The recent anouncment by Tony Abbot may well have some 'dole bludgers' trembling in thier boots.

You see many 'mining towns', until now, have often been a haven for 'dole bludgers', as accomidation was cheap and many did not require a reference to gain shelter.

Further to this, it was often the case whereby they did not have to report to centre link as they were 'outside the perimiter' of what was considered a 'reasonable distance', therefore they simply lived in relative peace and quiet and nobody anoyed them.

Ever heard the term 'blockies'. This referes to these people, many of which live in 'shipping containers' etc.

It will be very interesting to follow this as they are running out of places to hide and, they could no longer use the excuse of 'there's no work out here'.

rehctub, I'd like to see more detail on what Abbott is proposing. Was it a comment to get some attention back on him with recent media political attention on the health reform proposal?

I have some doubt that those deliberately on long term dole would actually be a lot of use to mining companies no matter how short of workers they are.

I also wonder about the long term social impacts of forced moving of young people away from their support networks and into environments which already have a reputation for quite destructive social patterns eg very heavy drinking. Is it out of the frying pan and into the fire?

On the other hand managed properly it might break the cycle of long term unemployment for some people who just can't do it on their own. It might help some escape social networks which are very destructive for some.

If Abbott is serious I hope that he is looking at the whole picture and not just issues of dole reduction and labor shortage.

R0bert

I'm troubled by the pronouncement. I agree that there is a cohort who are wilfully welfare-dependent, I don't see that we, as a democratic and socially-progressive society can abandon them to their fate by removing their entitlements. It potentially creates a whole new set of problems, including crime and disaffection leading to unrest.

Industry has long been trying to create a large pool of cheap skilled and semi-skilled manual workers who are mobile and have little attachment to place. The 457 visas, Work Choices. This is just another way of approaching the same problem as they see it, which is servicing remote industry, while at the same time reducing the proportion of the money made that has to be used to support those who are idle. Both sides of politics support this as an aim, only the mode varies.

Abbott's proposal also begs some questions. Is unemployment among male youth a significant problem? If it is, why?

I suspect that it is a large problem, and that the main reason is that a great many of the jobs that this group would once have done are now being done by females. At my local Hungry Jacks store, I've only ever seen 2 males on staff at a time, of a staff of perhaps a dozen. My local Macdonalds is a little better, but the males are confined to the back end, doing the cooking and emptying the garbage. I bet they don't get paid any more than the girls do for their "work" talking into a headset, which may explain why there aren't many of them.

They'd get more if they went to the mones or the remote processing facilities, but they'd have to leave all they know behind. Why do girls face no such pressure? Yes, I know that Abbott's idea was not gender-specific, but does anyone see a flood of girls to Karratha or Cloncurry or Leonora if this were implemented? They'll be there, but only to take the cash off the boys after they've had a skinful and feel horny, just as it is now.

Robert

Yes, we do need to see some detail. Perhaps it might be better to offer travel vouchers, assistance with accomodation etc.

Anti

Those evil females, stealing those burger flipping jobs off their rightful male owners and then expecting the same pay as the men. I'm sure that you will get a bite out of this.

Benk:"Those evil females, stealing those burger flipping jobs off their rightful male owners and then expecting the same pay as the men."

It's not the "evil females" as you so colourfully put it, but the employment policies of the businesses and their franchisors that cause this sort of thing. When combined with a large influx of foreign students it means that the entry-level jobs are not being made available to local boys.

We're not talking professional positions here, just entry-level work experience, which can lead to better things. Across all sectors, these jobs are mostly being done by girls, not boys.

That may have been fine when there was plenty of good local trades work in construction and manufacturing, allowing some boys to get apprenticeships or do some labouring, but that ain't so any more.

Let me stress, this is not the fault of the girls who are chatting into their headsets, it is a result of years of feminist activism creating discriminatory policies in favour of women. It has created a new stratification of society and the ramifications are, as always with social matters, not well-grasped.

"Let me stress, this is not the fault of the girls who are chatting into their headsets,"

I wonder if boys would be 'chatting' into their headsets. Your language gives you away every time Anti.

Those who are 'dole bludging' are not looking for jobs Anti, whether all those evil women, are taking those jobs is irrelevant.

As a student, I worked for the Pizza Hut once and contrary to your philosophy about back of house and front of house roles it was because this company thought the women looked good out the front and the boys could do the heavy lifting out the back.

No feminist conspiracy there I can assure you from personal experience.

Pelican:"Those who are 'dole bludging' are not looking for jobs Anti, whether all those evil women, are taking those jobs is irrelevant."

Yes, your language does give you away, doesn't it? The whole point is that many boys are on the dole simply because there is not work available for them in their area, therefore, the fact that girls are doing those jobs is very relevant. Boys, especially boys from the lower rungs of society, can't get a foot in to either work or higher study.

There can be all sorts of "sound" reasons given by employers, including that the girls have better educational attainment and are better-presented and (as you point out) even boys who aren't smart can lift heavy things. None of that changes the fact that many boys are sitting on the dole because they can't get work and they don't have good enough school results or enough family money to get into uni, while apprenticeships are like hen's teeth.

Do you see that as a good social outcome? If so, in what way?

But Anti, boys and girls are both human beings. What about the jobs that boys are doing in the main that girls might want to do. Does it matter if Maccas has boys in the back and girls out the front (although that has changed over the years).

I don't get your logic. It is like saying these people can't get jobs because there are other people doing them. Gender is irrelevant.

I could ask why are there more male CEOs than female? Is this a good social outcome? If so, in what way? You could forever go around in circles Anti, finding sectors that are female or male dominated just to suit a particular argument.

The matter at hand is welfare cheating and Abbott's plans to deal with it not whether it is the fault of one gender over another. You don't really believe that welfare cheating is another feminist conspiracy?

Pelican, noone suggests that the girls should not be given opportunities, merely that in the process of ensuring that they are, we have largely ignored the impact on the boys. Abbott's scheme may be a good thing if it does that, but I suspect all it'll do is cause a heap of boys to become more entrenched in their disadvantage.

You say gender is irrelevant, when it clearly is not. The same social policies that make it de rigeur to profess a commitment to discrimination in favour of girls/women are at the root of the educational disparity between the genders, which then reinforces the social barriers for boys. Let me make it real simple for you:if the majority of entry-level jobs are being given to girls as a matter of policy, how do boys enter the workforce?

I'm glad that you've raised the subject of the gender disparity at the top level, because part of the reason it exists is that few girls of the baby boomer generation and the one the followed were allowed the opportunity to compete on an equal footing with their male counterparts either in education or in promotional opportunities. Would you like to see men excluded from boards and the upper echelons of management in 20-30 years for the same reasons? That's the future we're creating with the current social engineering policies.

Welfare cheating takes many forms. Is Abbott proposing to make "single mums" on the dole with 5 kids to 4 fathers head off to Karumba on a FIFO roster? "But think of the poor children"... There was a bit of a purge of the disability pension a little while ago, but there are still lots of people with a nasty case of Mediterranean Back and other such afflictions.

Abbott's proposal isn't to do with welfare "cheating" per se, but is part of the ongoing process to ensure a mobile labour pool for remote industry. It is very much gendered, because it is almost exclusively men who go to these places. I do wish you'd stop trying to be disingenuous, you're smarter than that.

Well Abbott has said his scheme is for the under 30s and I suspect single parents (male and female) will all be exempt if it means uprooting whole families to mining areas where there is little in the way of childcare and cheap housing.

In Mt Isa one of the problems is lack of affordable housing and rental accommodation since the boom.

Anti I find it better to treat gender as irrelevant to most of life's essentials. There are discriminatory aspects to being male and female that come with the territory of culture and social values which change over time. Generally, I try not to sit at home worrying about whether Maccas has boys or girls out back or front, or about CEOs being mostly male. We all make choices and have to live with them, if a woman wants to be a CEO she is able, in today's society,to strive for that goal just as a man might wish to go into nursing.

I don't see how boys are going to be any more disadvantaged by Abbott's scheme if he brings it into being. The mining companies might have a fit though given they probably want people with good ethics and strong skills rather than those who are forced into roles they cannot or won't do to a satisfactory level.

There are better programs for long term unemployed than what Abbott is proposing although he has said that this is not yet Coalition policy. Seems as he is running up the flagpole to see which way the wind is blowing.

rehctub, I don't know what state/territory you live in, but here in W.A. we have many mining towns in our northern regions.

The housing prices and rents in those towns are astronomical!
There aren't many people able to afford to live on the dole in those mining towns, believe me!

A friend from our town went up North to a new job in Karratha, but was back in 3 months because the rent was $1500 a week plus, for a
3 bed/1 bath hole!
Many mining town jobs are now fly-in/fly-out jobs for that reason.

I agree that many people on the dole aren't trying to find jobs.
I don't know what the answer is, but refusing people under 30 the dole seems a bit rough. The long-term dole recipients should also be penalized in some way surely?

There are many legitimate job-seekers out there though. How does Abbott think they will work out who is genuine or not?

A former workmate of mine (in his 40's) was out of a job for over a year. He kept on trying though.
He is now working at our local MacDonalds store, but says the wages are barely over the dole amount.

It must be soul-destroying for people who genuinely can't find a suitable job.

Dole Bludgers or people who receive assistance when working?

1. References and Referees

I raised an issue this week to an employment agency regarding youth employment [trades, IT, admin, retail] and the ever-changing hopping from job to job that young people do go through for a few years.

Many young people after working part-time, casually or permanently in positions for 8 months, a year or two years discover, after politely asking for a reference or Boss being a Referee, that they are told to wait until they have finished in the company or workplace OR told 'no' outright.

'Adam' leaves the position after working two years full-time and on weeekends. He finds another position and gives his previous Boss a tingle to ask for a reference [again]. The reply: 'Am sorry, Adam, our Boss no longer works here. He left a few weeks ago".

Similarly, a girl of 22yrs I know had worked for a company sourced by the public service. She worked long hard hours, worked weekend shifts at short notice, was punctual, efficient, behaved appropriately [know some people she worked with as an IT employee].

Two years later [a few weeks ago]her boss walked up to her, informed her that she had to pack her bags, attend her afternoon tea cake farewell, and that others would be following her out the door the following week. No offer of a reference or being a Referee.

2. Interview People on Centrelink payments working

I would love you to interview [fairly] some of these 'dole bludgers' you refer to and ask each of these people 'what is your work history'? 'Who were your referees'?, 'Who bullied you in the workplace'?, 'What age did you complete your schooling'? 'What were the disadvantages you had as a 16-18 year old that you identify in becoming a person on the dole now'?

3. Hours of work required in order to receive payments/Newstart

At any rate, a minimum of 15 or 25 hours is required to be worked by anyone receiving benefits these days

I find it a bit weird that all you people see the dole as such a wonderful carefree lifestyle. If its so great being unemployed why dont you all do the rational thing and quit work? If you really believed that those on the dole were living it up the way you say then you would all be lining up at centrelink to join the free and hedonistic culture of extreme poverty. NOT

This is the REAL "politics of envy" and that abbot bloke is a master at it. Look at their record of stigmatising, demonising and outright defaming of single mothers (while passing them 5k backhanders), the disabled, pensioners, young people, immigrants. All reprehensible attacks on the weakest and most vulnerable in society by the most well off and pampered, powerful elitists.
As are some of the posts here. Shame on you all for picking on those least able to defend themselves. Talk about spiteful, empathyless bullying.

Think about it for one second and ask yourself how you will feel when there is an army of desperate under 30s willing to undercut your wages and put YOU into the ranks of the unemployed. Why would your boss not either take one of these younger, cheaper people over you or reduce your wages to match what the desperate former dole bludgers were willing to work for? Are you that confident in your boss? Are you that valued at work? Are you that indispensable? Good luck. Today its take the stick to the unemployed how long before they turn their "stick of incentive" back on you the workers like they did with "serfchoices"?

The only incentive workers needed in the last mining boom were good wages and conditions. Something else abbot and his ilk are against.

SOL>>The housing prices and rents in those towns are astronomical!
There aren't many people able to afford to live on the dole in those mining towns, believe me!

That's now, but many towns in the western downs were 'ghost towns' a few years ago. Tara, west of Dalby is one that comes to mind.

It was famous for housing 'blockies'.

To answer your question I live on the northside of Brisbane.
MIKK>>>The only incentive workers needed in the last mining boom were good wages and conditions. Something else abbot and his ilk are against.

What a load! Mining companies and their workers enjoyed a great working partnership with EBA's, only, Krudd and his 'red mastif' took to those with the axe.

In fact, comentators have cited 'workable employment arrangements' as a 'key requirement' for us to take full advantage of he forthcomming boom.

Thanks mikk. I'm frequently taken aback by comments here that verge on the pathologically misanthropic.

Why do so many people at OLO feel the need to bash those less fortunate than themselves?

mikk: You said it so well.

good work.

pynch

I know quite a few people working in the north of Western Australia - but none of them live there. They work on a fly-in fly-out basis and live in Perth or the south-west where rental costs are reasonable and rental properties are available.
Towns in the north-west, for example, do not have anywhere near the sort of infrastructure required to support an influx of extra workers. Rental properties are scarce and rental prices are at a premium. It would take a long time and a lot of investment to provide appropriate infrastructure. It is certainly not something that could be decided as policy and then followed up in any short space of time. I suspect Mr Abbott is up to his old trick of grabbing the headlines and testing the waters.
I too wonder at the puritanical vehemence of some people in their denigration of certain members of society - live and let live I say.

Mikk, pynchme wt al, i've gone over the thread and I can''t see what you're referring to. Perhaps you could point out some examples of what you're referring to?
The whle thrust of the responses to rehctub's post has been that it is both unworkable and likely to end up causing further entrenched disadvantage.

Is it merely the fact that i pointed out the gendered nature of the issue that's got up your nose?

Goodonya rechtub, put the boot in while they are down.
But special thanks to RABBOTT, he wants to export our unemployed to WA.
His mouth not even close to being connected to his brain has again even got his side of side.
Yesterdays breakfast in Pennant hills in Sydney came with a girlish splatter from the headset wearing fool a man, that almost made the food uneatable.
Rabbott imports workers, wants to export ours and has concerns about boat people?

Antiseptic
The whole tone of this thread has been a bashing of the unemployed and other welfare recipients. The very title infers a vast army of work shy bludgers "hiding" from their responsibilities and evading the centrelink gestapo.
A few more examples.
"those deliberately on long term dole"
"a cohort who are wilfully welfare-dependent"
"many people on the dole aren't trying to find jobs."

The gender issue is not relevant to what TAbbot wants to do and I was not referring to that part of the thread.

The ongoing vilification of the poorest and weakest members of our society by those who are well off and pampered makes me sick. It has never been part of the Australian culture before and those dog whistling bigots that have encouraged this vicious bullying of the poor should be run out of office and strung up as the treasonous unaustralian scum they are.

Mikk, I've been back over the thread again and I really don't understand what you're talking about. There is group of young people who are on the dole by preference, I'm sure: to suggest otherwise is simply silly. No one seems to be suggesting that all young people are on the dole because they want to be, despite your rather hysterical allegations. Still, having made your "motherhood statement" I'm sure you'll get more approbation from the less intellectually endowed members of the site, as you have already.

Abbott's scheme isn't really about the intentionally unemployed though, is it? Do you really think that mining companies want a mob of "bludgers" being foisted on them? What they want is motivated, somewhat trained people to do the arduous work that they require. I'm sure that most young men would like the opportunity to earn big money too, but not enough to leave their friends and families and sources of entertainment. Abbott's scheme is designed to act as a wedge to get young people out of their "rut" and into work at remote sites. I don't think the particular implementation is especially good, but the intent has merit.

The reason this is a gender issue is twofold: firstly, what the mining companies want is men, and secondly, youth unemployment is increasingly a male problem due to the factors I've mentioned earlier.

The ABS shows that 87000 males between 15 and 24 are looking for full-time work, while 60,000 females are doing so. A significant reason is that there are a great deal more young women doing tertiary study than young men, mostly due to the concentration on female educational attainment over the past several decades leaving a large group of boys with educations that simply don't stack up next to their female competition.

To put it into perspective, there are nearly 50% more young men who want work and can't get it than young women in the same boat.

Any scheme that fails to recognise that disparity will only further entrench the disadvantage of young men, especially young men from poor families.

Abbott is just playing into the 'dole bludger' mindset.

When I worked in the recruitment field many 'welfare cheats' were actually working cash under the table while receiving benefits. This is what should be addressed not ill-thought out policies forcing long term unemployed into jobs for which they are not trained - many who are also drug abusers or have some form of disability.

From my experience, many people over 55 find great difficulty in finding work many willing to try new things. They certainly do not want to sit around in preference to working if someone would just give them a chance. And for all the lip service about employing people with disabilities the government's own record on employing disabled workers has fallen.

Long term unemployment has risen in the US despite a stricter regime and cut-off points for benefits. This only adds to the homeless problems and crime rates.

Dole bludging, although a problem, is way less a burden on taxpayers than incompetent bureaucrats & the nepotism that ensures we never run short of them. I know many including myself who have lost or had to change employment because the ranks felt threatened when I & others started questioning questionable behaviour.
i also quite a number who are highly skilled in avoiding work & are not challenged by those in authority.
Being unemployed is not good for society as a whole, be it by choice or misfortune. If the authorities had any competence there would not be unemployment.

It seems there are many misconceptions floating about regarding- working at a mine, unemployed people, regional living conditions, and the Australian economy... Mines use drug and alcohol testing which indicates cannabis use within the previous 12 weeks. Mines are busy and dangerous places which isnt condusive to running as a minding centre. There are many reasons WHY people are on welfare, but these are usually ignored (the CSA for example). The disability support pension is a much bigger rort, most also work for cash. Many young people wouldnt handle the isolation, rates of depression and suicide are already higher in rural areas. Two little words sum up this cynical vote/headline grabbing enterprise, Epic Fail.

Lots of to-ing and fro-ing about what sorts of looks a woman presenting issues about body image should have.

Be interesting to put all that aside for a minute.

I wonder if a bloke's social worth, especially as a politician, was judged primarily on looks who the best and worst representatives would be.

Sorry - last post was made to this thread by mistake.

However, just a word on social security issues.

It's an advantage to have a robust and generous social security system because it's like a form of insurance for us all.

None of us have guarantees that we won't suddenly become disabled or be made redundant or go bankrupt when all of our investments bottom out; or that someone we care about won't experience some adverse event that means they can't earn enough to cover their mortgage and maintain their lifestyle.

Nobody sets out in life planning to be a homeless, unemployable bum with emphysema at the age of 50, but none of us are immune to such a fate.

Antiseptic<Is unemployment among male youth a significant problem and if so why>

My spouse and I have also noticed that everywhere you look when going into local shops and businesses female employees are everywhere with only a few males here and there. Even at the local hardware shop, Bunnings, where you think there might be more male staff.

I don’t think women are responsible for this though, in fact it is probably more for the same reason the airplanes always wanted attractive women dealing with their customers(passengers) discrimination against older or less attractive women.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said there are no apprenticeships,construction work or manufacturing jobs. You can blame the privitisation of big apprenticeship training areas like the Railways by the government. Also big businesses that get things manufactured overseas selling out Australian workers for slave labour wages but still seeking to sell at Australian prices.

As for the lack of construction work, why isn’t the government freeing up much cheaper land for the construction of cheaper homes for new home buyers. You can also blame the workers on visa’s. Business and government don’t want to pay to train our youth they’d rather bring in already trained workers from overseas and save themselves the cost of training.

Boys who aren’t academically interested should be immediately put into a trade or apprenticeship upon finishing high school. The government showed a lack of foresight when they privatised the Railways for the sake of a profit. The employment and training in trades of a lot of young males had great community benefits.

I think that Abbott would find a lot of parental opposition to the sending of their sons and daughters to some remote mining town on the other side of the country. Especially their daughters whose safety they would worry about more , for obvious reasons. Don’t mess with middle Australia and their children would be the message to the government I think.

The reality, is that people enjoy having somebody they can be prejudiced against, without looking like an unfair bigot (in their own eyes, anyway). Imagine the uproar and indignation, if the idea was to address an unrelated issue such as crime rates of African immigrants, by sending them off to Western Australia to work in the mines. Unfortunately for the unemployed, they are about the last group of people that everybody gets a free kick at. By the same measure, any person taking such a free kick really needs to take stock of what is missing from their own lives, and why picking on weaker people makes them feel better.

PatTheBogan and the rest of my 'fan club', I have no problems with people who are unemployed, provided they are actively seeking work.

Now you can defend them as much as you like, but, Living in some far away place is not actively seeking work. In fact, in many cases their efforts are expended finding ways to avoid being caught out.

By all means be unemployed, after all it's a free country, but don't expect me to pick up the tab.

Now someone mentioned drug testing at work sites. So why don't centrelink test for drugs? After all, if one has drugs in their system it lessens their chances of finding employment these days.

Is this then making an effort to find work.

You might not really want to accept it, but the reality is quite different from how you would like things to be. "Just dont expect me to pick up the bill for it", well that sounds like the ravings of one on the aged/dsp pension. Centrelink in its previous incarnation, used to run the CES as well, this has been outsourced to private enterprise to run (which is the source of the PM's wifes' money). Suggesting that centrelink conducts drug testing as well might be expecting a bit much of them. A very costly way of finding out what you already know anyway. With the introduction of GST about 10 years ago, we are all paying for it, even those who recieve centrelink payments. Would you travel for 90 minutes each way, to do a days' work? Drive for 3 hours, at your own expense, then have some of your dole taken back when you declare it? there is no benefit of working in that case.

That was a good post Pat the Bogan.
You may not be aware our mate rechtub tends to find the worst in unemployed high income workers[hands on not butchers]unions.
The ALP me, young people, once we would have referred to my mate as a red neck.
Both sides of any issue tend to not want to see the other sides view.
We can light afire under any debate with just one short statement, such as boat people.
Muslim, dole bludgers, Christian, America, middle east, migration republic, our flag, not hard to find a reason to fight each other.
But this? miners do need workers, women do work in mines too, and do it well.
RABBOTT knows as I do, it takes something conservatives murdered to turn unemployed youth into miners, TRAINING.
Tony was talking to his backers big miners, seemingly owning his coalition partners the Nationals, he forgot himself.

Now we can not have our cake and eat it too.
We have too much unemployment.
Too many unskilled and untrained.
I will propose an answer in my next post.

Yes some who are on the dole are never going to want to work.
Very few of them.
Let us leave that for another thread.
In former days both sides of politics thought decentralization was worth the extra costs.
Small country towns got help and jobs, we have stopped developing our country.
Jobs locals held in country towns working for councils and rail roads and forests have gone.
contracted out to city firms who bring city workers who go back each weekend.
If we understand some work can repay us with a social dividend, country jobs partly paid for by that already paid in social welfare we can make jobs for unemployed every one of them.
I think my mate rechtub will still say it is a waste of tax but just maybe we should give every one a job.

Belly, how many women do you reckon work in the mining industry in skilled or semi-skilled production positions? How many men?

Having worked in that inductry, as well as civil construction for a very long time, I can say with great certainty that no more than perhpas 1-2% of all mining industry workers are female and with the exception of a few females driving the Haulpaks and the like, nearly all of them are doing office work, such as site admin, secretarial, cleaners, occasionally as first aid officers, a very few engineers and geologists and that's about it.

I'm not making a judgement on that, merely saying it's the reality, which means that any suggestion to address unemployment by sending people to remote sites is going to be mostly a male-centric one. The girls would benefit by having less competition for the jobs at home, which moght help Abbott sell it.

As for training, you're spot on, but it wasn't the conservatives who "murdered it" it was killed by Hawke's Accords (which showed everyone how truly useless the unions are) and by successive State governments (mostly Labor) who sold off their state's assets and tried to turn public services into "commercial units" that simply had no budget for training and no remit from their political bosses to do any.

Today, instead of training being a standard part of any new employees on-the-job experience, it is outsourced to "professionals" who train people in the answers required to pass the certificate, but offer almost nothing in the way of how to actually do the job. There are some exceptions, such as welding or other skilled tasks that have a genuine performance benchmark, but for most semi-skilled people, which is what the industry demands, their training is about as useful as a Union visit.

Pat the Bogan, you have it right, but the problem of male youth unemployment remains.

"professionals" who train people in the answers required to pass the certificate.
Antiseptic,
You couldn't be more right, as in correct that is. I've been harping on & on about this situation on every part of the forum & copped a lot of flak. I recall asking a TAFE lecturer how he could possibly pass the people that he did pass & he replied; "We have to let them pass otherwise we cop too much crap for discrimination". The way this dreadful situation is covered by insurance is that the person is deemed competent at the time of the exam. what happens later becomes a lawyers' feast.
There is a lot of work in remote area but it usually goes to imported gangs at high pay rates & hardly anything goes back into the community. If we wound back the clock 30 years the government provided 100% of employment for 99 % of the community. When Labor got in (QLD) they shirked themselves of the responsibility & put all manual/construction work out to contractors. Contractors want to make money quickly hence no more training occurred hence super high unemployment. It's only since amalgamation that the unions are getting interested because of the thousands of prospective new members.

You have that about right Antiseptic 1 to 2% in mining, civil construction and building.
While numbers are higher than that in the white collar type jobs, HR and IR, few women make it to the coal face.
But some do.
Training has fallen victim to all sides of government.
Once plant operators and trades mechanics and fitters came from government jobs.
You and I both know mine operators are not looking for unskilled youth, male or females.
I Just refuse to think we can not both give unemployed a chance, make jobs that pay social dividends.
And get returns for welfare dollars ,it is true those who dodge work would find it hard to continue doing that.
In the midst of unemployed are people who have lost faith in themselves, it happens , we can do much more if we understand why we should.
It hurts to see low unemployment used as an excuse to raise interest rates, why?

Every unemployed adult of sound mind and reasonable physical health should take a job if offered and if they live within one hour's drive of the workplace. Otherwise cut off their dole payments.

I just don't like Tony Abbott saying what he does and the way he says it. He goes for the negative in so many of his statements that I fear that if he were to win office ( if he holds his Liberal leadership against Hockey who is waiting in the wings)he and Joe and the whole bunch of these Libs will reintroduce employer biased individual employment contracts.

I hate what the Liberal Party stands for and all their media soundbites from Tony Abbott back up my belief.

Belly,

<it hurts to see low unemployment used as an excuse to raise interest rates, why? Belly

Because when more people have jobs and more disposable income it starts to drive spending and inflation up and the banks put interest rates up to try to keep inflation down. Historically when there is high unemployment interest rates come down because prices stay more stable.

Ok, so let's get some prospective here.

We have a system that is on 'overload' whereby there is simply not enough to go around and this is only going to get worse. Nobody can deny that!

So, we have four main groups of people.

Pensioners, most of whom have paid their dues.

Workers, most of whom pay taxes, which keep the wheels turning.

The unemployed, many of whom simply don't want to work, or, are of the opinion that they have paid their taxes so why can't they get some back.

Then we have the school aged kids.

So,think ten or twenty years from now and ask yourself a very important question.

Who, or which group are we going to stop paying here?

The answer is very obvious, isn't it!