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.