paid either the award rate or higher and quite frankly they would leave should I try to cut their pay. Not all of them are qualified either!

rehctub maybe your understanding of the subject is not as good as it could be, no offense meant but horses for courses Friend.
cw3, a wages classification structure exists in most jobs, a skills matrix.
CW3 is mid way up the ladder ,the most used step in construction.
Construction even under workchoices operated under EBAs enterprise Bargaining Agreements , almost every major construction firm , most international, offered to put one in place for 3 to 5 years before workchoices first impact.
Non wanted the first workchoices agreement around their neck.
Labour hire , casual worker suppliers did not sign EBAs they took to workchoices as a Friend.
Wages and work conditions fell through the floor.
The $550 dollars is true it represents the real difference for those hours worked.
Mostly it while reducing costs for labour fails, good workers move on ASAP and casuals stay only as long as they must.
Unions, good unions get jobs for casuals with the highest paying firms.
See the idea it is open war between unions and bosses is blind stupid, truth is good unions and good bosses have a lot in common.
workchoices? we had the debate it is dead todays leader of the conservatives has 7% support yet with out workchoices that leader may have been Prime Minister John Howard.

rehctub

Not all employers are like you though.

Your comment: "Why should low skilled workers, or lazy workers for that matter get paid award wages when there are heaps of options out there for them to better themselves."

Why should low skilled workers be penalised for doing work that most people don't want to do like cleaning, manual labour? We have to accept that we need people in these roles and just because they are low skilled does not mean they don't deserve a safety net like award wages. We should be encouraging people to work and an award wage ensures that people are not exploited just because they might lack and education, or are unable to 'better themselves' for various reasons (like family commitments) or they might like what they do despite the lack of pay.

A friend of mine who works for an NGO could earn a lot more in the public service but he loves his job and feels he is contributing more by working in this field. Not everyone has to be a go-getter some older people are downshifting because of work-life balance reasons.

WorkChoices also made it easier for unscrupulous employers to exploit foreign workers on 457 Visas.

Workers continue to be hurt by WorkChoices
Since the election thousands more Australian workers have continued to be hurt by WorkChoices. While the Coalition’s unfair laws remain in place there are still employers that are using them to cut workers’ pay and conditions, to dismiss people unfairly and to deny workers the right to bargain collectively. Many employers are still using WorkChoices to push workers onto unfair AWAs. One recent case
involves 170 workers at a well-known airport valet parking service who were sacked and then offered their jobs back on an AWA that cut their pay by up to $300 a week.This is an insult to the Australian
people who voted overwhelmingly to reject WorkChoices at last year’s election. New figures released by the Government confirm that hundreds of thousands of Australian workers lost pay and conditions under
WorkChoices AWAs: 70%lost shift work loadings, 68%lost annual leave loadings and 65%lost penalty rates.

True however we should understand why we live still with workchoices.
When the bill passed the lower house the conservative controlled senate sent it to committee, yes they say they will pass it.
But it must go to the committee first, time will pass before AWAs can no longer be signed.
I like to think I am not radical or extremist, such things repel me.
But consider this please.
For the last month a worker has asked me to get his 3 plus Weeks holiday pay, and last twelve months superannuation.
[It is far harder to retrieve unpaid super than you think]
His boss far from broke tells me his agreement said you had to work the full 12 months or no holiday pay?
He claims that passed the no disadvantage test? surely it could not?
He admits he owes super but says he will pay it when he is ready? tells me to my face he knows the tax office takes its time about acting and he will pay before they act!
Now I think time has come for both sides of politics to get this act passed to give us a level playing Field in IR restore the balance.
If we wait much longer unions must consider are radical actions the only way to be heard?
I truly hope not believe not but fair go mate must have a life in our IR laws.

ASymeonakis,
Thats a surprising comment coming from you Antonio. I thought you were wanting to bring more migrant into Australia.

Without people having their own agreements and or using the GATS your never going to acheive that.

You must realize not all people wanting to come to Australia wish to stay.
They have homes and familes back in their own countries and many times they are only wanting to come here because they are paid ten times pluss to what they earn back home.

With pressure from some unions it has totally bloked skilled workers coming in.

The 457 vias that were blocked totally to one particular group of workers ought to be a very good example as to why people should be able to choose.= to join a union or to enter into any agreement they wish
Not all people want someone else setting their wages for them'
many of us do far better on our own.

Either way it should be each persons right to choose.

Belly you may find that the worker you are referring to was not entitled to leave loading, which is the case if you leave your job without completing 12 months service. I seriously doubt there would be no holiday pay however if this is the case I would suggest they take this matter further as this gives all employers a bad name.

There has also been the mention of low paid unskilled workers. Did you know that in many cases cleaners and alike get paid better than some trades people. How is this fair?

You see what I feel should happen with borderline cases is that the employer pays say 85% of the wage and the gov tips in the rest. Of course the alternative would be that the low skilled go on the dole as is often the case.

Unfortunately there is no such thing as 'Fair Balance'

I have been an employer for almost 20 years which puts me before unfair dismissal laws.

Prior to these laws the employers did pretty much what they liked and the worker had to cop it on the chin until they found a better job. NOT FAIR, I agree.

Then we saw unfair dismissal. What a disaster. This then tipped the scale completely in the opp direction.

Now we have work choices which from the feed back has obviously tipped the scale back the other way although I must admit that it is only the bottom who suffer as well skilled workers don't put up with that crap.

My greatest fear in all this is that our mining companies turn their backs on us and the wheels fall off. Then we will have something to complain about.

We have to get this debate on track rehctub, what value do you think I would get in lieing?
I want you to understand I am no lie teller I indeed am a trade union official.
My pride and purpose in life is to serve my members with fairness, while earning the respect of people like you, employers, if it is possible to do both.
For this boss, for hundreds of such bosses it is not possible, HE IS REFUSING TO PAY HOLIDAY PAY!
You need to understand most construction workers traded away leave loading long ago.
And that human nature rules not dreams, some bosses are products of unwed parents, rehctub some workers are too.
Mate some unions are worse.
BALANCE
workchoices had none.
It gave some very real grubs unfair advantage
Do you know some of the worst labour hire firms , miss using workers the most, are owned by ex union officials?
Ex radical extremist union officials?
I have sat at the table with the other side this last month heard a man who helped draft workchoices and who runs our biggest construction giant.
He actually proposes massive cuts in worker incomes to bring down the price of construction.
So this country can grow he says.
What worker grow poor rich grow richer?
Good workers and good bosses are not rare we should understand warfare is not always the answer bad bosses like bad workers are your problem and mine.

Belly
At no stage did I refer to you as a lier. Can't see where you got this from, I simply stated that the worker you referred to may have been mistaken.

Now let's look at the construction industry.
How do the workers justify the pay rates they commonly receive.
Brickies $800 per day
Concrete rs $400 per day
Plasterers $500 per day

Solicitor & doctors $200 per day.

The construction workers (in many cases) are grossly over paid and that is a fact.

This was hurting the unions but hey dont worry labor is now backing nsw power sell off and the latest is cutting carers payments.

Workchoices isnt the problem.

Labor was incompetent in oposition and now in power have already started taking jobs and putting people further on the bottom of the heap.

Stuart Ulrich

Dear People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming
I want more migrants in Australia but not as slaves. I want them with same conditions, same payments as Australian labors. The working conditions for migrants under the 457 visas was as modern-day slavery, "They was treated as lesser citizens.". No I do not want this kind of migration, I respect and care for migrant's rights. I said you many times that you can not understand me. I am with labors side, with victim's side. I am fair person.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Tapp, Stu, can I ask you to think about your post?
You started a thread highlighting your views, I stayed away from it.
You came to another thread before this another subject to post what can only be called a taunt.
Now why not stay with your thread? this is a different subject not truly related to your posts.
I Stu do not look to you for rational debate, share none of your ideas, if you wish I will leave the thread to avoid you or maybe you could post on the subject matter workchoices?
rehctub you speak of another part of the construction industry I work in civil construction.
Pays are what an employer pays but is that pay your own super, holidays insurance? is it contractor rates?
I did not say you called me a lie,er in fact we have debated well from different sides of the fence but I am heated about that dreadful boss!
And wanted to underline my truly held belief ,mantra in fact, honesty in IR matters lies are a weakness and my story is true.

Belly, this was my original post, Belly you may find that the worker you are referring to was not entitled to leave loading, which is the case if you leave your job without completing 12 months service. I seriously doubt there would be no holiday pay however if this is the case I would suggest they take this matter further as this gives all employers a bad name.

I don't see how this has in any way betrayed me as calling you a lier. Perhaps we leave this part alone as I appreciate and respect your feedback as it is quite a change to correspond with someone who refrains from insults as is often the case in these debates. In fact, there has been none of this throughout this debate and, considering the topic that is great. Thank you all!

Back to the topic
There are obviously some serious issues with work choices however having been involved in my industry as a manager and employer for 25 years I have come to the conclusion that there is no middle ground and that's a shame

Rehctub,I agree with most of your opinions,but don't forget that this site is frequented by those who are not involved in small business/self employed.Most who post on this site are employed by the Govt and they expect the real world to be an extention of their childhood.If mum or dad cannot provide,therefore the state must be a surrogate parent,hence the need for higher taxes.

rehctub I hope you do not fall into the trap of not reading each post fully.
I find you an interesting person and your threads too, but the middle ground you seek is called understanding.
arjay wrongly infers public servants haunt these pages , search my post history, you will find I once worked for a money wasting government group , and have no faith in such, yet I am on the opposite site of Ajay's fence.
Workchoices may not have intruded on your business it did in most.
That holiday loading so you will understand was mostly traded away long before workchoices in most industry's.
Firms even public owned ones came to the EBA table with removing it on the wish list.
It was traded of for a small wage rise , that rise was paid all hours worked including overtime.
It was paid on holidays and superannuation, both sides liked it, remember it was the bosses wish.
Workchoices had minimum effect , usually none on state government public service jobs so why arjay posted that is beyond me it too is not related to the subject.
You say in a post above bad bosses give every one a bad name, just not true, some great bosses far more than you think refused to use workchoices , stayed with negotiated deals and those bosses are still about.
Such bosses often believe me often ring unions and ask us to come to jobs we did not know existed to give advice about wages.

Arjay: "Most who post on this site are employed by the Govt..."

How do you know this, Arjay? I'm a small business owner who employs people, and I thought 'work choices' was a crock from the time the Rodent government rammed the legislation through.

'Work choices' failed and was rejected by the electorate simply because it was an ideologically driven attack on workers, conducted on behalf of big business by their puppet regime. Fortunately and inevitably, it backfired on them once the reality of 'worse choices' to individual workers outweighed the Rodent's rhetoric.

Good riddance to the Howard regime and 'work choices'.

Apart for two posts that while not related to the threads subject seemed to talk of personal pain and anger the thread did well.
Pointless to again say why divert threads but I think it ended well C J Morgan said it all.
My life has not stood still I too was once an employer a long time ago.
5 full time workers and 4 self employed contractors all got well paid none ever left.
Insults often talk of an inner feeling of defeat from the person who posts them, but to claim we are all public servants?
Thanks rehctub a good thread.

Yes I agree, a well debated post and it is obvious that work choices could have and should have been better structured.

Interesting though is that little is said about sporting people and their respective pays.

Player 1 gets $500K per season while player 2 can't make first grade, can't find a manager and ends up on the scrap heap.

Nothing to do with work choices but is this unfair because player 2 didn't have a manager (union boss) to bat for him/her or is it a simple case of 'horses for courses'?

Food for thought hey!

It is indeed of subject rehctub but most sports men with any promise have managers haunting them to sign up.
And unions only represent one in 5 workers.
However last if Rudd keeps his promises, I think he will, we will have a national IR system that all can live with in a few years.
I offer this thought, if the survivors of Howard's lemming like last term could go back to day one of workchoices it would have been killed at birth.
Thanks for the thread well done.

Work choices is not perfect, neither was unfair dismissal.
If we had work choices before unfair dismissal then Qld Health wouldn't be such a disaster because none of the deadwood would have come through the ranks even with the aid of the unions.
I wonder if there is a union delegate on this forum who could answer this question. On what grounds are deadwood kept & on why do we have a code of conduct when people are persecuted for adhering to the code of conduct. Maybe I'm just ignorant but I just can't understand why incompetent bureaucrats enjoy so much union protection. When I joined the union I did it because I was made to believe it was there for the people.