yutyusu that was a bit strange.
rechtub appeared to me to only touch on the school kids problem he spoke of other people surely.
I agree those kids got a raw deal but surely you are aware of just how badly workchoices treated the young.
And do you truly think any one but you thinks what we do in our non working hours has an impact on IR?
This is about penalty rates and weekend work a pet hobby horse of rechtubs.
I challenge anyone to say people go broke paying fair wages.
And if kids at the hamburger heaven, our best kids working for their future who lost a third of Sunday rates under the old system is not far worse than current reforms I know nothing.

Where is free choice is in these mythical mature work consultations that take place between employers and employees in low paid sectors like cleaning, hospitality and retail.

More often than not there is no discussion just a dictate where the power lies with the employer. That does hurt and injure others in many ways particularly in times of high unemployment when worker desperation may lead to accepting less than adequate work conditions.

It is only in certain niche markets where reasonably equal negotiations are undertaken in work contracts such as in management roles or industries like IT and mining where there is a need to attract people with niche skills or to isolated areas.

What is needed in IR is to work out what constitutes the fairest arrangement for both parties within a particular industry and make the rules across the board - otherwise there is no protection.

It is a sad fact that one cannot always trust the private sector to do the right thing but that is the reality.

Dear Belly,

Rehctub has the right to present the issue from a particular angle, and while I agree with him, my concerns are somewhat different, as I take a broader view in the matter.

You must be referring to my aeroplane-collection example - please read it more carefully: I never claimed that what we do in our spare time effects our working-life, but simply stated that our free-choice is sacred, regardless whether it relates to work or to leisure.

WorkChoices could not do any harm to anyone because there was nothing complusory about it. WorkChoices only provided extra options without taking away the original "fair" options: if you don't like it, then whether you are young or old, just don't take it! No Sunday rates - well see you later! So what's the problem?

One caveat though: as far as I know, people were not taken off the dole because they refused an unfair contract, but I beg you, because you know the facts much better than myself, to correct me if I am wrong, because if such a thing ever happened, that would be a grave matter indeed, which I don't support.

Dear Pelican,

If there is no mature work consultations in the cleaning, hospitality and retail sectors, then one ought to ask who created such an impotent culture in the first place or supported its development, and who even today has an interest in the continuation of such a culture.

The way to help the poor is not to keep them weak, and adding insult to injury, to simultaneously weaken those who aren't poor as well. In practical terms, government should provide a strong safety-net, so that nobody is hungry or cold or roofless, whether they have a job or not, so that EVERYONE is able to negotiate their own terms of employment which they, not others, deem respectable. Indeed, desperation should be taken out of the equation.

Isn't it funny how a tradie can slash his quote, just to get the job, and nobody cares, however, if he then slashes the pay rates for his employees, which by the way they are agreeable to, then all hell breaks loose. In the end, he looses his job because it goes to a tradie who works for himself and has no employees, and realises that times are tough and he just has to work for less. At least until things turn around.

The reality is, we now live in a seven day society and we expect to be able to go off and grab a coffee on a sunday, yet, the boss has to pay extra to provide you with that coffee, but can't charge a surcharge due to extra wages bacause it's ilegal. Go figure!

All I can say is that if something is not done, and fast, many small businesses will fold.

Now, as for why do we do it (small business), well, unlike the employees, we have entered into a lease, prior to the changes in IR laws and, we will be sued if we leave. It realy is that simple.

Belive me, once my lease runs out I'm gone!

BTW. The statement 'no worker will be worse off' means exactly that, 'no worker', not 'very few'.

Dear Yuyutsu
I agree with your last paragraph and yes Government is responsible for ensuring adequate social infrastructure. But many seek to increase the power of the free market to, in effect, heavily influence or govern IR or social policies.

The current economic system under which we are beholden leaves much to be desired but within that system,in theory, people should be able to negotiate contracts in an ideal world, however in real life this also opens the way for exploitation.

Just for example, imagine if banks were able to negotiate individual contracts (or any industry). Do you think competition for staff would ensure reasonable wages - the free market has not worked for consumers to a large extent where there is a direct interest in the industry maintaining the status quo across the board. It is all very well to argue the case for 'a smart bank would offer higher wages to get the best staff', however that approach only works if one bank sets the ball rolling - often the mutual interest and pressure is to keep the wages down. I am not picking only on banks this applies to many industry sectors.

IR laws are only as good as the watchdog that investigates and hears complaints in the same way that consumer or competition law is only as good as the competency of the ACCC and similar bodies.

Dear Pelican,

Money is not everything. In fact, I accept that earning/gaining money is not even a basic right: since the government printed that money, it's their right to impose conditions for its use (so long as those conditions only apply to those who wish to use their money and to that extent, which is too big an issue to enter into just now).

The freedom that I am talking about is neither the freedom to exploit, nor the "free-market". It is the freedom of individuals to exercise their choice with dignity, especially in matters that affect their lives directly.

I have no sympathy for big, impersonal, commercial organizations and industries. It is not on their behalf that I speak. I am speaking of individual rights, so it can be argued that beyond a certain organization-size, we no longer speak of an individual.

IR laws were designed for industrial situations, but it isn't easy to draw the exact line when an individual ends and an industry begins. WorkChoices fixed it arbitrarily at 100-employees: quite rough, but better than nothing. I'd rather define an "industry" as: "a body whose primary aim is to make money".

The problem is that current IR laws take the easy way out by making no distinction between individuals and industries. In that, socialism is as bad, as materialistic, as capitalism. It treats individuals as commodities, or earning-machines.

A major blind-spot of IR laws, is that they deny individual workers the option to make particular requests for work-conditions to suit their particular needs, especially working-conditions that (for the worker) cannot be measured in money, including requests that for others may sound funny or even weird, but mean the world to the worker. IR laws do not allow the worker to exchange, or sacrifice, money-based IR-"rights" for what's really critical to them.

IR laws are imposed on situations that are furthest from industrial, such as a family-business; or a semi-voluntary charity-organization; or when both employer and employee celebrate different religious holidays, other than the "public" ones; or when partially bartering work-for-goods; or work-for-work.