The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

[leetom]

"That word 'choice' hides the individualist philosophy," he said, "which has done so much damage. There are certain times when we give up our choice - our individual, selfish choice - for the sake of the group, for the sake of the family.

"And yes, I am saying I wonder if it's useful for us to run our factories 24 hours a day, seven days a week - which may be economically efficient, but at the same time brings a dreadful nemesis to family life, and to people getting together, and being together, and people being able to play sport together.

"That's the cost of so-called choice. And I think we'll have to be very careful not to sell ourselves at this point."

I really enjoyed that.

From the Ross Gittens Opinion piece that Asquithian posted. For me, Dr Jenson is right on the money. It's on the same level as the discussion between Asquithian and absolution* on sufficient enough amounts of social cohesion and social capital. We can go all-out economically, but at such a devastating cost to the community.

Whether this system of erosion of social cohesion matters in a world of MTV, ipods and the internet is debatable. Do people even need community?

I think we've entered an era where the hoi polloi doesn't care much for community, but rather the attainment of as much material wealth as possible. It's evident everywhere you go. You overhear conversations between people longing for the new piece of technology they long for, or what sort of upgrades they are planning for their car. They have no regard for the benefits of Marxist intellectualism (lol) but instead thirst for just more and more wealth, to the detriment of society.

 

[Generator]

Senior judge criticises national IR plan

 

[walrusbear]

It pretty much boils down to that. How far to do we with the Free market (I tend to agree with Fukuyama that Liberal democracy and Free marketism is the end of history with qualifications) without destroying the unmeasurable things we do sometimes not for direct rational self benefit such - Trust and being nice to one another etc etc. These 'social capital' issues cannot be measured and are not talked about in fundementalist Freemarket thought.

It's a simply question of balance. How far can be go with the freemarket neo classical ideas before you screw up social cohesion. Is social cohesion overrated and as such we shoudn't measure it? The invisable hand of Smith and co will just mean that society is better if we just talk in terms of rational humans being rational untility maximisers?

I tend to think a nice balance is somewhere. Current political ideology just wants to know how far we can push it.

i'd argue that the neoliberal push for unbound freemarket doesn't recognise the social sphere of the world. there's seemingly nothing that won't be sacrificed for economic gains.

also, i hope fukiyama is wrong
seems like things gets less stable under our current version of liberal democracy by the day

 

[Sarah]

It's a simply question of balance. How far can be go with the freemarket neo classical ideas before you screw up social cohesion. Is social cohesion overrated and as such we shoudn't measure it? The invisable hand of Smith and co will just mean that society is better if we just talk in terms of rational humans being rational untility maximisers?

I tend to think a nice balance is somewhere. Current political ideology just wants to know how far we can push it.

Look, Smith wasn't all bad. His focus was on economic development and through this the improvement of living standards would occur. The problem is that when people criticise economic thought, they don't see that these are just models based on certain conditions met and that reality doesn't necessarily reflect these models. For example, most of these models assume there is perfect competition i.e no firm in an industry having a significant influence on prices, but in reality, we know that not all markets are like that. We know that there may be other factors which influence the behaviour of markets.

Also there's a distinction between Classical Economists e.g Adam Smith and Neo-classical economists e.g Milton Friedman. Classical economists placed more emphasis on the long-term and encompassed the social and political aspects. Neo-classical however is narrower (imo) looks to the market, equilibrium and prices. "Smith & Co" aren't all the same, they do differ in what they focus on.

As to the social chesion argument, well how would you measure this? For instance, with the issue of work/life balance, one could say that people work too long and don't spend enough time with friends and family. On the other side one could view that work forms add to social cohesion through the social networks you form. With reference to stay at home parents, some may prefer work as a break from staying at home all the time.

 

[Generator]

QUENTIN DEMPSTER: Political campaigning will intensify in the next three weeks with by-elections in Macquarie Fields, Maroubra and Marrickville - all safe Labor seats. The Liberals are challenging only in Macquarie Fields, the Greens are going all out in Marrickville. It's become clear this week that in the September 17 by-elections, Labor will be looking for a diverting issue - perhaps industrial relations policy, with the Howard Government federally about to override the States. The Brogden Opposition has already offered to cede IR to the feds. In Queensland, IR didn't seem to help the Beattie Government, which just last week suffered a bloody nose in by-elections, mainly over health. While the Opposition here seems to have the Iemma Government on the ropes over poor service delivery in public transport and health, the Labor Party has to decide - while health and transport are clearly State issues, is industrial relations? We're about to find out.

Points of Difference

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Jan Narveson

 

[leetom]

Jan Narveson

Is that that nurse due to stand for the Libs in Macquarie Fields? What a bitch. I plan to link up with Party colleages in Mac Fields and launch a concerted door knocking campign, as well as heckle people on voting day about IR and the destruction it will wreck upon our society. A bit of over-zealous emotion should see the ALP through.

The health situation in NSW isn't nearly as bad as what Queensland had to deal with, and I can point to the new timetable as an example of the progression ebing made in public transport. And what can Brogden offer? Nothing but confirmed job losses. (Conveniently not mentioning any economic benefit).

"Family, Culture, Way of Life. Help Protect Them: ALP". That's the slogan I plan to mass print of A4 and paste up on all routes to the voting place. What do you think? Give me some suggestions, anything to tug at their heartstrings. Maybe i should ditch "culture" for "workplace".

"Family, Workplace, Way of Life. Help Protect Them: ALP".

 

[Iron]

Maybe the Libs will avoid public transport, as "making the trains run on time" has too much fascist innuendo.

But if they do, you should change your slogans to "Vote One: Bennito Broggers"

 

[Generator]

Average workers miss out on PM's wages bonanza

Ad campaign in High Court

 

[walrusbear]

Maybe the Libs will avoid public transport, as "making the trains run on time" has too much fascist innuendo.

But if they do, you should change your slogans to "Vote One: Bennito Broggers"

hahaha
that joke looks dated only one day later

 

[leetom]

Average workers miss out on PM's wages bonanza

Ad campaign in High Court

More campaign materiel.

Other research, conducted by John Shields of Sydney University, found that over the same period the incomes of the 50 highest-paid Australian chief executives had increased by 194 per cent between 1999 and last year.

?!!

 

[Generator]

Judges attack workplace ad defence as spin

 

[MoonlightSonata]

lol smartarse barrister --

MR GAGELER: Yes. Your Honour, if I need to address that I will. It is certainly not a question that has been raised by our learned friends in their otherwise fulsome defence.

HAYNE J: You ought to look up what “fulsome” used to mean, Mr Gageler, or perhaps your opponent should, and take that on board.

MR GAGELER: I hope I was using it in its modern sense, your Honour, not knowing what it used to mean.

HAYNE J: Sickeningly cloy was I think the sort of notion it had.

MR GAGELER: I will not go back to that.

 

[Generator]

Unions seek to sidestep threat

 

[Generator]

The way to help families

 

[Generator]

Small business not keen to hire more

The cost of hiring and firing

The issue may not be in our faces at the moment, but it is still deserving of our attention.

 

[Generator]

Unions ready for their biggest fight

Change or fade to black: the challenge to traditional trade unions

Edit:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...t/2005/09/08/1125772640562.html?oneclick=true

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...olicy-proposals/2005/09/08/1125772640553.html

 

[Generator]

IMF wants more IR reform in Australia

Edit:

Unions take message to the bush

The Leeton visit was quite interesting... If people appear to be worried about upsetting their bosses at the current time given localised economic uncertainty by just attending a rally about their rights in the workplace*, I fear for the future given what we know of the impending reforms.

*I'm not contesting the apparent threat of docking an employee's pay for attending an out of work rally, but the manner in which the practice was justified appeared to be quite arrogant (to be expected, really).

Edit 2: Govt on track for IR changes

 

[Generator]

Get details of new IR laws out fast, says deputy PM
Unions to defy PM on wages
Dithering on workplace reform may take political toll

 

[Rafy]

Sacked staff to get $4000 in legal help
By Andrew Probyn, Chris Johnson and Nick O'Malley
September 29, 2005

Sacked workers will be eligible for $4000 worth of legal advice under a softened version of the Federal Government's workplace changes to be announced by John Howard today.

The Prime Minister will outline the measure in Perth, where he faces opposition to the industrial relations changes from both sides of politics.

Sacked employees could get the $4000 in legal advice provided they had been through a conciliation process and convinced the Australian Industrial Relations Commission that their case had merit.

But any subsequent court challenge would have to be paid for by the sacked worker.

Mr Howard's announcement will seek to counter union complaints that under the industrial relations changes, sacked workers will be powerless because unfair dismissal laws will cover only employers with more than 100 workers. The ACTU's latest advertising campaign charges that challenging dismissals will cost about $30,000 per worker.

Mr Howard will also announce a multimillion-dollar education campaign for small business operators.

The Government will publish pamphlets spelling out employers' responsibilities and offering a guide to avoiding unlawful termination claims.

Labor's industrial relations spokesman, Stephen Smith, accused Mr Howard of deception. He said Mr Howard's assertion that he went to the electorate in 1996 proposing to get rid of the unfair dismissal laws for all businesses was not true.

The Government did not introduce an exemption from unfair dismissal protection until 1997, and that was for small businesses with fewer than 15 workers.

"The Prime Minister's claim that he has a mandate to now change unfair dismissal exemptions to businesses of less than 100 employees is untrue," Mr Smith said.

On Tuesday, a prominent free-market economist, Mark Wooden, criticised the Government's plan to exempt small and medium businesses, saying there was no economic justification. Professor Wooden is one of a number of economists who have questioned this plank of the Government's industrial relations changes.

The Government's long-term position had been to abolish unfair dismissal for companies with 20 or fewer workers.

It and business groups argue that unfair dismissal laws have made it almost impossible for employers to dismiss any workers and that this has hurt employment growth.

The Government has been under sustained pressure from its allies in business groups to release more detail on its industrial relations plans as a result of the successful ACTU advertising campaign against them. The legislation is expected to be introduced within weeks.