The official IR reform thread! (11 Viewers)

[Generator]

Re: The official IR thread

And as a recap, humans are rational creatures we choose the best possible option given our circumstances thus if someone chooses to work for $5 an hour this is not exploitation but an expression of the value that individual places on their labour. And realistically speaking as rational creatures we will not sell our labour below cost value.

To be blunt, the above is divorced from reality - it assumes that all employers and employees are always rational, that all are on a reasonably strong, if not equal, footing when it comes to bargaining with the other, and that the idea of choosing between a job with a pathetic conditions and further unemployment is somehow a true choice.

Now, I do realise and accept that the above is true for many, but what about the many others who lack the skills, bargaining power and freedom to say no given other concerns?

---

Edit: ALP says public service AWA leaves employees worse off
Cable company employees fewer than law threshold
Workplace inspectors will protect workers' rights, says Govt

 

[Generator]

Anxieties at work
Business advocates say sackings nothing unusual
Lateline: Friday Forum

Sign on the dotted line
Laws off to a flying start, with some help
Work laws a threat to children: expert
Bullying the new battlefield

 

[Generator]

People -

Though I may be always updating this thread with new links, that isn't to say that you cannot discuss the changes at your own leisure.

Please, don't be put off by my obsessive need to update this thread on a regular, if not daily, basis. Debate the reform agenda if you so wish.

Edit: Insiders: Andrews defends IR laws, Meatworkers' sackings concern Andrews

 

[Terable Spellor]

There's not much left to discuss, except if news stories arrise about how bad these laws are being used against employees, or if any BOSers experience such a thing first hand.

 

[gerhard]

Re: The official IR thread

I suggest searching (or opening eyes) there is an exhaustive thread on this topic.

I also suggest engaging your brain before opening your mouth (or ranting in NCAP), you are not going to magically loose double-time, annual leave, sick-leave, etc etc. It is a market if people are willing to work without some benefits then why shouldn't they??

More likely we will see a system of bartering enter the equation much like the AWA I was employed under when i worked on a mushroom farm - I did not recieve overtime, sunday or public holiday penalty rates etc... however in return for this the hourly rate was a significant ammount higher.

The benefit to this from the employers perspective being it simplifies book-keeping because on the one hand there is less to deal with in the pay office and on the other costs do not fluctuate - afterall mushrooms picked on sunday arn't worth anymore than those from saturday.

And as a recap, humans are rational creatures we choose the best possible option given our circumstances thus if someone chooses to work for $5 an hour this is not exploitation but an expression of the value that individual places on their labour. And realistically speaking as rational creatures we will not sell our labour below cost value.

In fact economically speaking in perfect competition we would all make a normal profit, that is the ammount that covers exactly both our implicit and explicit costs. eg we would make an accounting profit suficient to cover our oppurtunity cost.

economics textbooks are not a substitute for real life

 

[yy]

Re: The official IR thread

I suggest searching (or opening eyes) there is an exhaustive thread on this topic.

I also suggest engaging your brain before opening your mouth (or ranting in NCAP), you are not going to magically loose double-time, annual leave, sick-leave, etc etc. It is a market if people are willing to work without some benefits then why shouldn't they??

More likely we will see a system of bartering enter the equation much like the AWA I was employed under when i worked on a mushroom farm - I did not recieve overtime, sunday or public holiday penalty rates etc... however in return for this the hourly rate was a significant ammount higher.

The benefit to this from the employers perspective being it simplifies book-keeping because on the one hand there is less to deal with in the pay office and on the other costs do not fluctuate - afterall mushrooms picked on sunday arn't worth anymore than those from saturday.

And as a recap, humans are rational creatures we choose the best possible option given our circumstances thus if someone chooses to work for $5 an hour this is not exploitation but an expression of the value that individual places on their labour. And realistically speaking as rational creatures we will not sell our labour below cost value.

In fact economically speaking in perfect competition we would all make a normal profit, that is the ammount that covers exactly both our implicit and explicit costs. eg we would make an accounting profit suficient to cover our oppurtunity cost.

i agree totally

To be blunt, the above is divorced from reality - it assumes that all employers and employees are always rational, that all are on a reasonably strong, if not equal, footing when it comes to bargaining with the other, and that the idea of choosing between a job with a pathetic conditions and further unemployment is somehow a true choice.

Now, I do realise and accept that the above is true for many, but what about the many others who lack the skills, bargaining power and freedom to say no given other concerns?

if the individuals are irrational, it's not up to the government to fix their head. we always have choices, but most people just don't see them.

 

[yy]

Re: The official IR thread

economics textbooks are not a substitute for real life

economics is the subject at school that's most logical in a practical way, in my opinion. everyone should study it instead of english.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: The official IR thread

economics textbooks are not a substitute for real life

Um ok whatever, you do realise that there are conflicting perspectives on things within economics... I mean you seem to be rejecting all economic theory, i'd like to know why?

 

[gerhard]

Re: The official IR thread

im certainly not rejecting all economic theory, thats just stupid.


i was simply rejecting loquasagacious's statement, and i cant think of a better way to describe it as something straight out of a first year economics textbook. i was pretty much just repeating generators point - that its devoid of reality. it reminds me of communism in some ways, this pure theory which when you read it you go, oh yes that sounds like it would work a treat, when you only need to look at history to realise it doesnt work that way.

not that the free market is anywhere near as terrible as communism/

 

[Generator]

IR inspector probes abattoir sackings

Abattoir sackings could test IR laws

 

[walrusbear]

Re: The official IR thread

economics is the subject at school that's most logical in a practical way, in my opinion. everyone should study it instead of english.

that's a horrible idea

instead there should be a reminder before each economics class that the ideas are theories, and not the be all/end all.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: The official IR thread

Lol walrusbear... that's silly to single out economics. I do agree tho that generally schools should be teaching people to think more critical, thank god for myth busters.

 

[Generator]

Re: The official IR thread

Cowra -

Cowra case to test IR laws
A lot to beef about for abattoir workers
Sackings not illegal under new laws, says ACTU

Edit: Abattoir backs down over sackings

---

IR laws exposed: unions

 

[walrusbear]

Re: The official IR thread

Lol walrusbear... that's silly to single out economics. I do agree tho that generally schools should be teaching people to think more critical, thank god for myth busters.

i single economics out in the context of this board

 

[R15I23D05D14Y]

Re: The official IR thread

instead there should be a reminder before each economics class that the ideas are theories, and not the be all/end all.

That’s like expecting the English teachers to stand up before a lesson and say that the poem being analysed was potentially written without any deeper meaning to analyse. It would put the department out of business.

I agree with yy. Economics is more useful as a compulsory than English. But they won't make it compulsory because it is actually a subject that involves difficult ideas.

On the topic of the IR reform, I think it was a great idea, because

A) I trust the politicians researchers more than I trust union leaders,

B) If the employer is paying, the employer is choosing. If you have done the work to get the money to run a business, you deserve the freedom to run the business.
People who don't like it can grow their own food.

*Edited for spelling*

 

[walrusbear]

Re: The official IR thread

That’s like expecting the English teachers to stand up before a lesson and say that the poem being analysed was potentially written without any deeper meaning to analyse. It would put the department out of business.

I agree with yy. Economics is more useful as a compulsory than English. But they won't make it compulsory because it is actually a subject that involves difficult ideas.

that's a shithouse analogy, it's not similar at all

your opinion that somehow economics is more valuable than english is proof of how it is overemphasised. like i said before, there's more going on than just economics.

 

[yy]

Re: The official IR thread

not relevant to the threat, i know
but economics is more valuable than english. english is postmodernism and deconstructionism gone wrong. i especially despise the "personal reflection" part, because my opinions are different from mainstream, so my "personal opinion" is always wrong, even when i do back it up.
and what if the author actually didn't intend for it to have a deeper meaning, or he/she composed it after some lsd?
understand how the economy work, on the other hand, is actually useful, and we may make informed choice while we vote or invest.

 

[R15I23D05D14Y]

Re: The official IR thread

there should be a reminder before each economics class that the ideas are theories, and not the be all/end all.

your opinion that somehow economics is more valuable than english is proof of how it is overemphasised. like i said before, there's more going on than just economics.

So you are stating that, because English is based solely on concrete opinion, it is better than a fluid set of theories based on recorded facts and raw data?

English has very little practical value on day-to-day living. It has little impact on year-to-year living.

Economics will at least make sure that the citizens understand what is happening to a countries economy, and what the issues are. This is at least as useful as learning you cannot read the language you speak, and is enough to justify making it compulsory in the same way as English.
If it was overemphasised, then it would already be compulsory (Also, if it was overemphasised, then that would suggest people thought it useful).

In relation to any debate on the IR reform, then an education into elementary economics would be useful to no end. I do not trust the people making comments on the reforms to know what they are talking about.
I see the noise coming from unionists, journalists and workers. I see abattoir workers deciding what is right for the countries future.
I do not see people pointing to trends in the market, or arguing with any form of backing beyond "it is common sense that all employers are unfit to decide". This type of thinking founded the flat earth society (it doesn't look circular, does it now?), and has parallels with one of the end of the world theories put forward by the Luddites (we are all really unemployed because of machines taking our jobs).

 

[Comrade nathan]

B) If the employer is paying, the employer is choosing. If you have done the work to get the money to run a business, you deserve the freedom to run the business.
People who don't like it can grow their own food.

Well people didn't like that idea, that's why the formed trade unions and political parties. And as it goes the employers had to come to a compromise with the workers, wining many rights and higher wages.

Basically we are not living in feudalism and your points are ridiculous and ignores reality.

 

[Generator]

Re: The official IR thread

R15I23D05D14Y, I take it that in your rush to dismiss those at the coalface who are critical of the reforms that you have ignored the many labor market and IR academics who have also spoken out against the reforms?

Is there any need for this debate regarding English and Economics to continue? Yes, the English courses may not tickle your pickle, but for what reason do you seek to relegate an area of study that is of fundamental importance? Don't you feel the need to communicate with those around you? Don't you feel the need to be able to think critically and formulate proper arguments?

As for economics, the HSC course presents just one representation of the world from an economic point of view, that being the one favoured by the neoclassical economists. In case you haven't noticed, such ideas are hardly as apparent outside of the classroom as many here seem to be suggesting, and it would be foolish to place HSC Economics on a pedestal when it is just as subjective as HSC English.

As gerhard and walrusbear have both said, there is more to life than what is printed within the pages of a high-school or first year economics textbook. Believe it or not, but the world is far from being that dry. By all means, apply what you learn, but please don't try and suggest that it is an objective point of view. It's logical, yes, and it seems to be somewhat objective, but that's only true if you take the ideological framework behind the theory (i.e., a subjective point of view) to be correct.