So today, or midnight to be exact we will see the end of any new work place agreements.

Have the supporters of these new laws really thought of the possible consequences that may follow or did they, like many others, vote for a change just for the hell of it.

You see many people who were previously deemed to be 'almost unemployable' were happily going about their new jobs in the knowledge that at least they were contributing now which among many things gave them a sense of self satisfaction and a feeling of belonging to the community.

As I have stated before I do not employ anyone on a 'below minimum wage' but I hold grave fears for these poor soles as rather than going off to work, as usual, they may well now see themselves once again going off to the local centre link office.

I just hope that if they do loose their jobs because of the changes, that you people who lobbied so hard for their 'well being' can share some of their anguish as they try to cope on much less than the $500 a week they were used to when they receive their pittance in the form of a dole cheque.

Remember one very critical fact. Many of these people are almost unemployable when compared to normal every day workers. And many of them were happy!

In anticipation to the backlash I may receive, I should elaborate on this topic a bit.

You see many people on minimum wages, or what used to be, were on the brink of being unemployable and if not for the wage rates negotiated through workplace agreements they may well have been unemployed.

Within my industry (the retail side) we rely on mainly skilled staff, they being either trade’s people or well groomed counter staff. Neither of which will work for low wages and nor should they in my view as they are ‘skilled’.

However, when it comes down to loading boxes onto shelves or strapping cartons as examples, both require very little skill hence the low wages that have been paid.

You see as a business owner one has to decide whether they employ staff for the menial jobs or upgrade the plant with a view to minimising staff.

My fear from all of this is that the business owner may well not have to make this choice as the new laws, aimed at protecting these near unemployable’s may well have made their decision for them.

I guess only time will tell, but try telling this to the poor soles who loose their jobs, often the only job they could get, due to the interference from outsiders, of whom many were unaffected personally by the workplace agreements they fought so hard to have abolished.

I remember a time, not to long ago, when we had 10% unemployment, zero growth and 19% interest rates.

I dread the thought of this reoccurring but at least I will have no blood on my hands I can tell you.

With respect you do think of Australian Workplace Agreements surely.
Other workplace agreements remain such as enterprise bargaining and common law contracts.
Even awards remain, the world you speak of is a past world, those unskilled lucky to have a job have options they never had once.
Men and Women hold those lolly pops controlling traffic for $21.80 an hour now.
Unskilled farm breed lads are being trained on construction sites an receiving up to $9 an hour more.
Yes it has been thought out, can you think it would not be?
By 2010 a new nation wide system will be in place, a fairness returned to the system.
It was workchoices nothing else that gave birth to the need for a better fairer way.
Rehctub do you think under skilled workers should fuel the economy by being paid lower wages?
Do you think we should follow America, a great country but one that pays a minimum wage to so many who must take food handouts to live?
Is humanity one or can a worker who has only his time and efforts to sell ask for a living wage?

Belly
Unskilled workers are just that. Unskilled!

Of cause I don't think these people should be kept below the poverty line, BUT, nor should the employers have to shoulder the burden.

Let's face it, it is either a low paid job or nothing for many of these people.

What I feel should happen is that the government should subsidise these unskilled workers so that employers can afford to employ them. After all, it is either this or the dole.

In any case they get hand out after hand out. Rent assistance, free medical, family assistance, health care cards, wow what I wouldn't give for one of those babies.

$21.50/hr for lollypop holders. Now there's your problem in a nutshell.

A trade within the food industry pays much less than this and this is where the employee has completed an apprenticeship in many cases.

I bet a lollypop holder in the US gets stuff all, and so they should. More on the Us later.

Now as for the US. Wait staff are a prime example. They get paid very little because they are ‘unskilled’; yet, good wait staff makes very good money from tips, why, because they are good at their job. Now what is wrong with that?

You see in the US if you have a trade you will be well off. If you are a lawyer or a doctor you will be loaded. If you are unskilled you will struggle.

I don't see a problem with this.

Also in the US I believe you only get so much in welfare within your lifetime and THATS IT!

Butcher (how's that?); you are really obsessed with the 'unskilled'. They seem to be lower than vermin to you!

The matter under discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with skilled or unskilled.

It has EVERYTHING to do with: 'a fair day's work for a fair day's pay'.

The so-called unskilled worker, still WORKS the hours of his contract of employ. He/she is entitled to be paid fairly for that.

You appear to be equating unskilled with undeserved. Those with a lack of skills DO work. You seem to see them as lazy, or certainly 'less than'.

You have asserted that you pay your workers fairly..?; I fail to see what you are concerned about if that is the case..

Perhaps you should leave it to other employers to decide for themselves how they treat their workers;-particularly if those employers DO see workers as WORKERS;-skilled or unskilled.

rehctub,

What on earth are you on about? The scrapping of Work Place Agreements will affect only unskilled workers? If that is your honest conclusion then it seems it's you who are out of touch. And I fully agree with Ginx in that you seem to regard unskilled workers in any case as "other".

All of your posts seem to suggest that you have no - or very little - idea of who the Agreements affected and how they affected them. I therefore find it somewhat ironic that you cast a blanket aspersion of those who fought so hard against Work Place Agreements as being those not affected by them or knowing little about them. Geez, some of those who spoke out against them were fighting for their very lives.

I think the best kinds of employers are those who are in touch with their workers and are familiar with the lives that they lead. As for that wild statement about how many other benefits those on the lowest strata receive and how you would love to be in receipt of a medical card? I'm sure any time you wanted to walk in the moccasins of anyone living the kind of life that necessitated such measures they would be only too happy to change places with you.

And, just a tip: equating unskilled workers with morons is not likely to help you win friends and influence people.

Take a deep breath please Ginx, you have much to contribute but the anger is not part of it.
Not hard to know rehctub was butcher back to front and not hard to see you are concerned at your wages costs.
Do not however let your concerns about social welfare mixed yup with low skilled or paid workers.
I left school at 12 years and ten months, to work full time, unskilled, barely able to read unable to write, some say nothing has changed.
I burnt charcoal, loaded trucks with bagged spuds yes ran in and out of butcher shops with meat by products.
I never left a job the boss did not ask me to stay in, and I was always low income, my skills improved faster than my wages.
Unskilled? skilled enough to work in a job no one wants but not enough to eat well?
Not enough to ever buy a home? trade off? why? with current levels of employment a worker with drive or help can get his foot on that ladder,starting from ground get in just years the skills to drive a huge truck in a mine and earn $100.000 a year.
My lolly pop men and women are in danger every second, the factory floor is a road cars wiz past inch's away at mad speeds they get no sick leave no annual leave no public holidays.
They earn those wages and some spend them in your butcher shop,
I am forever grateful we no longer have a federal government who forgot Aussie battlers are human beings.

I have a problem with the terms skilled & unskilled. I know many people who have no trade or academic background & yet they are the ones who contribute enormously by performing so-called "menial tasks". I also have experienced the insulting & abysmal performance of those who have "the papers". The past 30 years there has been this emphasis on education but this has not produced the result needed. It has only produced a folly portrayal. Can someone explain why so many people with their exceptional resumés (witten by someone else) are unable to live up to their resumé ?
Many T.A.F.E certificates are handed out based purely on the recipient's competence "at the time of completion" of training. Now that fills every employer with confidence. Well, it doesn't appear to worry the largest employer in the country, the Public Service. Just imagine if the public Service was dependent on performance & competence. There would be an unbelieveable shortage of applicants.

With all due respect you are missing my point.

I do not hate unskilled workers nor do I think they don't deserve to be paid, however, if you read my post you will note that I feel the government should share the burden with regards to wages because if they loose their jobs the government (or tax payers) will have to pay them the dole anyway.

You people just don't see the big picture.

If big business stops employing we will all suffer. Skilled or unskilled alike.

By the way. From your post I assume you are mostly labor supporters.
I wonder how the aged feel now having been put through hell only to find that they government has given 165million to Iraq

Rehctub

"If big business stops employing we will all suffer."

If business (does it have to be big?) stops employing, then it is out of business.

Refusing to pay a basic liveable wage to workers is tantamount to business being subsidised by workers. If a business can't work out its costs and profits to the level that it cannot pay a liveable income, then it doesn't deserve to be in business.

AWA's eliminated a range of basic rights to workers of all levels, but particularly those in menial jobs.

Everyone has a right to a roof over one's head and food on the table, if people are working in conditions that mean they cannot afford basic necessities, then those workers are being exploited to the benefit of the employer.

How do you justify the exorbitant salaries pulled in by executive staff, when low level workers (the people who actually produce the service or product) can't even pay for rent? A little less greed from the top and everyone would benefit.

"Take a deep breath please Ginx, you have much to contribute but the anger is not part of it." (Quote:Belly)

Don't patronize me Bellers, there's a good boy. I know I knocked your schnozzle out of joint because you took a shot at me whilst purporting to be my 'friend';- but you are flogging your resentment to death here.
I don't need lessons in behaviour from someone who bobs and weaves around another poster to show the capacity to 'get on' with him, when you are clearly at opposite ends of the scale from Butcher. You prove nothing, but it is amusing to see!

Now;.. you and I can get bogged down in your petty shots, and my response to them, OR we can discuss the topic?

It's up to you.

(Btw:-you are NOT Butcher's PR.man; he is clearly able to take care of himself, so speak for yourself,-not him!)
______________________

"You people just don't see the big picture." (Quote:Butcher).

Well know...,that one is squarely in the eye of the beer holder isn't it? From my vantage point it is YOU who are failing to see the bigger picture.

You seem to see a contract of employ only from how it affects you. Conditions of employ are the domain of ALL employer/employee's.

Thankfully all of them do not think like you, and thankfully the exploitation of workers is now not as easy as it was under the Howard Regime.

rehctub: "if you read my post you will note that I feel the government should share the burden with regards to wages because if they loose their jobs the government (or tax payers) will have to pay them the dole anyway."

So rehctub is really chasing a government subsidy to cover the difference between what he wants to pay 'unskilled' workers and the minimum wage. I'm always amused when so-called business people seek to suck off the public teat in order, ultimately to increase their profits.

If my business couldn't sustain its lowest paid workers at an agreed minimum award rate, then I'd have to look seriously at whether I should be in business at all.

So rehctub is really chasing a government subsidy to cover the difference between what he wants to pay 'unskilled' workers and the minimum wage. I'm always amused when so-called business people seek to suck off the public teat in order, ultimately to increase their profits.

So here we go again hey. Just can't refrain from personal attacks, can we!

I don't employ low paid workers, 'GET IT!

Our rencent boom is driven by the mines.

They adopt and both parties enjoy AWA's. So why change this?

Can't you people see that many people today have jobs because the mines have taken many of the workers away from main stream employment.

Have you had a tradesman at your place recently whom you consider 'not real bright'. This is becasue the mines have taken so many away and the ones who couldn't get work before now have it coming on strong and fast.

Upset the mining industry and all of a sudden the missing tradesman come back to main stream and the 'less favourable' loose their jobs.

Go back 10 years, see how many sparkies, chippies, plumbers and alike were out of work.

Anyway, I have hit a nerve so as to say and feel it is better we sit back and watch what happens in the next years.

Don't worry, I am not a bad person and will be the first to admit if I am wrong.

A lot to answer rehctub understand please no dream just fact if returned the Howard government had NO PLANS to continue paying careers and pensioners bonuses, zero intent to do so.
Labor was wrong in holding of its plan to include the bonus as a yearly increase not add on, lies and better managed campaign let the conservatives by pass their intent while blaming Labor for a crime it never committed.
Ginx? get well be nice if you can.
Government subsidized wages? why ?
The task workers do is needed or they would not have a job, right now like it or not almost any one can get a job so just maybe workers are in demand?
No disrespect rehctub if I caped your prices would it concern you?

Rehctub,
Just wanted you to know I have no problem with your post. If it came across like criticism, well, it wasn't meant that way. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that especially the pretend intellectual elitist club of Australia is forever pushing the agenda that academic education & only academic education is the key to it all. It ain't. There are many, many not-so-academically educated who more than pull their weight in the functioning of our economy. Can only say that of a few accies. The problem with the wages structure is that it is designed to fleece the guy who is physically working his guts out & hopefully is so worn out that he'll keel over 18 months into the pathetic pension so that all his contributions can then be directed to the non-deserving. I & my co-workers have to constantly rectify & make things actually work which were designed by highly educated & highly paid engineers & approved by some highly paid moron bureaucrat. Of course there are competent academics & bureaucrats, there's at least 1 in every 500.

Likewise Belly. OCD is difficult to cope with I hear. Once you can curb your obsessive need for petty shots, you can get back to the topic.

Get some medication you petty little man.

individual has highlighted a problem we should all consider.
The written word can sometimes say things we never intended it to, for those like me who had no basic education in such it often does.
I do not always need to verbally destroy my debating opponent.
Have nothing but respect for rehctub but differ on many points.
I am a product of my life's experiences, think as life tough me.
Now Ginx, you have ran free in every thread without censorship I ask for the same freedom in this our last conversation.
You have insulted some one in every thread I have ever found you in now it is my turn.
I have no mental health issues sometimes we must look to ourselves before we point at others, honestly wish you well in your battle but beg you to consider your constant uncontrolled anger, bad manners and need to insult good by from me Ginx.
The thread opens up interesting points questions rehctub asked, should governments[us really] give trade offs for increase,s in the minimum wage?
And that reminder from individual of highly paid engineers who are in some cases the most wrongly skilled or under skilled people in the workforce.
Do we pay on skills?

rehctub: "So here we go again hey. Just can't refrain from personal attacks, can we!

I don't employ low paid workers, 'GET IT!"

It wasn't a personal attack, rehctub - I just think it's a bit rich for you to be wanting the government to subsidise your unskilled employees' wages. You say you don't pay minimum wages, then say you "feel the government should share the burden with regards to wages".

Like I said, if I couldn't pay decent wages to my employees (without needing a government subsidy) I'd have to look seriously at whether I should remain in business.

It wasn't a personal attack, rehctub - I just think it's a bit rich for you to be wanting the government to subsidise your unskilled employees' wages.

Dear CJ
With the greatest of respect I think you 'Just Don't Get It'. It is not me who wants government’s help as I don't employ any of these low paid workers, I simply fear for their survival in the future as there are little incentives for employers (NOT ME) to employ them when they have to be paid a minimum wage without assistance.

You see once a minimum wage is set an employer (NOT ME) has little choice other than to keep sifting through the workers until they find one who is what they consider as 'value for money'. This is where unfair dismissal plays a part as it becomes difficult to pick and choose the employees without interference. After all, the employees can pick and choose their place of work, so why shouldn't the employer have the same rights as such when it comes to picking their staff?

Ever wondered why some people are classed as ‘long term unemployed’. It’s because often they are unemployable or rather, ‘not value for money’ employees when the employer has to pay a minimum wage.

You will no doubt agree with 'a fair days pay for a fair days work' and who wouldn't. Well how about a 'fair days work for that fair days pay', or doesn't this apply?

You see once you set a minimum wage you then have the situation whereby often workers get paid for the time it takes to do the job rather than for the job they do.

How often do you see someone go to work and finish yesterdays work before they start today’s. But hang-on, haven't they already been paid for yesterdays work. Or is this somehow different?

continued

Continued
On the other hand, If you are one who sees nothing wrong when there are three people supervising a 'hole dig' at a job site, all on good money and doing absolutely nothing, then we should agree to disagree and move on as we have nothing in common.

It is work practices like these that have helped fuel the ever increasing costs we bear during our every day lives as employment costs are simply added to the cost of the job when completed and passed on.

As long as there is a set minimum hourly wage, without regard to productivity then we will never have a fair system and, without government support, the low achieving workers, often through no fault of their own at times, will find themselves at the bottom of the scrap heap and I feel this is a crying shame because a little assistance from the governments could make all the difference to the situation and their self esteem.

"Now Ginx, you have ran free in every thread without censorship I ask for the same freedom in this our last conversation.
You have insulted some one in every thread I have ever found you in now it is my turn.
I have no mental health issues sometimes we must look to ourselves before we point at others, honestly wish you well in your battle but beg you to consider your constant uncontrolled anger, bad manners and need to insult good by from me Ginx."

Posted by Belly, Monday, 31 March 2008 6:39:02 AM
_____________________________

THAT is what I mean by petty!

If you keep sniping, and that IS your habit when you get offended;-I WILL respond.

Can I remind you that YOU chose to make a sniping remark when I wasn't even addressing you! You finally use the spineless tactic of pointing out my terrible sins on the forum!!

Of course, NO ONE on OLO has EVER insulted anyone else...have they?

(....it's OK. when it's the boy's club isn't it?)

You have passed considerable views on me. I called you petty. You are. But now I'll elaborate: you are one of those silly types who think you can insult with impunity if you couch your words in 'friendship' and 'honesty'. And then you get offended at the negative reaction!

Glod spare me the sugar-coated personality!

You will no doubt agree with 'a fair days pay for a fair days work' and who wouldn't. Well how about a 'fair days work for that fair days pay', or doesn't this apply?
Rehctub,
This is exactly my point. Reward for effort not reward for just being there. I have no objection to someone (I wish I could) getting good academic qualifications but, if this qualification is not in demand then what's the good of it ? It's like art. If your art is good then you make a living from it. Should be as simple as that. Right ? Wrong ! If you're not good enough to sell your stuff then you hit onto the government for a grant. I wonder if a "menial task" worker can hit onto the Government for a grant because he has no talent to use a shovel. There needs to be a balance in the pay rates according to usefulness & not uselessness. I mean on one hand a consultant can demand as much as he likes for a pointless idea whereas a labourer has to work phyisically hard for peanuts to make the consultant's pointless idea a workable outcome.

Long term unemployed may well be a different problem for a different thread rehctub.
Some will feel confronted by my view but many who are such do not want a job.
A very long time ago it was said the idea of minimum wages would bankrupt employers.
It was wrong then it is wrong now, we are not broken by fuel prices over twice what they had been ten years ago and wages increases will not get near that.
Let me assure you skills do have nothing to do with work out comes we would return more to the economy if we controlled CEO wages than the already poor.

Individual, your comment…
I wonder if a "menial task" worker can hit onto the Government for a grant because he has no talent to use a shovel.

Well yes, it’s called the dole!

Your next comment…
There needs to be a balance in the pay rates according to usefulness & not uselessness. I mean on one hand a consultant can demand as much as he likes for a pointless idea whereas a labourer has to work phyisically hard for peanuts to make the consultant's pointless idea a workable outcome.

A basic labourer today, many unskilled, earns $34.50 per hour working on the QLD gateway bridge upgrade. Do you call this ‘peanuts’?

Prior to the ‘construction boom’ many of them were out of work and those who did work probably earned around $15 per hour.

Double rates within 10 years

My view is that it is a simple case of ‘supply and demand’ within the construction industry.

If I am right, how can this be. Where is the balance in a pay rise in excess of 100% in less than 10 years simply due to a labour shortage.

Let’s face it, if one can demand ridiculous wage rates in ‘boom times’, then surely an employer has the right to negotiate low rates in ‘tough times’ without the fear of interference from ‘big brother’ hey?

You make reference to balance.

Please explain where the balance is when you have a ‘bottom rate’ (minimum wage) but no top rate?

I would also remind you that we all pay for this as the construction cost adds to the ‘toll fee’, or at the very least an extension of the toll fee period.

Belly
Long term unemployed may well be a different problem for a different thread rehctub.
Some will feel confronted by my view but many who are such do not want a job.

At the risk of re-igniting the ‘boys club opponent’ I couldn’t agree more!

Someone else can start this one.

hi rechtub,
$34 hr for labouring work ? I had a beer with two labourers last night & was told they get $38 but they get no holiday or sick pay etc. A public servant gets that & doesn't have to worry about a thing for all his life. That is the un-balance I'm talking about. You may believe differently on this one but, I think that anyone who's body is subjected to wear & tear at work is entitled to at least the same remuneration as one who sits comfortably at a desk. You can see it every day where office workers go jogging after work but how many menial i.e. physically employed do have that energy left after 8 hrs. In general most workers I have known did not get to enjoy retirement as did schoolies & bureaucrats. I agree that supply & demand work in boom times but, when things go slow it's the menial task worker who's bank account is well below that of bureaucrats. The employer who risks his money to make more is entitled to do so as is the employee who wears out his body. We must keep in mind that no construction is possible by just drawing a plan. Without the physical worker a plan is useless as is a task without a plan.
It is a symbiosis. Bureaucracy on the other hand simply lives off the former & is not affected by the leaner times. A worker & employer have to contribute to super out of their own pocket, bureaucrats don't. That is my whole point re balance.

Another aspect of it all is that, as a casual employee it is very difficult to obtain finance. So far as boom & bust times are concerned we must have a minimum wage because there simply is a minimum someone can exist on.

"Long term unemployed"? Long term unemployed what?

They are PEOPLE. Give them some little stature, please.

I all too often hear about those unemployed who just don't want to work. Yes they are around with the compliments of bureaucracy which does nothing to force healthy young people to pull their weight. It's that very same bureaucracy which forces older people who have worked all their lives to do even more work. The whole system is one big bloody mess. The imbalance is criminal & to top it off, it's all sanctioned by the unions who are supposed to ensure "fairness". Fairness for whom I ask. When the higher ranking get a payrise it's always 8 %. when workers get a payrise it's always $8 a week. Grab a cheap calculator & put in 8% of $100,000 & then compare it to 52 X $8. That's the difference. Oh, and don't forget to take out the tax from the eight bucks. Workplace agreements or not, the imbalance will continue & every payrise the workers receive will be just enough to cover the union fees.

Individual you point out that a labourer gets paid $38 per hour. Well here is the core of the problem. $38 per hour is simply a case of the industry holding the country to ransom because of a skill shortage. Many workers holding trades, butchers, and chefs to name a few don't even get close to this.

As for your comment about office workers, well everyone is provided with an equal opportunity with ample educational option available from a young age. It's often up to the individual whether they become a bureaucrat or a labourer!

Also, many would argue that 'brain strain' is very taxing.

Another aspect of it all is that, as a casual employee it is very difficult to obtain finance.

The only guarantee within full time work is that the employee gets to leave when it suits them. Often at a very inconvenient time.

Full time employment should work both ways, but it doesn't!

Unfair dismissal was the major creator of casual work and most business people will take the memory of these laws to their graves.

Blame the people who took sickies, stole from their boss, treated their boss with total disrespect, all under the protection of unfair dismissal laws. They are the cause of casual employment, not employers!

GINX
Well done, no personal attack, I'm impressed!

Some of that anti worker stuff rehctub is warn out and wrong, yes some used the old unfair dismissal laws to plunder!
I may fall out with some in my union movement but I have seen it , but only a few times not every day.
Wage rises of $8? bitterness there individual! do you mean minimum? if so do you understand most on minimum are not paying union dues?
Unions get on average 4% not often less than 3% via agreements a year wage rises.
Back to the casuals in construction, some get far less than $38, some I see today are paid under workchoices agreements $22 no holidays no sick leave no hope no future.
If they come to me, even to say Gday they will not be back at work tomorrow.
Or ever fair go mate, still has meaning in my Australia individual mate, tell me what hope do these non union members have if I do not try to help?
Yes to my fellow welded on trade unionists, some who are union should not be in the building with a mop and bucket in their hands but the movement is better than them.

Rechtub & Belly,
I can identify with both your points. been there done that. I have benefitted from being in the AWA but I have also paid the price for adhering to rules sanctioned by unions.
I have seen people who worked hard & made good. Others got shafted.
My interest in this debate is the general situation re working conditions & a reasonably fair remuneration system. I see on a daily basis where selection criteria is ruining small communities. How ? People from mainstream successfully apply for positions because they have "more qualifications". Those from the community who are in fact more suited for the position miss out because of a lack of "qualification". How on earth can someone from a small community ever hope to compete when never given an opportunity to get experience ? You'd be very surprised how often those lacking the "qualification" are in fact baby sitting the "qualified" until they're ready to leave only to be succeeded by yet another "qualified" applicant. Of course if choosing to ignore reality anyone can did up a counter argument but the fact remains that there's no better policy than reward for effort as dictated by demand. The under priviledged must be helped but being under priviledged should not be an automatic demand system to get the cake & eat it as well just as being an employer does not justify to hold someone to ransom because they need
work

Individual every day if we are lucky we learn something new your post reminded me I am not a coward, yet at times have acted like one.
Make zero mistake I AM union forever.
But know it is more likely than not some union, some official let you down.
It is a symptom of a job that puts more stress on you than you could ever Begin to think, some are unsuited to do that job, never intended to try but yes some one let you down.
One day, you would hope the young leaders will understand, change must come no one who can not understand both sides of an issue should wear our shirts, no one who will not give 100% every time should.
That union members must have only the best working for them, and that propping up a failed official betrays our reason to exist the members.
But leaving all that , forgetting falling membership, users who once planned unfair dismissal claims, the movement is the workplace insurance most need.
This thread is a fact, some truly honestly do not think wage rises are anything other than a cost to the economy.
It is those wages that drives so very many small businesses without past wage rises some would be even smaller.
Unions should tell the story of casual workers being used , never being able to own a home or maybe even a car , some after 20 years in the one job have no hope.
A complex issue fairness in the workplace we look more at the wages side of the issue than the profit side.

hi rehctub & belly,
just fyi, read in the Cairns Post today that the newly elected Council has already approved itself the highest allowable pay & it has hardly moved into the office yet. be interesting what the Council workers pay goes up to.

Individual I do not know much about the council elections, nor do I care much as I beleive we, as a nation, are over governed.

My opionon has been duplicated by many if you look at how few people bothered to vote for these so called 'super councils'.

However, one would asume that if the area you were managing, as a councilor, was all of a sudden extended, in some cases by 200%+, then perhaps a pay rise would be in order.

I would also suggest that most councilors work 80+ hours per week and, when equated to an hourly rate, makes for pretty average pay rates.

On a more serious note you will no doubt of heard of the recent press releases stating that business confiedence is at an all time low.

Scarey stuff hey! All this damage in just four months.

I wonder how many Rudd supporters are having second thoughts about the change they felt they had to have. I would also suggest that the next time they feel the need to change our world, that they be reminded that many of us were quite happy with the way it was.

Do not take this as a personal insult rehctub I proudly am from the other side, that side won so did Australia.
You play games in telling us of the drop in confidence but not telling of the world wide changes that have taken place in those 4 months.
You bring a smile to my face in reminding me of your pain and not telling us of the current polls showing your sides continued decline in those months.
Most voters are content with the results see the polls but ask why is it that your side in quite moments say it will take two more elections to become competitive?
Forever and one day I will remain baffled by conservatives who see wages costs as a crime but not profits
Rehctub be assured I am not your enemy but take this challenge here on record your side will not gain power for 9 years at least and not without basic change to the way it thinks about working Australians.
And it must address middle Australia.
That conservative Mantra about wealth creation apparently is not aimed at some who work.

Forever and one day I will remain baffled by conservatives who see wages costs as a crime but not profits

Belly. I see your point on overseas but just remember that we are riding the resourses boom wave in this country. God help us if we fall off this wave. This is why I fear interference to the workplace from unions and alike.

As for your comment above, I for one have always felt that wages should be linked to profits, much like a percentage of.

In tough times often the only winner is the worker because they get a pay rise even if profits are down. And I am not talking big business.

As for the rud government thay have achieved nothing other than to appologise to a generation that this generation personally did nothing wrong towards and put ourselves at a disadvantage though the kyoto treaty signing.

What happens OS gives little comfort to the pensioners that all of a sudden can't afford to live.

Trust me, it is no coincidence.

rehctub you under value what Rudd has done.
And just maybe do not understand it takes time to change every thing.
You give to much value to union power, a word so often used by so many who talk of different times.
Our current boom may not, will not last, hard to believe? watch this space.
But understand AWA was not the only form of workplace agreements and that some very big players sit down to talk agreements.
It is negotiations not threats that settle outcomes and both sides have wins and loss it is the nature of agreements.
In 2 years maybe a bit more this country will have one IR system.
Not one imposed by north shore private school boys who never worked in their lives.
Who have bank balances that say they never will have to.
Who never had to sit down and say to the wife do we buy milk or bread with the last money till pay day.
Unions are from the very left right and center I from the Labor right know I will not get my wishes but understand it will be better for this country.
If you could just share a week at work with me, just one week, some bad workers would startle you , seemingly unable to keep out of trouble.
But you would be horrified, good men are, by some bad bosses, do you know some sack workers because the wife doesn't like their wife?
Have you seen a boss in a car worth a mint not pay overtime?
Or superannuation?
I go to a ham fest now on the way down I will drive past a team working on Sunday for no overtime in the rain, they can not be helped yet, they signed AWA and are not unionists.

Most problems are created when an originally service orientated organisation is infiltrated by accountants, unions & selfish bureaucrats. Rather than focus on the task the focus is on conditions & how to best exploit them. Just look at health, education, law & enforcement, defence etc. I spoke with a nurse two days ago who gets $3000,00 a week because her department has mismanaged so badly over the years & now they're paying whatever it takes to cover this incompetence by bringing in mercenary health staff. Look at the money that's blown just to get incompetent teachers in so the department can say "look how much we're spending in remote communities". If you people in the south could only see when the navy or customs go shopping for a few days at sea you'd refuse to pay tax ever again. The excuse is that "we have to pay otherwise we can't get people to do the job". Crap, utter crap. The brain drain is yet another example. let them go & flood the market overseas & then see how much their skills are worth. The public service is not a service, it's a career bludgers training camp & decent folk suffer because of it. Make a point of looking up the conditions for public servants' it'll change the way you vote.