The official IR reform thread! (7 Viewers)

[erawamai]

I think its pretty clear that in terms of economic indicators the reforms will be good. Theoretically unemployment will go down.

However it is very true that those who have nothing to bargain with, those protected by the min wage, will suffer the most. Those of us who have skills to bargain with will be better off. However this will be at the expense of those without skills.

Anyone with basis knowledge of the market knows that it is harsh. They will know that those who cannot compete in the market are essentially going to get screwed. Essentially unskilled workers. This is especially true when it is know that Fair Pay Comission is most likely to decease the old minimun wage by around 50 dollars. As for the no disadvantage test? Who says they are going to keep that.

Essentially you have no skills to bargain with...you can be forced to sign an AWA if you are moving to a new job.

 

[frog12986]

There is a difference between a 'nanny state' and a state that provides for certain sections of the community. As the name insinuates, 'nanny' refers to a more extensive state provision or regulation than is necessary. The 'Dole Bluger' typifies the ramifications of the disincentive that is derived through such a state system..but again that isn't to say that certain factions of the community require aand should be allocated certain forms of assistance...

 

[Generator]

At the current time Australia is hardly what I would call a nanny state, yet it seems that people of your ilk do not agree. What would you consider to be necessary in instances such as this? What is too extensive?

 

[erawamai]

.but again that isn't to say that certain factions of the community require aand should be allocated certain forms of assistance...

I think you will find that the current changes don't really accomodate assistance for those who actually need it. In particular when a worker, when moving to a new job, has no choice but to sign an AWA...in particular when the government could, at the snapping of its fingers, scrap the no disadvantage test.

The Australian labour market, as it stands, is pretty degreguated. Australia has not been a nanny state for many many many years. You can choose to be on an AWA or you can choose to collectively bargain. I believe that is fair. I don't believe it is fair for workers, many of whom will not have anything to bargain with, to be FORCED onto an AWA.

 

[Generator]

As for the no disadvantage test? Who says they are going to keep that.

They aren't (well, the current no disadvantage test will be scrapped, anyway), yet they still continue to justify the widespread introduction of rubber stamped AWAs upon the supposed evidence that they have gleaned from AWAs reached under the current system.

 

[frog12986]

At the current time Australia is hardly what I would call a nanny state, yet it seems that people of your ilk do not agree. What would you consider to be necessary in instances such as this? What is too extensive?

I didn't quite say Australia was still a 'fully fledged' nanny state. However, there are certain aspects of both the welfare and wage systems that provide extended forms of disincentive to an individual to lead a productive and contributive role in society.

The litmus test will be when those who 'suck the guts' out of the welfare system for no adequate reason, are more enticed to find proper work than receive welfare payments for making a sub-standard attempt at applying for a job or job interview.

 

[Generator]

I agree that more can be done to entice some of those on welfare into a reasonable working environment, yet I disagree with the implied notion that a person's worth to society is only measureable within the formal and dry economy and that extensive disincentives with respect to gaining employment and negotiating suitable agreements exist.

Also, of the number who access the welfare system, how many abuse it to the extent that you suggest? No doubt the actual number is far from being as high as you believe, and I think that it's a shame to make however many in need may now suffer just because a Lib managed to get a fly up their nose after hearing about the odd out of the blue case of extensive welfare fraud.

 

[erawamai]

I didn't quite say Australia was still a 'fully fledged' nanny state. However, there are certain aspects of both the welfare and wage systems that provide extended forms of disincentive to an individual to lead a productive and contributive role in society.

Such as? Currently I only seen tax reform as a serious area of disincentive. It's just an ideological argument. We are movement towards an American society (small state, individual freedom, minimal suty to society) while, for example NZ, is moving towars a European or Scandanavian system (More of a welfare state, duty to society and fellow man/woman).

I really don't think it is fair to call Australia a nanny state when, under the current system, you can choose to go onto an AWA or to bargain collectively.

 

[Sarah]

An example of an existent 'workchoices' in my workplace. ......

Now whilst not 'workchoices' as such, it is an example of the benefits of workplace flexibilty..

Now in terms of flexibility, well there are items in the proposed legislation which don't reflect flexibility. For example, the idea of a 38 hour working week may undermine what's currently in place. Take teachers as an example. Now they don't have fixed hours and there's a lot of prep done outside the class room. So exactly how can they keep track of hours worked?

Even though it's only 1 example, it does show that the current system in place caters for diversity amongst industries. That to me suggests there's flexibility already.

And as has been pointed out, you may not get the choice when you're presented with an AWA.

He is adamant that the vast majority of employers, particularly in small business such as himself, are not going to sacrifice the quality of their employees, products or productivity for the alternative option. Moreover, we are in a current situation where there is almost a shortage of workers, which most people are aware, and sacrificing one's best employees in many industries simply isn't an option.

If the situation were different and supply > demand we might face a different situation.

I think that it will really depend on the employer. It sounds like you have a good employer but not all ppl out there do. As has been said, there will be those who aren't in a strong bargaining position but there will also be those that are. It will all depend on the industry and current situation.

 

[erawamai]

I think that it will really depend on the employer. It sounds like you have a good employer but not all ppl out there do. As has been said, there will be those who aren't in a strong bargaining position but there will also be those that are. It will all depend on the industry and current situation.

the system would work perfectly if your employer was serious concerned with your welfare, living standards and mental balance. However I believe, for the most part, the prime concern of the employer is profit (which is not inherently wrong) but it is not the duty of the employer to look out for the welfare of the employee.

 

[frog12986]

A fly up my nose? I think not.

Out of the Blue? Many in need? Why don't we have a look at the engrained culture of welfare dependency that exists in the families of many housing commission communities. Wouldn't these premises be more useful for those who actually are impaired or disabled by no fault of their own? Not only do these communities exploit the system, but create enclaves embedded with crime and dependeny; a perpetuating and extending cycle

Legitimacy in regards to welfare claim is highly contraversial indeed but nonetheless a prevalent issue. I'm sure that the figures of illegitimacy are much more extensive than what you believe, and am in no doubt that a full inquiry into the welfare system would emphatically reveal the figures. Hardworking taxpayers do not deserved to have their money wasted on the 'bludgers' of society, because a bleeding heart did not have the gumption to stand up against those who depend upon and rort the system for no legitimate or substantiated reason.

 

[Generator]

I don't agree with your assessment, and I find it a bit rich that a hardworking taxpayer of middle Australia can criticise those accessing the welfare system when they themselves are benefiting from one of the most extensive middle-class 'welfare' systems that this country has ever seen.

 

[Sarah]

It is merely an ideological battle between the spent force often referred to as the unions, and the political right. All I can say is that nothing will be worse than the conditions, both economically and socially, that existed under the accord of the 1980's. As Alexander Downer rightly stated, the 'nanny state' is a spent force and any aligned notion is completely redundant.

Look wage indexation existed before the accord an under a Liberal govt. There's good and bad aspects of the accord.

It worked in the early 1980's but fell short in operating in the mid 80's due to changes in the international economy which adversely affected Aust. The accord wasn't able to respond to these changes.

Keep in mind, it was the accord which introduced the option of enterprise bargaining. There was a move to decentralisation in it's final years with recognition on an enterprise level there had to be more flexibility.

Gosh this word "flexibility" has become overused......

 

[Generator]

Senate inquiry on work laws to be short and tight

Asked yesterday whether safety-net wages were too high, the Workplace Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews, said: "It's not a matter for me. What the Government has decided is that we will have an independent body to do it. I'm not going to instruct an independent Fair Pay Commission how to act, any more than the Treasurer instructs the Reserve Bank how to act."

Keeping in mind the Government's attitude towards the AIRC (an independent body, funnily enough) with respect to the determination of the minimum wage, does anyone truly believe that the Fair Pay Commission, directed by government appointed commissioners on short term contracts, will be as independent as Kevin Andrews seems to suggest?

---

Beazley slams 'gag' on workplace laws

---

IR reforms will stop terrorists, honest

In yesterday's question time, Peter Costello was confronted with the evidence of the effects of labour market deregulation on the New Zealand economy. In the decade since it happened, productivity growth has been half that in Australia and wages growth has been negligible.

Costello said New Zealand had "probably" a lower unemployment rate than Australia - which it does.

He went on to note that European nations with the most regulated labour markets also had high unemployment. He made special reference to "recent events" in France, ie, the worst riots in nearly 40 years, mostly involving Islamic youths.

And commentary out of France says the riots are the result of social exclusion, particularly the high unemployment rate among young French of Middle Eastern and African backgrounds.

Given the public appears so more willing to believe the Government on matters of security than on IR, why are the Liberal Party's ad people not onto it?

Hehe

---

Howard defends bosses' right to sack workers

---

Overworked Scarlet sees red and walks away

---

A swing too far from the bad old days

 

[leetom]

The prosperity of small business is threatened by workplace reform. If legions of workers end up earning less they will no longer enjoy the spending power they do now and will be forced to forgo current leisures. Restaurants and cafes would experience diminished patronage and in order to recoup losses will be forced to cut the wages of their own employees and even sack some.

This, in turn, has devastating cultural ramifications. The extent of modern cultural expression is getting together with friends or family and dining out. If wages are lowered which, with the introduction of such reforms they inevitably will, the money currently used on cultural expression will have to be saved and applied elsewhere to make up for cut in take-home pay.

End result: a cultural scene populated only by the well-off while the lower-middle classes are confined to McDonalds and KFC. =sad society.

So unsuccessful has it been that of 6 million glossy, eight-page brochures produced to promote the changes, 5.8 million are still in warehouses, unlikely ever to be distributed.

The Libs I think, have just undergone a terrible and frightening realisation- the advertising campaign has perhaps even served to foment even greater opposition to the reform push. (I like to think due to a public rejection of fundamental Liberal Party values, although I suspect more a nation-wide loathing of the advertisement bombardment).

 

[erawamai]

Hardworking taxpayers do not deserved to have their money wasted on the 'bludgers' of society, because a bleeding heart did not have the gumption to stand up against those who depend upon and rort the system for no legitimate or substantiated reason.

I bet that gets a cheer at the local liberal meeting. Stop those bludgers getting welfare! While their grandparents collect the pension and their reletives collect baby bonus (talk about upper class and middle class welfare).

Try and move beyond the chiche. Hybolic language actually doesn't help those who actually need welfare.

Interestingly some people do require welfare and that it is in the interests of society and hence your interest that these people are given welfare (and perhaps even their dignity). I can just see you try to get war injured to work or disabled people to work! OH I forgot...thats whats they are already trying to do! I mean if you have no use of your upper body but you can move your fingers this BLUDGER should stop bludging and sit in front of a computer and do data entry for 15 bucks and hour. Thats of course if anyone wants to employ him.

I'm sure you would also know that there have been many many many Senate inquires into welfare dependancy and rorting. It is very hard to rort the state these days. It is ny impossible stop rorting but it isnt easy to get welfare. Have you ever tried to fill out a youth allowance form? They don't make it easy.

But of course those multimilliondollars ads are cost effective. You know the ones that tell you that rorting is a crime (as it should be). Those adds are targeted at you the self proclaimed hardworking non bludger who does good for the community. Those adds are targeted at you because they make you fell better. Market research and focus groups say so. Sure these adds cost a shitload and eat into the federal budget thus counterweighing any savings from catching out welfare cheats and hence allowing income tax cuts... BUT DAMN that are popular...and thats what is important. Not good government but getting people to hate anyone thats takes welfare because, if you give people someone to crap on, it makes them feel better.

 

[dannyr]

Isn't that their own fault?

Maybe it is their fault for not learning exactly what they are entitled to and then refering it to what the employer is offering but why not keep a system that looks after the average Australian. I mean how doesn't the system work at the moment? If you ever went for a job did you go and check the exact awards? Probably not, because the system at the moment looks after the worker and the employer can't just f--k them over... so why change?

All this talk of "simplifying the system" is just crap they could easily simplify the system without making it an empolyers market, if the problem is just it being to confusing then why major reform change? Howard's media campaign is simply propaganda to make people who don't understand the policy to support it.

And "keeping the economy strong" is just a crock, the only way the economy will be stronger is making the employees live in a constant state of fear and therefore work rediculously hard but i would have thought in Australia we have a good balance at the moment? I mean you can have a life but there is still a strong economy... All the countries that have 'high standards of living' like Sweden and Norway have similar systems to what we have NOW and countries that have what Howard proposes like the US have terrible standards of living.

Actually learn what this is about before you endorse it, I think there needs to be serious protesting to stop Howards Gov't rubber stamping this... COME ON PEOPLE STAND FOR YOUR WORKING RIGHTS!!

 

[dannyr]

and thats what is important. Not good government but getting people to hate anyone thats takes welfare because, if you give people someone to crap on, it makes them feel better.

So true, it's kind of scary studying Nazism in Germany in history that it's like Australia's hatred of "asylum seekers" and "poor people", (notice how when you say asylum seeker these days it has negative connotations when really it means a refugee? I mean a refugee, they are seeking refuge and we are perpetually scared of them?!?)

Now I'm not saying there would be a genocide here but there are some pretty strong links to say the shit people were saying in about 1932 - 33 in Germany ... I just think it's worth thinking about because it ain't that far fetched how easily it happened twice in the 1990's.

I'll probs get burnt for this but I don't care.

 

[Generator]

You will, and rightly so. I'm hardly a fan of the current government, but even I'm not daft enough to try and suggest that there is some sort of meaningful similarity between Nazi Germany of the 1930s and Australia under the Howard Liberal/Coalition Governments.

 

[erawamai]

You will, and rightly so. I'm hardly a fan of the current government, but even I'm not daft enough to try and suggest that there is some sort of meaningful similarity between Nazi Germany of the 1930s and Australia under the Howard Liberal/Coalition Governments.

Mainstreaming and the process of 'othering'. Notions of the rule of law and treating people equally are all well and good but the chattering classes don't like to be told that they are equal to their peers. That want to be better. A core of this is that people are insecure about everything. Security is generated by feeling superior, the feeling of having more power than your peers. The process of othering, creating a group to beat up on, is core to this. Whether they deserve it or not.

the economy requires a happy middle class that is caught in a perpetual quest or aspiration for betterment. The only ones that ever leave this petual nothingness are the ones that are not won over by consumerism...the silly middle class that keeps Australia going doesnt realise that consumption is not evidence of wealth or success. It's what keeps you middle class. As such it is better to keep the middle gasping for the top of the market. Hardly any get there. As long as you keep the light up there they will all chase it.