Too right Yuyutsu. Time to get back on the path of truth.

Oh, & get rid of all those "people of other cultural/religious affiliations". Never should have had them here in the first placer.

A catch cry of the conservatives is the buzz word "FLEXIBILITY" and I am the first to agree that both workers and employers could realistically do with a little flexibility in the workplace, provided that flexibility is fair and balanced. Unfortunately for some employers flexibility is noting more than a euphemism for launching an assault on the hard won wages and conditions of their employees. In the name of flexibility some bosses are out to take what ever they can and give nothing in return.
It was clearly seen with Howard's Work Choices how the conservatives view flexibility in the workplace, and exactly how they would have it applied, all to the detriment of the employee. Abbott is chafing at the bit to introduce his own new version of Howard's WC, all designed to rob the worker and boost the employers bottom line. One thing I learned years ago, never trade conditions for pay, pay can easily be eroded, condition are a good deal harder to take away.

Dear Hasbeen,

<<Oh, & get rid of all those "people of other cultural/religious affiliations". Never should have had them here in the first placer.>>

I see that you want to get rid of me... Nevertheless, I'm here to stay!

Dear Paul,

<<Howard's WC, all designed to rob the worker and boost the employers bottom line.>>

Sigh, I understand that sadly, some people, including some prime-ministers have that particular goal in mind - with such "friends", who needs enemies?!

However, my intention in supporting WorkChoices cannot be any further from a desire to support people's greed. My position is derived solely from the universal principle of non-violence, that it is wrong and immoral to deny people their natural freedoms.

Your problem, Paul, is that at the moment your subsistence depends on employment. Being desperate for your children not to starve, you seem willing to bend any principle and any sense of decency: specifically, you're happy to deny the individual freedom of such people whom you label "employers" in order to ensure that your children have enough to eat.

Now suppose your family's subsistence was not in doubt. Suppose you were assured to have the basics no matter what, irrespective of employment. Suppose that if you chose to enter into a formal employment-agreement, it would only be for the sake of extra comforts and luxuries, rather than for the basics. Should that be the case, then you could stand firm against any employer and would need not accept any of their conditions just as they don't need to accept yours.

Yes, your welfare is important, but your boss is not your father, thus it is unreasonable to expect him to be responsible for it.

Instead, what I propose (and always did), is a universal and unconditional payment to all, divorcing subsistence from the cruel world of economics. Technically this will take the form of a negative income-tax. Once we have this, all issues around "industrial-relations" would be dissolved by themselves and even the "Left", at least the non-greedy among them, will no longer uphold such laws that interfere with people's free choice.

Yuyutsu,

Let me say good morning, and I am pleased to hear you are a person who believes tn the universal principle of non-violence.

Your assumptions about me could not be further from the truth. You said;
"Your problem, Paul, is that at the moment your subsistence depends on employment. Being desperate for your children not to starve, you seem willing to bend any principle and any sense of decency: specifically, you're happy to deny the individual freedom of such people whom you label "employers" in order to ensure that your children have enough to eat."
To put you in the picture Yuyutsu. I own my own home in Sydney, and have money in the "bank", I have no debt what so ever, and have worked for over 40 years. So I'm comfortable and do not require work for subsistence, these days, through my own choice, I only work part time. My children are off my hands and not exactly "starving" as you put it.
I don't have a problem. You seem to go along with the conservative spin that if you remove all controls, remove all representation and leave industrial relations to "free" negotiation between employers and individual employees then miraculously all will be satisfied. In a make believe Utopian world of equality, that may well be the case, but in the real world of inequality, that is far removed from the reality. The conservative motive is no lofty idealism, but the grim reality of driving down pay and conditions, and they know this can be achieved if the employer applies individual contracts which have been "negotiated" with the employee, usually with the employee at a distinct disadvantage.
If our society is to exist with some form of order, then both employers and employees have a social responsibility to each other. To say the boss has no responsibility beyond the bottom line, and many perpetuate that nonsense, is asking for disorder in society.

Yuyutsu, this is Australia mate and, as it appears all are welcome to come here and share our lucky country, but, to expect to come here then change OUR WAYS to suit theirs is just wrong.

There are two choices, come and accept our ways, or don't come.

Foxy, with all due respect, the time you were talking about was Pre the seven day society we now have.

579, I have no problem with shift workers being paid penalty rates, but hospitality and tourism, the most effected by these rates don't have a large percentage of shift workers and, if they do, then they deserve their rates

Good morning Paul,

I am glad about your comfortable personal situation - then you must be concerned about others who are not as fortunate as yourself.

<<You seem to go along with the conservative spin>>

That's why I wrote earlier, "with such friends, who needs enemies?".

I don't know why you call greedy people "conservative", what it is they are trying to conserve or what else they may have between them other than greed: please let me assure you that I think independently and if they reached SOME of the same conclusions as I did, then it's merely a coincidence.

It is legitimate to like social order, to have a preference for it, but it is not legitimate to force it on others against their will as if they were tin soldiers to line-up. In the context of this discussion for example, it is not legitimate to dictate a calendar to people, especially those of different cultures/religions who may have a different calendar, telling them which should be their preferred holiday-dates. Talking about conservatives, wouldn't this be an attempt to "conserve" a particular culture by force?

Most employers are companies anyway and a company is an "industrial" body by definition, having no existence of its own other than within society - an individual OTOH is not. While it is legitimate to impose certain conditions on industrial bodies, it is not legitimate to interfere with private contracts between two fully-informed and consenting individuals by labelling one of them an "employer", the other an "employee" and their relationship "industrial".

Note that the individuals in question may have different relationship(s) - they may for example be family-members, friends, lovers or belong to a common cultural/religious community: stating that they cannot make their own contracts, that one must be exploiting the other, is insulting to both parties.

As for those whose only relationship is "industrial", my solution is simple: remove sustenance from the equation and from the harsh world of economics, then potential-employees will have full power to negotiate with potential-employers (with or without representation, as they wish), because come-what-may, they won't go hungry.