It's been some five odd years since the labor government took an axe to IR and abolished the Howard governments work choices policy, tightened UFD laws, introduced unlawful dismissal (aimed at small businesses) and introduced fair work Australia. Remembering of cause, that those directly effected by WC represented a very small minority, some of which were just happy to have a steady income and a regular job.

Many on low incomes (family people) were quite happy with the arrangement, as the financial gap was plugged somewhat with government assistance, something they wouldn't get if their incomes rose to high.

There is little doubt that the fight against work choices, and the negative campaign run by labor and the unions was the election winner for them

So, given this policy shift caused major disruption to many businesses, at a time when the global economy was showing grave signs of a melt down, I need to ask the supporters of the move, do you honestly think it was worth it, remembering that those directly effected represented a very small minority, many of which were quite happy with their previous arrangement.

But the real issue was that this policy shift saw this incompetent government come to power and literally decimate us in less than six years.

Was it really worth the gamble?

Save a few, but at what cost!

Rehctub,
You apparently support that discredited neo-liberal philosophy Globalisation, a system favours a race to the bottom for wage earners rather that a system of social justice.

Under such a system young people can stand on their feet for hours at checkouts and serving at table for $9-16 per hour while bean counters qualified in accounting charge out their time at more than $280 per hour, a rate well above the Medicare rebate for a bulk billing doctor. Of course there are also the disgusting CEOs of banks who think they are worth $4,000 per hour.

George Souris reputedly made millions again this week by speculating against a currency move, an occupation that contributes nothing worthwhile to the human race.

In October/November, 1998, the then Governor of the Australian Reserve Bank, Mr Ian Macfarlane, began speaking out against the global financial system. Over the course of several speeches he said, "More and more people are asking whether the international financial system as it has operated for most of the l990s is basically unstable. By now, I think the majority of observers have come to the conclusion that it isn't . . ." "The intellectual underpinning of the free market position . . . - the Efficient Markets Hypothesis - is very weak. In all the exchange rate tests of which I am aware, the hypothesis has been contradicted by facts." "We need to devise a system for maximizing the benefits to be gained from international capital while limiting the risks."
"It is simplistic to insist on the totally free movement of capital in all countries and in all circumstances."

Failure to take note of Macfarlane, and similarly knowledgeable others, including the Canadian, John Ralston Saul, resulted in the Global Financial Crisis.

I suggest you read John Ralston Saul's, "The Collapse of Globalism" subtitled, 'The Reinvention of the World."

The blogs at New Economic Perspectives also might prove enlightening.

To clarify my earlier comment I suggest the second paragraph should read;

Under Globalisation and work choices young people can stand on their feet for hours at checkouts or serving at table for $9-16 per hour while bean counters qualified in accounting charge out their time at more than $280 per hour, a rate well above the Medicare rebate for a bulk billing doctor. Of course there are also those with their snouts in the trough at banks who think they are worth as much as $4,000 per hour.

Your exploitative, socially unjust marxoid ideology (there's some argument by slogans to match your spray) is just a garble of self-contradictions, and I'll prove it.

For starters, if what you're saying is right, why not:
- extend the provisions of WC to all workers in the world? Surely there are many outside Australia in worse conditions on lower pay than in Australia? Aren't they human beings too? If the *real* rationale of your ideology is social justice, then why confine it to Australia?

- abolish private property altogether? You obviously believe that production can be made fairer and more productive by government deciding to arbitrarily violate people's freedoms, take whatever property they want from whoever they want, and give it out to whatever cronies they feel like? But if you shrink from full socialism, then why doesn't your anti-capitalist ideology apply to any remaining individual freedom? Why should any freedom be permitted, since according to your theory, it results in the dreaded inequality?

From your starting point of economic ignorance, and thinking slogans are some kind of substitute for real understanding, you assume a premise that the financial crisis is due to "free markets" without ever reflecting whether or not that is true. According to that theory, the fact that governments claimed and exercised monopoly power to manipulate the supply of money and credit, which they did at all times before and during the GFC, and the fact that the crisis arose in the *financial* sector, is just some kind of strange coincidence. Or you must believe that such manipulations have only positive effects - why?

On the other hand, you can't criticise the fact that they entail redistributions to political favourites - that's exactly what you're arguing in favour of.

There's no use blaming "neoliberal" policies if you haven't first eliminated the possibility that the problems you criticize are due to the policies you advocate.

""It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
Murray Rothbard

Why don't the checkout people become bean counters then? Why don't they work in banking?

If you were a business owner, foyle and I (as an employee) came up to you with a proposal to make you an extra five million a year profit and for my effort I only asked for one of the five million. Would you take up my offer? Noting that refusal of my offer would loose you a potential four million a year in profits!