The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Unemployment - what are the real numbers

Unemployment - what are the real numbers

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. ...
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. All
rehctub
I would not label a woman or man who stays at home to raise children as unemployed. Unemployed implies there is nothing to do. I would suspect you only become officially unemployed when you are ready to go back to work and are actively seeking work.

My generation did not receive any money for staying at home unless you qualified after means testing. Our family has rarely qualified for government handouts or bonuses but we haven't needed them thankfully.

Ideally we should foster an economy that allows one partner to stay at home with children if that is one's preference,or a combination of part-time work for both partners. Obviously some roles cannot accomodate that ideal but certainly many can.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 27 August 2009 7:27:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Power so overwhelmingly given to the employers was not so new in the dark ages.*

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/nsw-pd20090826-V9SZD?OpenDocument&src=sph

Pelican, I think you will find that the dark ages are in fact here
for employers in NSW. When power as mentioned above, is so openly
given to unions, that they are cashing in on court rulings, no
wonder NSW is falling behind and if it becomes national, you'll see
alot longer unemployment queues everywhere in Australia!
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 27 August 2009 7:43:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well there I have to agree with you Yabby - unions should not be the recipient of OH&S fines, this only sets up organisations for corruption.

I am not arguing for the opposite ie. unions to have carte blanche power because unions are just as corruptible and self-interested. That is why power should never be so totally or overwhelmingly tilted to one or the other.

Achieving the fairest possible balance is not easy but I think Gillard has been reasonably strong with the unions on many fronts despite the pressure. Stronger than Howard was with pressure from the business and employer groups.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 27 August 2009 8:28:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican, unions cashing in is only half of it.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/NSW-pd20090825-V8SS2?OpenDocument&src=srch

According to NSW law, an employer is considered guilty until
proven innocent, which is hardly how the law normally works in
Australia.

Yet its unions doing the pushing for this and getting away with it.

With this kind of backward situation, don't be amazed if employers
cut and run elsewhere, next they'll be crying for jobs!

Never forget that for every job out there, somebody has to put
their money on the table and risk it, in order to create one.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 27 August 2009 9:43:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby:"considered guilty until proven innocent, which is hardly how the law normally works in
Australia."

It's becoming more widespread. The Child support Acts are classics of the type, in which the burden of proof is shifted from the Government Department making a specific claim about moneys owed or owing to the person they make the claim about.

There's even a "get out of jail free" card in the Act that says
"failure to comply with any part of this Act does not invalidate the decision made".

IOW, "once we've decided, it's your problem, not ours, and even if we're wrong we're still going to enforce our decision. Take us to court if your disagree, but we'll fight you every step of the way and we won't fix it till you do".

The Howard years saw this sort of thing expanding into immigration law, the "terrorism" laws and no doubt other aspects of the legal system. It's quite simply authoritarianism, since it denies the responsibility for the more powerful (Government) party to a transaction to act accountably and responsibly, while holding the less powerful (individual) party liable for both their own actions and that of the stronger. The Rudd Government seems quite comfortable with leaving much of that law as is and even expanding the principle, as you've noted.

The attraction for would-be demagogues like Howard and Rudd is quite obvious, while in the example you gave, the Unions are simply interested in having a "Big Sister" - as long as she's on their side, of course...
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 28 August 2009 6:03:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PP; Oh I’ve missed something, (stop rolling your eyes) – can I claim something being at home? What’s spouse allowance?

It is essentially a 'tax break' if one partner works while the other does not. The 'tax free' threash hold is lifted.

Pelican; I would not label a woman or man who stays at home to raise children as unemployed.

Yes I agree, however, as long as they are draining from the national purse, how else can you classify them?

My generation did not receive any money for staying at home unless you qualified after means testing

I hear you loud and clear.

We received what was then the 'child endounment payment' for a period of two years when our daughter was born, almost 21 years ago. About $1900.00 in total, then, it was 'cut off' as we earned to much. A product of 80+ hours per week back then. We received zero for our son.

Now the tall poppies say we didn't need it. Fine, but did we not deserve it, or earn it, just like anyone else.

It is little wonder there are classes.

Ideally we should foster an economy that allows one partner to stay at home with children if that is one's preference

We already have that abillity, it's just that you can't stay at home, without financial support and have the flash gadgets around many have today

Yabby; As I have often said, many employers will addopt the policy of 'prevention is better than cure'..
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 28 August 2009 6:11:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. ...
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy