If somebody chooses to work for a certain rate then that in nobody's business other than the worker. If he finds the wage not enough he can ask for more or he can leave. It is that simple.
If somebody finds a way of making money at anothers expense (employee)
then well and good. If the opportunities were not there then the exploiter would not act on them and there would be less work.
This business of "I must get so much and hour to support my life style" is crap.
Lower your sights your expectations are unrealistic or better work harder and get to be the boss.

If two consenting people want to make a deal between them, who on earth has a right to deny them the freedom to do so?

Further, if their agreement happens to include an element of one person doing some work, an element of the other person giving the first person some money and possibly some other elements, who has a right to box them, calling the one "employer" and the other "employee", given they never sought to have this kind of relationship?

It is non-negotiable that INDIVIDUALS should be able to agree between them on anything they like.

The arguments against WorkChoices involve exploitation by greedy employers in industrial environments - this means that, besides individuals, non-profit organisations, as they operate in a charitable environment rather than in an industrial environment, should also be exempt from IR laws.

What remains is companies and corporations. Indeed, I find no principle or moral requirement to avoid restricting the activities of incorporated bodies: as they voluntarily sought out to be incorporated and recognised by the government, the government in turn MAY in principle ask for certain things in return.

While not immoral as such, I rather stay out of the economic debate whether or not it is also WISE to restrict companies in their employment policies. All I care for, from my side, are the philosophical and moral principles - and restricting individuals in their employment terms is definitely immoral. I will leave the economic discussion for others.

The sentiment against WorkChoices seems to have been overegged back in 07. It became an election issue funded by the Trade Unions, they turned it into a poisoned chalice just as they intended. If there was any real imbalance it was in the safety net plus some other bits of tweaking.

In the end WorkChoices needs to be measured against the needs of both employers and employees. If there were genuine employee issues they have now been lost in the shift to favor the power base of the Trade Unions. IMHO this is now an overcorrection that needs bringing back into balance.

As a favor to Rechtub I will only post once in his rant/sorry thread.
Truth is work choices won Rudd his election.
It and nothing else beat J W Howard, without his head snap he would still be in power.
Labor has frittered away its good fortune, and must take much of the blame, as it was in 1975, for the impending defeat.
A quick look at NSW a state Labor fell over its self trying to give Government to conservatives, a task they achieved for about 12 more years, see,s the future of federal Labor.
I know, we all should, Labor is under Dillards miss fits, giving Abbott a mandate,equal to the NSW one given to them.
As workers pain increases, look first to the source of that pain, Dillards dullards.
ONLY THE TRUTH WILL SET THE ALP BACK ON TRACK.
Work choices will play no roll in the coming drubbing.

Belly,

It’s a pity on two counts that you << will only post once in his rant/sorry thread>>

The first pity is that you above all people on OLO are well positioned to contribute. Secondly and noticeably, you failed to address any of the issues at all.

I do agree with you that it is unlikely that the WorkChoices issue will play any significant role in voter sentiment at the next election but you must ask yourself why?

The history, platitudes and Howard references are symptomatic of two things. One, you don’t wish to go there and two you can’t.

I suspect you know that the scare campaign against WC’s cannot be repeated and two, that Bill “Short on everything” hissy fit against the Abbott announcements today, is a repeat of the Union scare tactics leading up to the 2007 election.

Short on everything said so many times that this Abbott policy “would strike terror up the spines of every Australian worker”, one has to wonder if the ALP has learned anything.

It’s not the working people that will be affected by Abbott’s policies; it is the trade union “control” of working peoples pay and conditions. The trade union movement has recently been seen to be more interested in ripping off union membership than Howards WC’s ever did. On that basis they won’t care much what Abbott does because they know they will be better off with Abbott’s policies than being ripped of by their own unions.

The ALP is torn between the elitism of those who have infiltrated the ALP and the unholy union of the very same people who are now both elitist and controlling your beloved unions.

Your and you ilk have lost control of what you created in both the ALP and the unions and now, you want to blame anything, anyone and everything for your ideologically driven incompetence.

Your legacy to the Australian people will be remembered for a very long time. Sadly, it will not be remembered fondly. Please don’t come back to us with more of the same.

Foyle, if some young person operated a check out for $9 per hour, which i dont belive happened, chances are, that's all they were worth.

You have to remember, we are talking about a time (sadly less than six years ago) when there were more jobs than workers, and GOOD WORKERS demanded, and received, a premium reward for their skills/efforts.

So the result of labor and the unions fight against WC's, is that that young check out operator, most of which have one eye on face book, or can't help texting, are now on huge money (in comparison) and we, the every day tax payers, are all but broke.

As I said in my opening post, was it really worth the gable, to save just a few, because it is totally undeniable, that had the Howard/Costelo government remained in power, we would be in far better shape than we are today, thanks to labor.

If you don't agree, may I suggest you do some research, it's called PLOITICAL HISTORY.

The sad part is that most every day Australians are going to have to work another ten years or so, just to be in the same position they would have been. Thanks to to labor and the unions, because to go from a surplus AT ANY COST to a deficit of some $17 billion is quite simply economic vandalism.

Belly, no need to tell us your going, because that's your style of late when someone challenges you.