*The real problem is under-employment and that's due to the deliberate casualisation of the work force that started in earnest with Reith's initial relaxation of Industrial Relations legislation.*

Rache, you don't seem to understand the law of unintended consequences.

In Europe, some of the most difficult places to dismiss employees are
Spain and people under 25 in France. All well intended laws. The
net result, employers choose not to give them a job, for creating
jobs and employing people is of course voluntary.

Casualisation of the workforce makes perfect sense, if you want an
efficient and productive economy, for employees standing around
picking their noses, etc, make goods and services far more expensive
for consumers and makes Australia an even less competitive place.
The consumer ultimately pays for all that wasted time.

Casual work makes perfect sense, if there are employers who don't
need full time workers. There is no reason why workers cannot hold
down a number of casual jobs, if they want more hours.

Without a flexible economy, you will never have an efficient or
competitive economy. Fact is, many employees only ever want part
time work

Due to the lack of integrity in our society we've arrived at a situation where far too many get paid far too much for doing far too little & vice versa.
The most blatant culprits being bureaucrats sanctioned by incompetent Government.

Another reason for casualization is productivity.

It's been touched on here.

You see, our pay system pay a person for the time it takes to do the job, not for the amount they get done in a day.

When I was a hid, working after school, I picked veggies.

We got paid X per bucket and my brother used to earn what worked out to be 75c per hour, whereas I earned 50c per hour.

What was the problem with that, he did more than I did. Those days are all but gone.

Now, the pace is set by the likes of myself, not my brother.

So employers like casuals because if you work like my brother did each day, you are welcome back tomorrow, but if you work like I did, at best, you are welcome back until another brother comes along.

The removal of piecemeal work has been a huge contributor as well.

Another problem is that so many employers have huge fluctuations in their work loads, with contracts etc.

Governments and unions simply can't keep pushing for better pay and conditions and not expect a reaction.

It really is that simple.

The ALP is doing a terrific job of reducing unemployment. With these new jobs they will crow about, the workers will be receiving fantastic pay and conditions, according to them. Unfortunately this reduction in unemployment will be all taking place in other countries as guest workers flood Australia from here, there and everywhere. The Gina Rhinoceros deal is just the tip of the iceberg, wait until the Mad Monk gets his hands on EMA's there will be a 'shortage' of labour everywhere. A bit like 457's but a bulk version. have a look at the pay and conditions many of these guest workers are willing to accept, supposedly Australian standards but nobody (except the unions where they can) police them.

Poirot, OLO’s very own spindoctor needed confirmation – I merely gave it to him ;)

Indeed, he inferred that using 1 hour per week (to define employment) was somehow a recent policy of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and by extension – the current evil and bad Labor Government.

OLO's own spindoctor is just wetting his pants (again) because I did confirm that the ABS (and by extension – the previous Liberal/National Coalition) also use the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ definition of employment (and unemployment) … since 2001 no less.

Ok, we all know spindoc is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but it is gobsmackingly sad that not even he can see the advantages of changing the way the ABS (and by extension – ANY Australian government) measures employment/unemployment in a way that Denniss proffered back in 2001.

Sheesh, this was the subject matter of butcher’s thread … “The way we calculate employment is overdue for an overhaul.”

If you missed it, here it is again (lengthy but worth the read):

http://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP36.pdf

.

Spindoc is your tag Barry, not mine … and Grim and Bugsy are right about desperate dills.

Oh, and just because you don’t like my contribution/s does not give you the unalienable right to tell me or anyone else to rack off - that is you being typically churlish, if not childish.

It is ti e to throw the baby out, with the bath water and start again.

It must be recognized by all political parties that the new system, when configured, can not be usespd as a cheap political tool to talk up unemployment numbers.

It is a rought that both sides have used to fudge their numbers for decades and should not be used for as a tool for some sought of a blame game.