The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

Thanks Sarah and NTB. I know that under the still current system people tend to have a choice between an award and an AWA (and even if they don't at least they are protected by an industrial award or a relatively robust no-disadvantage test), but for a 'Workchoices' package to offer no real choice to the employees (all this from a government that is looking out for the worker, too), I'm at a loss as to how both Howard and Andrews can continue to suggest that workchoices offers real choices to all, as opposed to offering choices to those employers who will be under the jurisdiction of the federal IR system.

 

[= Jennifer =]

I thought you were a young Liberal?

no that's Jonathan

I am Liberal but if i do not like apolicy i will say so, i have quite an open mind when it comes to politics

 

[erawamai]

I am Liberal but if i do not like apolicy i will say so, i have quite an open mind when it comes to politics

Well if you oppose IR reform you are no Liberal

IR reform is at the core of the Liberal party belief.

 

[Generator]

A slight tangent (the article doesn't mention the IR reform agenda, but it discusses flexibility in the workforce)...

Flexibility, less ageism key to workforce

Ms Asher said the child care issue was an "easy fix" for the Federal Government.

"Society is full of able-bodied women who are seeking part-time work as a way back into the workforce," she said.

*shakes head*

Two possibilities -
1. The journalist is a true bastard by constructing the article in such a way; or
2. Ms Asher is making a simplistic suggestion that will be rightly dismissed by many.

 

[nesso]

Boosting productivity...look at the logic

if i was PM i would make economics compulsary at school.

the economic benefits of the industrial relation reforms are at the heart of ensuring our standards of living in australia...
dead set and i dont mean to sound like a broken record

all us economics students know .....australias economy has reached the Natural rate of unemployment and there is in fact a growing concern now and for the future of a labour shortage..

this in mind the truth is it is HARD to find good staff and those who do a good job have a SAFE job and arent in danger of losing it...

the unfair dismissal laws only detrimentally affect the lazy workers of australia who are under threat because they do a shit job and they know it and want to keep it that way...

POint 2# if the unfair dismissal laws are changed...small businesses are more hhappy to employ more people on full time this means less casual employment and less UNDEREMPLOYMENT which we know is becoming rife.
True casual rates are higher...but instead of them receive more beneficial more full time pay

Employers in some small businesses are afraid to employ too many ppl because its so hard to get rid of them

Dont think we are the workers we need protection for our families....do your job right and you will be safe...

anyone agree with me???? or please choose to disagree

 

[Generator]

and some claim that the English teachers are indoctrinating their students... It's good to see that you are more than willing to disregard the entire notion of workplace rights for some supposed gain in 'productivity'.

Edit: Time will tell, of course, but I cannot help but think that any gains in productivity will be at the expense of workplace security - the economy itself may benefit, but at what cost in a social sense?

 

[walrusbear]

if i was PM i would make economics compulsary at school.

the economic benefits of the industrial relation reforms are at the heart of ensuring our standards of living in australia...
dead set and i dont mean to sound like a broken record

all us economics students know .....australias economy has reached the Natural rate of unemployment and there is in fact a growing concern now and for the future of a labour shortage..

this in mind the truth is it is HARD to find good staff and those who do a good job have a SAFE job and arent in danger of losing it...

the unfair dismissal laws only detrimentally affect the lazy workers of australia who are under threat because they do a shit job and they know it and want to keep it that way...

POint 2# if the unfair dismissal laws are changed...small businesses are more hhappy to employ more people on full time this means less casual employment and less UNDEREMPLOYMENT which we know is becoming rife.
True casual rates are higher...but instead of them receive more beneficial more full time pay

Employers in some small businesses are afraid to employ too many ppl because its so hard to get rid of them

Dont think we are the workers we need protection for our families....do your job right and you will be safe...

anyone agree with me???? or please choose to disagree

did they ever tell you that most of your beliefs are really just theory? and not the centre of the universe?
if anything i'd say economics needs a shitload less emphasis in our society

 

[erawamai]

if i was PM i would make economics compulsary at school.

the economic benefits of the industrial relation reforms are at the heart of ensuring our standards of living in australia...
dead set and i dont mean to sound like a broken record

all us economics students know .....australias economy has reached the Natural rate of unemployment and there is in fact a growing concern now and for the future of a labour shortage..

this in mind the truth is it is HARD to find good staff and those who do a good job have a SAFE job and arent in danger of losing it...

the unfair dismissal laws only detrimentally affect the lazy workers of australia who are under threat because they do a shit job and they know it and want to keep it that way...

POint 2# if the unfair dismissal laws are changed...small businesses are more hhappy to employ more people on full time this means less casual employment and less UNDEREMPLOYMENT which we know is becoming rife.
True casual rates are higher...but instead of them receive more beneficial more full time pay

Employers in some small businesses are afraid to employ too many ppl because its so hard to get rid of them

Dont think we are the workers we need protection for our families....do your job right and you will be safe...

anyone agree with me???? or please choose to disagree

While what you say is all well and good...but don't you think its a bit silly to proclaim you know everything about this because you do or did yr 12 economics? Only a fool who suggest that that is all there is to it. A bit more than yr 12 economics is required to understand the situation.

 

[Sarah]

if i was PM i would make economics compulsary at school.

the economic benefits of the industrial relation reforms are at the heart of ensuring our standards of living in australia...
dead set and i dont mean to sound like a broken record

all us economics students know .....australias economy has reached the Natural rate of unemployment and there is in fact a growing concern now and for the future of a labour shortage..

this in mind the truth is it is HARD to find good staff and those who do a good job have a SAFE job and arent in danger of losing it...

the unfair dismissal laws only detrimentally affect the lazy workers of australia who are under threat because they do a shit job and they know it and want to keep it that way...

POint 2# if the unfair dismissal laws are changed...small businesses are more hhappy to employ more people on full time this means less casual employment and less UNDEREMPLOYMENT which we know is becoming rife.
True casual rates are higher...but instead of them receive more beneficial more full time pay

Employers in some small businesses are afraid to employ too many ppl because its so hard to get rid of them

Dont think we are the workers we need protection for our families....do your job right and you will be safe...

anyone agree with me???? or please choose to disagree

A couple of things. There's a lot more to economics than what's taught in high school. Are you in high school? If not, have u studied any 2nd yr or above econ subjects at uni? THere are other schools of economic thought, other theories which seek to tackle unemployment. I'm not saying they're correct but they're part of a variety of approaches.

With unfair dismissal laws, well there are some situations where they don't affect lazy workers but also impact on workers who do their jobs correctly but the employer finds other reasons to dismiss the employee which aren't performance based.

As to your point #2, well i could also say that if the govt abolishes compulsory superannuation, award rates, workers comp/insurance, well that could also give more of an incentive for small business to hire more ppl.

 

[Generator]

This should have been posted late last week, but eh.

New light shed on Fair Pay Commission head
PM - Thursday, 15 December , 2005 18:52:19
Reporter: Stephen Long


MARK COLVIN: The Government's new pay-setting body, the Fair Pay Commission is now a reality.

Just hours ago the Governor-General gave Royal Assent to laws setting up the new body.

Until now, little has been publicly known about what the commission's new chief, Professor Ian Harper, thinks about wages.

But PM has unearthed a paper by Professor Harper which condemns the concept, established in the famous Harvester Judgement of 1907, of a "fair and reasonable" wage.

The Fair Pay Commission's boss also expresses approval for wage rates paid in the sweatshops of lower Manhattan some time ago.

And he argues that low-skilled workers should be paid rates commensurate with their low productivity.

[continued]

 

[Generator]

Treasury exposes the hard reality

Treasury exposes the hard reality
ANALYSIS
Brad Norington
December 19, 2005


TREASURY documents obtained by The Australian on the Howard Government's new workplace changes expose the policy dilemma that has plagued the Coalition for months.

John Howard and Peter Costello have been desperately trying to sell to the public the message that their industrial laws are all positive: higher pay, more jobs and greater productivity.

It would have been politically unpalatable to admit to what Treasury has been telling them.

[continued - see link]

IR laws: What Costello was told

The Australian revealed last month that the Government was concealing Treasury advice which called into question its claims about the economic benefits of overhauling the nation's industrial relations system.

The Australian's report was based on evidence to a Senate estimates committee hearing from senior Treasury official David Tune, who confirmed that Mr Costello was provided with advice on the Government's industrial relations changes in about May that included conclusions based on economic modelling. Mr Tune declined to reveal the advice.

Mr Costello refused to release the advice or say whether it supported the Government's claims when contacted at the time by The Australian. His office said cabinet-related matters were confidential.

But Mr Costello told parliament three days later that no secret advice existed and "it was certainly news to me".

"It was so secret that this report had not been written," he said. "Not only was it so secret that it had not even been written, it was so secret that it had neither been written nor released..."

...

Still reeling from the effects of the Robert Gerard-Reserve Bank scandal, Mr Costello was accused by Labor last night of misleading parliament when he denied in November having received advice from Treasury on the effect of the workplace changes.

A spokesman for Mr Costello strongly denied the Treasurer had misled parliament.

Steve Lewis: A woeful month for Treasurer gets worse

[Peter Costello] stands accused of misleading parliament after denying six weeks ago that his department had given him advice on the economic impact of the Howard Government's workplace reforms.

Costello is extremely lucky to have the benefit of his training as a barrister, because his answer to the parliament reflects a well-honed education in the law.

On November 7, Costello rejected suggestions by Labor that he was concealing "especially commissioned advice" from the Treasury.

This followed a front-page article in The Weekend Australian, reporting that Treasury had prepared advice on how the IR changes would affect jobs, wages and productivity.

It seemed a natural thing for Treasury to do. But Costello was emphatic, arguing that the story was "wrong".

Costello was playing with words. We now know Treasury had been analysing the impact of the IR reforms and forming important judgments.

 

[Generator]

Costello admits IR reform harm

Press Release No. 11 2005 – Treasury Minute of 6 October 2005

IR promise fulfilled at expense of low skilled workers
PM - Monday, 19 December , 2005 17:14:00
Reporter: Stephen Long


TANYA NOLAN: Treasury's advice on the new IR laws may be politically contentious, but to many economists it's just basic common sense.

Conventional economics suggests that if the new laws are to fulfil their promise of creating more jobs, the trade-off will be lower productivity and falling wages for the low-skilled.

[continued]

Edit: Peter Costello: the boy that Santa forgot

 

[withoutaface]

As to your point #2, well i could also say that if the govt abolishes compulsory superannuation, award rates, workers comp/insurance, well that could also give more of an incentive for small business to hire more ppl.

Yes. Yes it would.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

As to your point #2, well i could also say that if the govt abolishes compulsory superannuation, award rates, workers comp/insurance, well that could also give more of an incentive for small business to hire more ppl.

The biggest problem with compulsory superannuation is that it is another punishment for businesses that wish to pay their employers a bit more.

 

[Generator]

Wage chief's business dealings questioned

Wage chief's business dealings questioned
By Stephen Long for AM


The Federal Opposition has called for a full investigation into the business dealings of Ian Harper - the new chairman of the Fair Pay Commission.

The AM program reports that Professor Harper was the director of a company that went into administration owing more than $700,000 to its workers.

The company went broke after allegedly trading while insolvent.

The administrators found there was an arguable case that the directors had breached criminal offences under company law.

Professor Harper will play a major role in determining wage rises under the Federal Government's new industrial relations system.

[continued - see link]

 

[Generator]

ABC Online - NSW launches High Court challenge to IR laws

The News South Wales Government is lodging a High Court challenge against the Federal Government's industrial relations (IR) changes - becoming the first state to do so.

The Western Australian Government says it is in the final stages of preparing its challenge and the Queensland Government says it is likely to launch its own early in the new year.

Victoria will also file a claim early next year supporting the New South Wales challenge.

[continued - see link]

 

[leetom]

With the Gerard debacle, and now the uncertain past of Professor Harper, I don't think it would be that unreasonable to request the ATO to investigate the business and taxation affairs of all Liberal Party members. If a criminal can climb Party ranks all the way up to the Reserve Bank, god knows what rank-and-file Liberal members are like.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

With the Gerard debacle, and now the uncertain past of Professor Harper, I don't think it would be that unreasonable to request the ATO to investigate the business and taxation affairs of all Liberal Party members. If a criminal can climb Party ranks all the way up to the Reserve Bank, god knows what rank-and-file Liberal members are like.

Why not investigate the business and taxation affairs of everyone... like they are supposed to to begin with?

 

[leetom]

Why not investigate the business and taxation affairs of everyone... like they are supposed to to begin with?

Because investigating everybody would require massive amounts manpower and resources, unnecessary when the good conduct of Labor members and non-aligned citizens can generally be assumed, whereas a random check of a Liberal, particularly a high ranking one, could well yield evidence of misconduct.

 

[Sarah]

The biggest problem with compulsory superannuation is that it is another punishment for businesses that wish to pay their employers a bit more.

I think you mean "employees"?

I can think of 1 industry in which employers are able to 'recover' the costs of superannuation.

Going off on a tangent here but with the issue of responsibility over super, the question arises of who should bear the costs of it i.e the Govt, employers, or the individual