Do you agree with this AWAs/IR Laws bulldust? (3 Viewers)

[veridis]

There are no loopholes, ffs.

The old AWA's ran out and so they are preparing new AWA's which comply with the amended system. Yeah, so what? Am I missing something?

you're missing the fact that 17% of AWAs signed since the IR reforms did not include the 5 protections that are still gaurenteed by law. on these illegal AWAs less than 100 were rectified. the government has no system in place to deal with these AWAs until a complaint is made.
you're missing the fact that to made a complaint and to take an AWA to court(and you have to go direct to high court) it costs a minimum 25k
you're missing that for a case to go to commission(in it's extremely limited form) the employer has to agree that there is a dispute, if the employer simply denies there is a dispute then the employee can't do anything.
you're missing the fact that along with IR reforms the government has changed the minimum wage so it no longer rises with inflation, meaning the longer we're stuck with this system the worse off people are going to be.
so there might not be any loopholes in the legislation, just there's no enforcement of clear breaches as the onus is on the individual to a)have detailed knowledge of industrial law and b)have the resources for a high court appeal.

 

[Azamakumar]

the government has no system in place to deal with these AWAs until a complaint is made.

So basically some idiot does not read what they are signing, is unaware of their rights of a worker, and runs off crying to every current affairs program, and the government is left to clean up the mess. As the woman in the ad says, you have a full week to consider the AWA, and if you still manage to sign an illegal one, or one which does not respect your rights as a worker, you have no right to complain.

you're missing the fact that along with IR reforms the government has changed the minimum wage so it no longer rises with inflation, meaning the longer we're stuck with this system the worse off people are going to be.

You do not seem to understant the way that microeconomic reform works. It is aimed at increasing the productivity of the factors of production, in this specific case labour, resulting in lower costs of production. This allows the economy to experience faster economic growth, lowering the aforementioned economy's NAIRU, thus resulting in less structural unemployment, cost push inflation, and a higher real GDP. With this higher GDP comes a higher GDP per capita. Sure there is going to be a large discrepancy in the incidence of income increase, yet it will be outweighed by the collective benefits as a result of higher taxation revenue.

 

[veridis]

i understand how microeconomic theory works, i just reject the claims that are made by this government about it leaving nobody worse off. no doubt it will stimulate our economy, and if we had a progressive tax system in place the negatives would be outweighed by the results of a higher taxation revenue. we don't have a progressive tax system though. the high number of tax cuts, along with the ever rising military expenditure means that the goverment is not spending more on services and thus we are not reaping the benefits of our strong economy. all of the benefits are staying in the hands of the individual, and you admit that these reforms cause an ever increasing disparity between rich and poor.
if the government were committed to increasing public funding of health, education and other essential services i would admit that while it would still not be my preferred method of reform it would be a positive system. but with the federal government encouraging dependence of private health cover, increasing personal costs for university and other education, as well as privatising every service they can, the burden is defintely shifting to the individual. in this situation microeconomic reform is going to leave a lot of people behind and has the potential to create an underclass that won't be able to access proper health services and won't be able to afford the education to get a better job.

but still i guess it's much easier for you to sit in your little box and dismiss me as simply not understanding mircoeconomic theory instead of actualy engaging with my criticisms.

 

[Azamakumar]

Feel free to correct me if I'm severely mistaken, but I was under the impresion that a progressive tax applies a higher rate of taxation as the amount of income increases. I would also think that the Australian system works similar to this, thus enforcing the reallocation effect, if not through the other taxes, such as the capital gains tax.

You have me on the whole 'direction of government spending' thing, and I guess all that is left to say is that as taxation revenue increases with GDP, one would only expect that spending in all areas would increase.

 

[veridis]

do you really think that constant tax cuts and negative gearing are part of a progressive taxation system? i agree australia has the base of a progressive tax system, but there are so many ways around it that once you get to the upper middle income brackets the tax you pay is more influenced by your accountant than by your income.
as i said before if properly implemented i can see merit in microeconomic reform. in the current economic landscape i think the positives are largely eliminated.

 

[Azamakumar]

Illustrating loopholes that exist does not mean that the system is not progressive; they are open to everyone, albeit accessible by only a few. The fact remains that the reallocation effect does exist, and people who have worked hard are left to pick up the slack.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Peoples' working wages and conditions form part of their human rights.

You want to explain that one?

 

[ZabZu]

My point was that employment law should require employers to treat workers humanly. Workers should be entitled to rest breaks, meal breaks, adequate rest periods between shifts, etc.

Also, the Australian govt is violating international labour standards and human rights laws by not allowing workers to bargain collectively.

 

[Azamakumar]

Also, the Australian govt is violating international labour standards and human rights laws by not allowing workers to bargain collectively.

........

 

[ZabZu]

........

Look up the International Labour Organisation

www.ilo.org

 

[ZabZu]

........

Read what the International Labour Organisation says

www.ilo.org

 

[veridis]

good like, but you not so good you needed to post it twice.
the only thing is that the government follows the American view of the UN, ignore it when you don't like it.

 

[williamc]

I don't understand how the government could support a bill that a huge majority of the population disagreed with

LOl your a fool. Howard won by such a margin in the last election, he can pass anythign he wants pretty much. Just hasn't done anythign this year to scare voters anymore.

Economically I STRONGLY agree with AWA's and the new workchoices.

-Business' can produce goods cheaper with lower wages
-Lower prices of goods means employee's arnt being ripped off with lower wages, and can still buy what they want.
-Inflation will be kept at a more low and stable rate.
-Business' can become more internationally competitive.
-Business' will be forced to innovate their products to remain competitive, thus benefits consumers.
-Lower levels of unemployment. At 4.3% (sep 07), which is 32 year low.
-In the long term the efficent sectors of our economy will become major employers and further extend our current 16 year boom(JH FTW)!. IMO aiming to rid manufaturing sector.
-HIGHER LIVING STANDARDS.

Aslong as you got some qualifications, or are interested for a job in high demand, your all sweet. Workchoices provides incentives for people to get higher qualifications which can only benfit our economy. SCREW THE BUMS.

PS. I have got no morals or ethics.

 

[kazan]

just becuase a business creates goods cheaper
does't mean that they will lower there prices
there still in it to make a profit

 

[williamc]

just becuase a business creates goods cheaper
does't mean that they will lower there prices
there still in it to make a profit

They will be FORCED to lower prices in order to stay competitive against both domestic producers goods, and ofcourse wiith such vast reductions in protection, cheaper foreign imports.

 

[Billy Corgan]

26 - 9. I see who wins this round.

 

[Graney]

They will be FORCED to lower prices in order to stay competitive against both domestic producers goods, and ofcourse wiith such vast reductions in protection, cheaper foreign imports.

A glorious future where Australian manufacturing workers wages are competitive with the third world?

 

[Lachlan18]

The people who voted Yes are just freaks that hate themselves, hate life in general, and hate others.

Those that voted yes, care about people, want a good life and don't want others to suffer as well.

The new laws are just extreme right-wing laws that don't find a balance at all. The government will lose because it decided to happily give us inferior laws that disadvantage workers and is trying to cover it up with "well it's for the economy, bitches". Sorry, doesn't work that way. It's like the government saying "We'll make the minimum wage $1 now - it's for the economy".

No one likes extremists, and the moment you try to make our lives worse, we'll kick you out of power!

I can't wait till we rid ourselves of SerfChoices.

 

[jb_nc]

Hmm, I think that if you've lived your whole life in Australia with access to a free education and all its bonuses and you don't have any skills to negotiate with you are stupid and should have your job undercut by a migrant.

 

[Lachlan18]

Hmm, I think that if you've lived your whole life in Australia with access to a free education and all its bonuses and you don't have any skills to negotiate with you are stupid and should have your job undercut by a migrant.

Wow, does your life suck that much? Angry people with horrible lives should never have permission to make or suggest laws. Leave it to people that actually care about this country and its future.