If the Coalition get control of both houses, or jump into bed (again) with the greens, how long will it be before WORKCHOICES returns?

Workchoices.   :o   :(   :o   :(   :o   :(   :o   :( 

Vic wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 5:12pm:

If the Coalition get control of both houses, or jump into bed (again) with the greens, how long will it be before WORKCHOICES returns?

Herein lies the devil in the detail.
We don't know just what grubby little backroom deals were agreed to between the greens and Libs for the greens support in that Senate vote.

And the bludgers try to say everyone else is lying.

Lobo wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 5:34pm:

Vic wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 5:12pm: If the Coalition get control of both houses, or jump into bed (again) with the greens, how long will it be before WORKCHOICES returns? Herein lies the devil in the detail. We don't know just what grubby little backroom deals were agreed to between the greens and Libs for the greens support in that Senate vote. And the bludgers try to say everyone else is lying.

Yep.   Even Peter Reith reckons Workchoices was the best thing he ever implemented - it is sure to return in one form or another.

of course it will .. .it's the whole point behind trying to get control of the senate  :D

IR still needs a clean up and some reforms.
The ALP should be the party to do them, but they don't.  Too many Unionists in the Parliamentary party perhaps.

If the Coalition were to bring in any reforms most of us disliked, they would be out at the next election.  So in 3 years or less everything would be fixed.

So far there is no sign of WORKCHOICES or WORKCHOICES MKII  ::)

Grendel wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

IR still needs a clean up and some reforms. The ALP should be the party to do them, but they don't.  Too many Unionists in the Parliamentary party perhaps. If the Coalition were to bring in any reforms most of us disliked, they would be out at the next election.  So in 3 years or less everything would be fixed. So far there is no sign of WORKCHOICES or WORKCHOICES MKII  ::)

Wage growth is the lowest its ever been , i blame the Libtards

Its time wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 5:57pm:

Grendel wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 5:51pm: IR still needs a clean up and some reforms. The ALP should be the party to do them, but they don't.  Too many Unionists in the Parliamentary party perhaps. If the Coalition were to bring in any reforms most of us disliked, they would be out at the next election.  So in 3 years or less everything would be fixed. So far there is no sign of WORKCHOICES or WORKCHOICES MKII  ::) Wage growth is the lowest its ever been , i blame the Libtards

A perfect scenario to bring back WORKCHOICES!   Low wage growth, high unemployment, very few jobs available means Employers can lobby the Coalition to bring draconian measures back.    Workers will be too worried to risk losing their jobs so will forfeit whatever they have to in order to keep them.      No $6K toasters there

Its time wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 5:57pm:

Grendel wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 5:51pm: IR still needs a clean up and some reforms. The ALP should be the party to do them, but they don't.  Too many Unionists in the Parliamentary party perhaps. If the Coalition were to bring in any reforms most of us disliked, they would be out at the next election.  So in 3 years or less everything would be fixed. So far there is no sign of WORKCHOICES or WORKCHOICES MKII  ::) Wage growth is the lowest its ever been , i blame the Libtards

Well hate to tell you but you cant expect to have everlasting wage growth just as Companies cant expect to have ever increasing profits.
I blame economics.

Grendel wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 6:08pm:

Its time wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 5:57pm: Grendel wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 5:51pm: IR still needs a clean up and some reforms. The ALP should be the party to do them, but they don't.  Too many Unionists in the Parliamentary party perhaps. If the Coalition were to bring in any reforms most of us disliked, they would be out at the next election.  So in 3 years or less everything would be fixed. So far there is no sign of WORKCHOICES or WORKCHOICES MKII  ::) Wage growth is the lowest its ever been , i blame the Libtards Well hate to tell you but you cant expect to have everlasting wage growth just as Companies cant expect to have ever increasing profits. I blame economics.

You would think the ledger would be balanced , the WA government has just approved a 5% increase in utility prices , now it doesn't cost anymore to produce given wages are going backwards , so why the rise ?

Given the economy is in deflation , how can this be Grendel ?

Grendel wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

IR still needs a clean up and some reforms. The ALP should be the party to do them, but they don't.  Too many Unionists in the Parliamentary party perhaps.

How can there be too many unionists in a party that was created by, and for, the unions?

Seriously?    :-/

What is it with people in this forum and their complete ignorance of how the Labor party was created, and why it was created?

It just blows me away how unbelievably ignorant people are.

Grendel wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

IR still needs a clean up and some reforms. The ALP should be the party to do them, but they don't.  Too many Unionists in the Parliamentary party perhaps. If the Coalition were to bring in any reforms most of us disliked, they would be out at the next election.  So in 3 years or less everything would be fixed. So far there is no sign of WORKCHOICES or WORKCHOICES MKII  ::)

Even were they to be thrown out at the next election, the damage would already be done.
Impossible to sue an employer for legislation enacted by the government, no matter how much that employer was in favour of it.

I said on here the other day that I wondered when WC would be pulled out by the left wing retards and I didn't have to wait for long!

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 8:25pm:

I said on here the other day that I wondered when WC would be pulled out by the left wing retards and I didn't have to wait for long!

Nobody cares what you say Armpit  :D

Its time wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 8:30pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 8:25pm: I said on here the other day that I wondered when WC would be pulled out by the left wing retards and I didn't have to wait for long! Nobody cares what you say Armpit  :D

Right back at you nutsack.

Its time wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 8:30pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 8:25pm: I said on here the other day that I wondered when WC would be pulled out by the left wing retards and I didn't have to wait for long! Nobody cares what you say Armpit  :D

Good for a laugh, though.

Workchoices by stealth? we have already seen an attack on sunday penalty rates.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 8:04pm:

Grendel wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 5:51pm: IR still needs a clean up and some reforms. The ALP should be the party to do them, but they don't.  Too many Unionists in the Parliamentary party perhaps. How can there be too many unionists in a party that was created by, and for, the unions? Seriously?    :-/ What is it with people in this forum and their complete ignorance of how the Labor party was created, and why it was created? It just blows me away how unbelievably ignorant people are.

Glad you are not denying it like Johnboy...   ;)
But not all ALP members are Unionists and believe it or not before they became the Progressive Party as declared by the real Julia they actually had Conservatives as members too.

Seriously...  do you actually understand what people say or what they actually think.
I'm beginning to have doubts about you Gregg. ::)

Oh BTW my point was?  Or did you really miss it completely? :)

Quote:

I'm beginning to have doubts about you Gregg.

No one cares about your ad hom rubbish.

Aussie wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 9:11pm:

Quote: I'm beginning to have doubts about you Gregg. No one cares about your ad hom rubbish.

You need to stop trolling me Assie, I'm not attracted to you or interested in you at all.
You got banned at PA for this crap and other stuff remember.
BTW my post was longer and it answered Greggs post.
You need to stop obsessing and find a friend who appreciates your trolling. :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 9:09pm:

Glad you are not denying it like Johnboy..

I didn't deny anything goose ... when are you going to start being honest?

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5116/7068467679_ae2692ece9_m.jpg


You can't blame the labor party for when ever the unions do something wrong. They are two separate entities, even if they support each other.

Grendel wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 9:19pm:

Aussie wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 9:11pm: Quote: I'm beginning to have doubts about you Gregg. No one cares about your ad hom rubbish. You need to stop trolling me Assie, I'm not attracted to you or interested in you at all. You got banned at PA for this crap and other stuff remember. BTW my post was longer and it answered Greggs post. You need to stop obsessing and find a friend who appreciates your trolling. :D :D :D

No one cares about your ad hom 'doubts,' Grendel.  I told you not to expect a 'free ride' upon your return here.  Ima not going to give you one. 

John Smith wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 9:20pm:

Grendel wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 9:09pm: Glad you are not denying it like Johnboy.. I didn't deny anything goose ... when are you going to start being honest? http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5116/7068467679_ae2692ece9_m.jpg You can't blame the labor party for when ever the unions do something wrong. They are two separate entities, even if they support each other.

I'm sorry you said something to the fact that the ALP are not Unions or not related or they are just supporters, some rubbish...  I cant be bothered finding it right now.
You probably need to chat with Gregg, who seems to know more about unions and the ALP than you do.
Not me.  I have very little time for you.
I like Unions.
I've even voted ALP on several occasions.
Just pointing out facts you don't have to lie and create strawmen just admit to the facts.

Grendel wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 9:30pm:

I cant be bothered finding it right now.

of course not, that might require you to back up your comments ... we can't have that now

http://media.booqster.com/covers/04/96/9781608080496.jpg

Vic wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 5:12pm:

If the Coalition get control of both houses, or jump into bed (again) with the greens, how long will it be before WORKCHOICES returns?

How long can we afford to continue with current minimum wages being so high? Not long.

Wassup Johnboy cant remember what you said and where then expect to go find it for you or is it just you don't want it found because it makes me correct and you a liar :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ::) ::) ::)
You should stop trolling me, just makes you as pathetic as Assie

Here you go Johnboy...

greggerypeccary wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 8:04pm:

Grendel wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 5:51pm: IR still needs a clean up and some reforms. The ALP should be the party to do them, but they don't.  Too many Unionists in the Parliamentary party perhaps. How can there be too many unionists in a party that was created by, and for, the unions? Seriously?    :-/ What is it with people in this forum and their complete ignorance of how the Labor party was created, and why it was created? It just blows me away how unbelievably ignorant people are.

and quoting you.....


Quote:

John Smith wrote Today at 9:31am: i don't give a crap what the unions do ... they're supporters of the ALP, not the ALP

Seems you don't remember what you blurt out...
Hope that clears things up for you Johnboy.
like I said if you need lessons on the history of the ALP ask Gregg...  you ain't my friend.

don't play silly buggers goose .... the unions are not the ALP , sure they may have been created by unions, but they're still a separate entity

Grendel wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 9:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 8:04pm: Grendel wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 5:51pm: IR still needs a clean up and some reforms. The ALP should be the party to do them, but they don't.  Too many Unionists in the Parliamentary party perhaps. How can there be too many unionists in a party that was created by, and for, the unions? Seriously?    :-/ What is it with people in this forum and their complete ignorance of how the Labor party was created, and why it was created? It just blows me away how unbelievably ignorant people are. Glad you are not denying it like Johnboy...   ;) But not all ALP members are Unionists and believe it or not before they became the Progressive Party as declared by the real Julia they actually had Conservatives as members too. Seriously...  do you actually understand what people say or what they actually think. I'm beginning to have doubts about you Gregg. ::) Oh BTW my point was?  Or did you really miss it completely? :)

Actually Little_Pecca, the ALP was originally created by the Unions for the workers. But nice to see you admit that the ALP is by the Unions and now FOR the Unions and not the workers.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 8:25pm:

I said on here the other day that I wondered when WC would be pulled out by the left wing retards and I didn't have to wait for long!

Too TRUE!       WORKCHOICES MARK 2 is set to return.  We have already seen the first parts of it being assembled.     Freeze Medicare, cut costs, and keep the worker on the brink with home income.     Slide in WORKCHOICES and play on the fear factor.  Coalition scum would have no problem with WORKCHOICES being back

Today's workchoice is to wear or not to wear, that is the question.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/12/poultry-workers-wear-diapers-work-bathroom-breaks

The Coalition continue to set up the imminent introduction of WORKCHOICES MARK 2 by tightening up on funding to essential health services.   Freezing Medicare, increased tightening on medical and aged services means the family budget will be stretched to the limit.

Once the fear of accept it or lose your job is waved around, the average worker will have no choice but to comply.  Morrison's Budget ensures WORKCHOICES MARK 2 will slid in like crap down a shiny shovel

Energy would be far better spent addressing the nation's appalling performance in total productivity growth. That is the reason wages are under pressure.

When will the pricks attack the cause of the problems rather than the effect.

crocodile wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 10:37am:

Energy would be far better spent addressing the nation's appalling performance in total productivity growth. That is the reason wages are under pressure. When will the pricks attack the cause of the problems rather than the effect.

Yep - cut toilet breaks and wear nappies - just like those guys in the U.S.  Read my posted thread below.

stunspore wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 12:04pm:

crocodile wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:37am: Energy would be far better spent addressing the nation's appalling performance in total productivity growth. That is the reason wages are under pressure. When will the pricks attack the cause of the problems rather than the effect. Yep - cut toilet breaks and wear nappies - just like those guys in the U.S.  Read my posted thread below.

Unfortunately this action does nothing to grow productivity. The only thing it does is slow down the rate of attrition. I would have thought that the idea would be to actually grow real wages rather than accept a slower decline. Fuggin' mugs the lot of them.

The voters of Wentworth will, no doubt, re-elect Malcolm Turnbull to represent them - and I am sure he will reward them with excellent service.   But if the Coalition retain Government, look what Mal will also vote for!

---

I for one would support the return of Workchoices.

Webtoad wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 7:19pm:

I for one would support the return of Workchoices.

Please explain....... we're all on tippy-toes waiting....

**deals a same hand back**  I for one would support the return of arbitrary culling for supporters of Workchoices....

Would you like a 'please explain'?


**word for today**

WokChoices (n) - the fact of choosing a Chinese meal.....

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 7:23pm:

Webtoad wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 7:19pm: I for one would support the return of Workchoices. Please explain....... we're all on tippy-toes waiting....

I don't agree that someone making coffee on Sunday should be paid $50 an hour etc.

Webtoad wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 7:24pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 7:23pm: Webtoad wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 7:19pm: I for one would support the return of Workchoices. Please explain....... we're all on tippy-toes waiting.... I don't agree that someone making coffee on Sunday should be paid $50 an hour etc.

Then you drink it....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUh5IShNwXo

How Much, dear Webtoad, would you be prepared to work for on Sunday... I've got a job for you swilling out the pig sty - $10 an hour....

See ya Sunday..... hours of work are right when the football is on...... and your family can picnic on their own without you.. OK?  ;D

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:06pm:

How Much, dear Webtoad, would you be prepared to work for on Sunday... I've got a job for you swilling out the pig sty - $10 an hour.... See ya Sunday..... hours of work are right when the football is on...... and your family can picnic on their own without you.. OK?  ;D

If I needed the money, then yes.

I don't get why one person who has worked 5 hours for the whole week (albeit on a Sunday) should be paid a ridiculously high wage for what is in essence a simple job. It doesn't add up.

Webtoad wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 7:24pm:

I don't agree that someone making coffee on Sunday should be paid $50 an hour etc

so close on Sunday. You like your sundays with your family?

Webtoad wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:13pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:06pm: How Much, dear Webtoad, would you be prepared to work for on Sunday... I've got a job for you swilling out the pig sty - $10 an hour.... See ya Sunday..... hours of work are right when the football is on...... and your family can picnic on their own without you.. OK?  ;D If I needed the money, then yes. I don't get why one person who has worked 5 hours for the whole week (albeit on a Sunday) should be paid a ridiculously high wage for what is in essence a simple job. It doesn't add up.

Maybe they've got four kids to support and they haven't the OPPORTUNITY to actually get a job that will pay them enough to live on, and nobody will give them a full-time REAL job any more?  So they take whatever they can get which is working Sunday for fivew hours at $50 an hour?

How many job vacancies are YOU offering?

How old are you?  Where you Bin, Laden?

See you Sunday at 2.00 pm.. hours are 2.00-4.00.... you might get home to watch the footie, and thanks for taking $20 for two hours of sh!t work....

Hope it doesn't impact on your Unemployment Benefit.... I don't pay cash.... I'm an Honest Injun.... (and part Far Western Lakota, tribe of Chief Joseph of the split noses, hence my beautiful olive skin).....

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 10:30pm:

Webtoad wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:06pm: How Much, dear Webtoad, would you be prepared to work for on Sunday... I've got a job for you swilling out the pig sty - $10 an hour.... See ya Sunday..... hours of work are right when the football is on...... and your family can picnic on their own without you.. OK?  ;D If I needed the money, then yes. I don't get why one person who has worked 5 hours for the whole week (albeit on a Sunday) should be paid a ridiculously high wage for what is in essence a simple job. It doesn't add up. Maybe they've got four kids to support and they haven't the OPPORTUNITY to actually get a job that will pay them enough to live on, and nobody will give them a full-time REAL job any more?  So they take whatever they can get which is working Sunday for fivew hours at $50 an hour? How many job vacancies are YOU offering? How old are you?  Where you Bin, Laden?

I'm not talking about overtime. I am talking about working less than 40 hours a week.

Once you get beyond 40 hours a week then you can start thinking about overtime perhaps.

Webtoad wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 12:07pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:30pm: Webtoad wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:06pm: How Much, dear Webtoad, would you be prepared to work for on Sunday... I've got a job for you swilling out the pig sty - $10 an hour.... See ya Sunday..... hours of work are right when the football is on...... and your family can picnic on their own without you.. OK?  ;D If I needed the money, then yes. I don't get why one person who has worked 5 hours for the whole week (albeit on a Sunday) should be paid a ridiculously high wage for what is in essence a simple job. It doesn't add up. Maybe they've got four kids to support and they haven't the OPPORTUNITY to actually get a job that will pay them enough to live on, and nobody will give them a full-time REAL job any more?  So they take whatever they can get which is working Sunday for fivew hours at $50 an hour? How many job vacancies are YOU offering? How old are you?  Where you Bin, Laden? I'm not talking about overtime. I am talking about working less than 40 hours a week. Once you get beyond 40 hours a week then you can start thinking about overtime perhaps.

Does Parliament sit on Sundays?  Do the members of boards meet on Sundays?  The issue isn't the number of hours worked - it is on what day of the week they are worked.  If Sunday and Saturday are just another day why are all the big entertainment things scheduled for weekends? 

Why are most other people strolling around and buying coffee instead of working?

Webtoad wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 7:19pm:

I for one would support the return of Workchoices.

Why ?

The issue of falling real wages is a productivity one. How does the drive to lower wages fix a productivity problem.

Far better to fix the cause rather than the effect.

Webtoad wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 12:07pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:30pm: Webtoad wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:06pm: How Much, dear Webtoad, would you be prepared to work for on Sunday... I've got a job for you swilling out the pig sty - $10 an hour.... See ya Sunday..... hours of work are right when the football is on...... and your family can picnic on their own without you.. OK?  ;D If I needed the money, then yes. I don't get why one person who has worked 5 hours for the whole week (albeit on a Sunday) should be paid a ridiculously high wage for what is in essence a simple job. It doesn't add up. Maybe they've got four kids to support and they haven't the OPPORTUNITY to actually get a job that will pay them enough to live on, and nobody will give them a full-time REAL job any more?  So they take whatever they can get which is working Sunday for fivew hours at $50 an hour? How many job vacancies are YOU offering? How old are you?  Where you Bin, Laden? I'm not talking about overtime. I am talking about working less than 40 hours a week. Once you get beyond 40 hours a week then you can start thinking about overtime perhaps.

We've had a 38 hour working week in this country for many years now.

Just shows how out of touch you are.

crocodile wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 4:03pm:

Webtoad wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 7:19pm: I for one would support the return of Workchoices. Why ? The issue of falling real wages is a productivity one. How does the drive to lower wages fix a productivity problem. Far better to fix the cause rather than the effect.

And how do you do that, apart from sacking a whole lotta useless managers that is

Its time wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 4:48pm:

crocodile wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 4:03pm: Webtoad wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 7:19pm: I for one would support the return of Workchoices. Why ? The issue of falling real wages is a productivity one. How does the drive to lower wages fix a productivity problem. Far better to fix the cause rather than the effect. And how do you do that, apart from sacking a whole lotta useless managers that is

After reading this board for so long you should have some understanding of productivity.

Labour productivity = Production per unit of labour input.
Capital productivity = Production per unit of capital input.

Sacking managers fixes neither of the above.

Labour productivity has been growing. Capital productivity has been slipping away for nearly two decades. Growth in Labour productivity is formed by the rollout of technology that provisions the worker with the tools to increase production for the equivalent amount of labour. The slide in capital productivity means that each increment of labour productivity is chewing up ever increasing amounts of capital. Address this and real wages will once again grow.

"Sacking managers fixes neither of the above."

Now that's a crying shame...

The concept of workchoices, which was to have a more flexible work force on individual agreements agreed between the company and individual backed up by statutory safeguards - is, and remains, a good idea.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 5:55pm:

The concept of workchoices, which was to have a more flexible work force on individual agreements agreed between the company and individual backed up by statutory safeguards - is, and remains, a good idea.

The statutory safeguards and their application seem to be the issue.... clearly when WC was put in play the intent was to have flexibility, but unfortunately some saw it as meaning that the former balance of power within the worker/employer relationship had altered to a kind of Fuhrerprinzip system... "Ich befehlen!", thus elevating the boss to some kind of feudal lord rather than a responsible part of the work/social contract.

Statutory guarantees included that no income level could fall below award.... so in a sense there was little to recommend WC other than the ability to shuffle hours around to suit, though in many cases that was irrelevant anyway.  Then the 'right' minded began to complain that agreed remuneration, in return for shifting hours etc, somehow meant that workers were getting more than they were allowed... we see this daily with comments such as "Ford workers on $50 an hour!", "Wharfies on base $174k!", "building workers standing over management to be paid astronomical sums!"

All utter nonsense, and many of these agreements include incentive payments.  A properly run and controlled WC is not such a bad thing.... unfortunately the skills to do so do not exist universally on the part of management, far too many of whom are ego-driven rather than intelligent.

I'm afraid such Med Peons as The Flying Grollo Brothers, or the wharfie bosses, do not help here, since their insistence on confrontation and controlling behaviour creates the environment in which work is not performed willingly and is considered a chore rather than a duty.  A house divided against itself cannot function well by any stretch of the imagination.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 2:06pm:

Webtoad wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 12:07pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:30pm: Webtoad wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:06pm: How Much, dear Webtoad, would you be prepared to work for on Sunday... I've got a job for you swilling out the pig sty - $10 an hour.... See ya Sunday..... hours of work are right when the football is on...... and your family can picnic on their own without you.. OK?  ;D If I needed the money, then yes. I don't get why one person who has worked 5 hours for the whole week (albeit on a Sunday) should be paid a ridiculously high wage for what is in essence a simple job. It doesn't add up. Maybe they've got four kids to support and they haven't the OPPORTUNITY to actually get a job that will pay them enough to live on, and nobody will give them a full-time REAL job any more?  So they take whatever they can get which is working Sunday for fivew hours at $50 an hour? How many job vacancies are YOU offering? How old are you?  Where you Bin, Laden? I'm not talking about overtime. I am talking about working less than 40 hours a week. Once you get beyond 40 hours a week then you can start thinking about overtime perhaps. Does Parliament sit on Sundays?  Do the members of boards meet on Sundays?  The issue isn't the number of hours worked - it is on what day of the week they are worked.  If Sunday and Saturday are just another day why are all the big entertainment things scheduled for weekends?  Why are most other people strolling around and buying coffee instead of working?

Nope. In the 21st century it should be based on number of hours worked (with one employer) per week regardless of what day they are worked or what period of the day they are worked. Minimum 3 hours per shift still.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 4:08pm:

Webtoad wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 12:07pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:30pm: Webtoad wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:06pm: How Much, dear Webtoad, would you be prepared to work for on Sunday... I've got a job for you swilling out the pig sty - $10 an hour.... See ya Sunday..... hours of work are right when the football is on...... and your family can picnic on their own without you.. OK?  ;D If I needed the money, then yes. I don't get why one person who has worked 5 hours for the whole week (albeit on a Sunday) should be paid a ridiculously high wage for what is in essence a simple job. It doesn't add up. Maybe they've got four kids to support and they haven't the OPPORTUNITY to actually get a job that will pay them enough to live on, and nobody will give them a full-time REAL job any more?  So they take whatever they can get which is working Sunday for fivew hours at $50 an hour? How many job vacancies are YOU offering? How old are you?  Where you Bin, Laden? I'm not talking about overtime. I am talking about working less than 40 hours a week. Once you get beyond 40 hours a week then you can start thinking about overtime perhaps. We've had a 38 hour working week in this country for many years now. Just shows how out of touch you are.

I know it is currently 38. Personally I work more than 38 hours a week, as do many professionals.

Webtoad wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 7:23pm:

as do many professionals.

professionals get an allowance for that as part f their salary

crocodile wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 5:24pm:

Its time wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 4:48pm: crocodile wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 4:03pm: Webtoad wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 7:19pm: I for one would support the return of Workchoices. Why ? The issue of falling real wages is a productivity one. How does the drive to lower wages fix a productivity problem. Far better to fix the cause rather than the effect. And how do you do that, apart from sacking a whole lotta useless managers that is After reading this board for so long you should have some understanding of productivity. Labour productivity = Production per unit of labour input. Capital productivity = Production per unit of capital input. Sacking managers fixes neither of the above. Labour productivity has been growing. Capital productivity has been slipping away for nearly two decades. Growth in Labour productivity is formed by the rollout of technology that provisions the worker with the tools to increase production for the equivalent amount of labour. The slide in capital productivity means that each increment of labour productivity is chewing up ever increasing amounts of capital. Address this and real wages will once again grow.

There is a difference between the technical terms of productivity in economic terms and if a business is productive or not, levels of overhead costs that produce nothing do damage productivity.

On second thoughts it does also impact Labour productivity for that reason, carrying unproductive units of Labour fits your definition.

John Smith wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 7:37pm:

Webtoad wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 7:23pm: as do many professionals. professionals get an allowance for that as part f their salary

Hardly.

Webtoad wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 7:22pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 2:06pm: Webtoad wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 12:07pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:30pm: Webtoad wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:06pm: How Much, dear Webtoad, would you be prepared to work for on Sunday... I've got a job for you swilling out the pig sty - $10 an hour.... See ya Sunday..... hours of work are right when the football is on...... and your family can picnic on their own without you.. OK?  ;D If I needed the money, then yes. I don't get why one person who has worked 5 hours for the whole week (albeit on a Sunday) should be paid a ridiculously high wage for what is in essence a simple job. It doesn't add up. Maybe they've got four kids to support and they haven't the OPPORTUNITY to actually get a job that will pay them enough to live on, and nobody will give them a full-time REAL job any more?  So they take whatever they can get which is working Sunday for fivew hours at $50 an hour? How many job vacancies are YOU offering? How old are you?  Where you Bin, Laden? I'm not talking about overtime. I am talking about working less than 40 hours a week. Once you get beyond 40 hours a week then you can start thinking about overtime perhaps. Does Parliament sit on Sundays?  Do the members of boards meet on Sundays?  The issue isn't the number of hours worked - it is on what day of the week they are worked.  If Sunday and Saturday are just another day why are all the big entertainment things scheduled for weekends?  Why are most other people strolling around and buying coffee instead of working? Nope. In the 21st century it should be based on number of hours worked (with one employer) per week regardless of what day they are worked or what period of the day they are worked. Minimum 3 hours per shift still.

Well over 800,000 fully unemployed times about two who would prefer more hours in a part-time casual environment..... and you feel that people should simply be forced to accept any conditions at all, and that there are all these jobs out there just waiting for them - sorry, but the realities of Sunday work etc have been laid out for you already.

All these whining businesses wouldn't open on Sundays if it was not profitable.

Dnarever wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 7:44pm:

crocodile wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 5:24pm: Its time wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 4:48pm: crocodile wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 4:03pm: Webtoad wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 7:19pm: I for one would support the return of Workchoices. Why ? The issue of falling real wages is a productivity one. How does the drive to lower wages fix a productivity problem. Far better to fix the cause rather than the effect. And how do you do that, apart from sacking a whole lotta useless managers that is After reading this board for so long you should have some understanding of productivity. Labour productivity = Production per unit of labour input. Capital productivity = Production per unit of capital input. Sacking managers fixes neither of the above. Labour productivity has been growing. Capital productivity has been slipping away for nearly two decades. Growth in Labour productivity is formed by the rollout of technology that provisions the worker with the tools to increase production for the equivalent amount of labour. The slide in capital productivity means that each increment of labour productivity is chewing up ever increasing amounts of capital. Address this and real wages will once again grow. There is a difference between the technical terms of productivity in economic terms and if a business is productive or not, levels of overhead costs that produce nothing do damage productivity. On second thoughts it does also impact Labour productivity for that reason, carrying unproductive units of Labour fits your definition.

That's all well and good but labour productivity has been growing and continues to grow for a very long time. There isn't much evidence to support the carriage of unproductive units of labour lest you would see it decline. Capital productivity performance in more recent times has been abysmal.

Economics demands that in order to produce and sell a product, a market is required.... that market is the people who earn enough to buy the product.

Ergo - there is a balance between wages and prosperity for a company, and it is not as simple as some would like to make out it is.  No company is a closed environment and therefore there always have been rules about pay rates and such - the overall benefit is derived from a prosperous working group buying within its own economic sphere, and that can only be achieved by having work available at a fair rate of return.

I've already done the very dire situation for you, of the emerging Asian nations finally arriving at wage parity with We of the West - at which point all markets movement of goods will stop, for the simple reason that without disparity in incomes, no product can be produced and then shipped offshore to generate profit.

When We Of The West have been reduced to wage minions on lower than Asian rates, as a matter of pure survival, then will begin The Greatest Depression, followed by World War IV, which, fortunately due to the massive reduction in easy energy from petroleum, will be more limited than you imagine.  Air power will be virtually non-existent, and battle spheres will be much more limited in scope, along with movements of troops etc being much slower. In fact, a situation not far different from the American Civil War - which is a basic point in my developing book series.

I am currently working on a World War IV series and this forum is a great avenue for ideas and thoughts.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 9:50pm:

Economics demands that in order to produce and sell a product, a market is required.... that market is the people who earn enough to buy the product. Ergo - there is a balance between wages and prosperity for a company, and it is not as simple as some would like to make out it is.  No company is a closed environment and therefore there always have been rules about pay rates and such - the overall benefit is derived from a prosperous working group buying within its own economic sphere, and that can only be achieved by having work available at a fair rate of return. I've already done the very dire situation for you, of the emerging Asian nations finally arriving at wage parity with We of the West - at which point all markets movement of goods will stop, for the simple reason that without disparity in incomes, no product can be produced and then shipped offshore to generate profit. When We Of The West have been reduced to wage minions on lower than Asian rates, as a matter of pure survival, then will begin The Greatest Depression, followed by World War IV, which, fortunately due to the massive reduction in easy energy from petroleum, will be more limited than you imagine.  Air power will be virtually non-existent, and battle spheres will be much more limited in scope, along with movements of troops etc being much slower. In fact, a situation not far different from the American Civil War - which is a basic point in my developing book series. I am currently working on a World War IV series and this forum is a great avenue for ideas and thoughts.

David Ricardo had all the above you mention worked out over 200 years ago. You should read his précis on the laws of comparative advantage and his work on economic rents. The gloomy picture you paint doesn't eventuate.

By the way, the closing gap re wages is a direct result of their growing productivity gaining ground on our falling productivity. In the end, it's all about productivity.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

John Smith wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 7:37pm: Webtoad wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 7:23pm: as do many professionals. professionals get an allowance for that as part f their salary Hardly.

This

Webtoad wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 3:21pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 7:56pm: John Smith wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 7:37pm: Webtoad wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 7:23pm: as do many professionals. professionals get an allowance for that as part f their salary Hardly. This

Good, next time your dunny blocks up on a Sunday arvo and turds are coming out of your kitchen sink try getting a plumber to attend at the Monday rate.

John Smith wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 7:37pm:

Webtoad wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 7:23pm: as do many professionals. professionals get an allowance for that as part f their salary

They are also compensated for penalty rates for shifts that they will never work in all probability.

crocodile wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 10:09pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 9:50pm: Economics demands that in order to produce and sell a product, a market is required.... that market is the people who earn enough to buy the product. Ergo - there is a balance between wages and prosperity for a company, and it is not as simple as some would like to make out it is.  No company is a closed environment and therefore there always have been rules about pay rates and such - the overall benefit is derived from a prosperous working group buying within its own economic sphere, and that can only be achieved by having work available at a fair rate of return. I've already done the very dire situation for you, of the emerging Asian nations finally arriving at wage parity with We of the West - at which point all markets movement of goods will stop, for the simple reason that without disparity in incomes, no product can be produced and then shipped offshore to generate profit. When We Of The West have been reduced to wage minions on lower than Asian rates, as a matter of pure survival, then will begin The Greatest Depression, followed by World War IV, which, fortunately due to the massive reduction in easy energy from petroleum, will be more limited than you imagine.  Air power will be virtually non-existent, and battle spheres will be much more limited in scope, along with movements of troops etc being much slower. In fact, a situation not far different from the American Civil War - which is a basic point in my developing book series. I am currently working on a World War IV series and this forum is a great avenue for ideas and thoughts. David Ricardo had all the above you mention worked out over 200 years ago. You should read his précis on the laws of comparative advantage and his work on economic rents. The gloomy picture you paint doesn't eventuate. By the way, the closing gap re wages is a direct result of their growing productivity gaining ground on our falling productivity. In the end, it's all about productivity.

I would suggest that the only reason the Great Disaster hasn't happened more than a few times is because the rules are constantly changed.

Did David Ricardo cover The Great Depression and World War II, WW II being the saviour of the economic world.....

Does every national economy in the world play by the same rules? I think not.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 8:48pm:

crocodile wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 10:09pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 9:50pm: Economics demands that in order to produce and sell a product, a market is required.... that market is the people who earn enough to buy the product. Ergo - there is a balance between wages and prosperity for a company, and it is not as simple as some would like to make out it is.  No company is a closed environment and therefore there always have been rules about pay rates and such - the overall benefit is derived from a prosperous working group buying within its own economic sphere, and that can only be achieved by having work available at a fair rate of return. I've already done the very dire situation for you, of the emerging Asian nations finally arriving at wage parity with We of the West - at which point all markets movement of goods will stop, for the simple reason that without disparity in incomes, no product can be produced and then shipped offshore to generate profit. When We Of The West have been reduced to wage minions on lower than Asian rates, as a matter of pure survival, then will begin The Greatest Depression, followed by World War IV, which, fortunately due to the massive reduction in easy energy from petroleum, will be more limited than you imagine.  Air power will be virtually non-existent, and battle spheres will be much more limited in scope, along with movements of troops etc being much slower. In fact, a situation not far different from the American Civil War - which is a basic point in my developing book series. I am currently working on a World War IV series and this forum is a great avenue for ideas and thoughts. David Ricardo had all the above you mention worked out over 200 years ago. You should read his précis on the laws of comparative advantage and his work on economic rents. The gloomy picture you paint doesn't eventuate. By the way, the closing gap re wages is a direct result of their growing productivity gaining ground on our falling productivity. In the end, it's all about productivity. I would suggest that the only reason the Great Disaster hasn't happened more than a few times is because the rules are constantly changed. Did David Ricardo cover The Great Depression and World War II, WW II being the saviour of the economic world..... Does every national economy in the world play by the same rules? I think not.

The rules as you put it haven't changed much over time at all. The understanding of them may certainly have changed. For instance, the laws surrounding supply and demand were first analysed in detail way back in the 14th century by Ibn Khaldun. Really, they are just as valid today as they were back then. We just understand a little better today ( Except for our illustrious pollies that is ). Incidentally, the recovery from WWII is a perfect example of Ricardo's comparative advantage summation.

Unfortunately this "comparative advantage summation" is predicated on an endless turnover in suffering for some to benefit others..... a perpetual de-stabilising influence and root cause of conflict, both internal and international, with the inevitable result being large-scale warfare at intervals.

Put simply - it may well be a nice summation - but it is a(nother) failed economic theory.

I'm sorry to advise that facile comments, such as 'it's our turn in the barrel' simply will not wash when you are discussing the future of my children and grand-children, for whom I fought and sacrificed so very much, so they could have a better life than I did.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 10:25pm:

Unfortunately this "comparative advantage summation" is predicated on an endless turnover in suffering for some to benefit others..... a perpetual de-stabilising influence and root cause of conflict, both internal and international, with the inevitable result being large-scale warfare at intervals. Grapples, you're just rambling nonsense now. I'd suggest major conflicts occur for other reasons than those expounded in comparative advantage. Are you suggesting that less trade between provinces leads to less conflict. I don't think so. Put simply - it may well be a nice summation - but it is a(nother) failed economic theory. You must be kidding. Blokes have been flogging each other long before the idea of trade was known. I'm sorry to advise that facile comments, such as 'it's our turn in the barrel' simply will not wash when you are discussing the future of my children and grand-children, for whom I fought and sacrificed so very much, so they could have a better life than I did. Nobody mentioned "turns in the barrel"

No - the breakdown of trade creates conflicts.  While this paradigm may explain things that occur - it does not resolve the issues of permanent disadvantage/advantage/comparative advantage - and thus are a root cause of conflict and lack of stability/security.

Couple your studies to security issues and terrorism/counter-terrorism, and you will see what I mean.

You can look at the following scenario:-

A native of Bloggistan may be content to harvest camel gonads and coconut leaves for supper, and knows no other way, since this has been handed down from generation to generation.  Along comes someone who says :- "I can provide you with camel gonads and coconut leaves at a far lower cost to you than actually harvesting them!"

So a deal is struck.

After a while the Bloggistani begins to see that HE would be better off in providing the market with excess camel gonads and coconut leaves... so he organises the collection of those to develop a base from which to TRADE.

Now let us go back a moment....

That Bloggistani originally entered into the trade agreement because his labour in harvesting CGs and CLs was more than he could buy them for.... so that leaves the OTHER Bloggistanis that he recruits to harvest CGs and CLs in the position of having to do the hard work.  In return for this he gives them a share of the return on his selling of CGs and CLs in the now open market, in which he is now competing with his own original supplier.

So we already have an 'oppressed' segment of society - those Bloggistanis who are now forced to harvest CGs and CLs or starve.

Anyway - our original Bloggistani and HIS original supplier are now competing...... and there is only a limited market share, so they will lower prices and shuffle all kinds of things in order to stay on top in this contest.

The competition builds and eventually becomes aggression.  (meanwhile, under a conflicting market situation where market share is increasingly intruded into by other CG and CL suppliers - the harvesting Bloggistanis are worse and worse off... since their share of the smaller pie is smaller... and smaller.)

Eventually a situation arrives in which the original supplier and the Bloggistani entrepreneur are now totally opposed to one another..... and the market is continually eroded by more and more suppliers entering the market......

So one or the other determines that the ONLY way to restore market dominance or even market parity is.... to go to war and demolish or take over other suppliers (Greater Far East Co-Prosperity Sphere), either by force or by cunning.

Meanwhile unrest is brewing at home, since the harvesting Bloggistanis are working harder now to sustain the market and the war effort..... and once the war is resolved.... those Bloggistanis, who have carried the heaviest burden in that war... now feel entitled to more share of the pie left over.

You see what I'm saying with regard to national and international security?

A perpetuation of an imbalance is a certain guarantee of national and international in-Security and de-stabilisation, and never more so than when that imbalance is constantly shifting between competing regions and even countries.

Me rave?

Never gonna happen in this lifetime.... I know far too much....

Bed time.....

If you live in australia and it isnt going well for you , you need to focus on developing a positive psychology.

By the law of state transference, you will become what you think and you will become the people you interact with.

success does attract success.

there is a saying that is very true.

The hungry never get fed.

become a positive powerful influential person with a great attitude and success will be drawn to you. it is a law as universal as the law of gravity that says mass will be drawn to you.

Fear about workchoices , is, at its core, a "limiting belief",
It is a belief that "if i am to be examined for the value i bring to the workplace, my income will drop, as i am not a valuable person"

This is a horrible , fearful, and anxious way to live your life.

work on yourself, work on your skills, wake up every morning and know you are "the sh*t"

when the boss calls you in for a session of enterprise bargaining, HIS mindset should be one of fear and anxiety....

how can i keep this valuable person,
the worker who is working correctly will be carefree and indifferent to the boss.
he will be playing "hard to get"
he will have the boss "chasing"

understand emotional intelligence, innovation and marketing.

Your union rep cant give this to you
Bill Shorten cant help you.
We live in a global jungle.

Embrace the challenge, man up, make love to the journey of improvement.
A Cry Baby narrative will not work at a party when trying to pull a chick. its repulsive.
A Cry Baby narrative is repulsive to an employer who wants to date you, in exactly the same way

It was the Howard government that gave us Workchoices.  Now they are where they belong, in the rubbish bin of history.  With their stinking Workchoices.   :( 

wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 7:04am:

It was the Howard government that gave us Workchoices.  Now they are where they belong, in the rubbish bin of history.  With their stinking Workchoices.   :(

it will come back for sure.
it is an idea whose time has come and it cant be suppressed because it is the logical "next step"

everything has been exposed to the free market

the banks
the telecommunications systems
the post office
housing
health
universitites
the arts
Uber and Air b and b
Ebay

everything now stands and falls based on its own merit and value in the marketplace.

the merit and value of an hour of your work is NO DIFFERENT.

this is what you HAVE to SELL into the marketplace and how much you get for your hour of work, can no more be regulated then any other commodity which is being brought and sold.

to think otherwise (especially in a global market) is just naive .

Your only protection is to improve improve improve.

Heres a social experiment for you crook.

Go to Ebay and say you are willing to offer 8 hours a day of whinging, whining bitching and complaining and you want to know what the whole of ebay is willing to pay for this service.
Then get back to us  ;)

See you at the union national strike.   :)

aquascoot wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 7:27am:

wrote on May 16th, 2016 at 7:04am: It was the Howard government that gave us Workchoices.  Now they are where they belong, in the rubbish bin of history.  With their stinking Workchoices.   :(  it will come back for sure. it is an idea whose time has come and it cant be suppressed because it is the logical "next step" everything has been exposed to the free market the banks the telecommunications systems the post office housing health universitites the arts Uber and Air b and b Ebay everything now stands and falls based on its own merit and value in the marketplace. the merit and value of an hour of your work is NO DIFFERENT. this is what you HAVE to SELL into the marketplace and how much you get for your hour of work, can no more be regulated then any other commodity which is being brought and sold. to think otherwise (especially in a global market) is just naive . Your only protection is to improve improve improve. Heres a social experiment for you crook. Go to Ebay and say you are willing to offer 8 hours a day of whinging, whining bitching and complaining and you want to know what the whole of ebay is willing to pay for this service. Then get back to us  ;)

I worked for a Govt Dpt in the 90s and that was the best way to get a promotion.
After I left it took me a year or so to get rid of that  crippling mentality

wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 7:38am:

See you at the union national strike.   :)

Crook, that wont work.

A National Strike is the equivalent of  toyota saying that they arent getting enough money for their cars and therefore, they are going to ban the sales of toyotas until people start to treat them the way they think they deserve to be treated.

Its functioning at the emotional level of a 2 yo having a tantrum.

The rest of the world dont think like that son.

they'll just see your national strike as an opportunity to grab market share.

This is called in personal development circles "self sabotage"

From what I can see, it seems that the liberals have learned very little.  We know they cant be trusted with industrial relations.  The unions are awake to them.   :)      

Quote:

No - the breakdown of trade creates conflicts.  While this paradigm may explain things that occur - it does not resolve the issues of permanent disadvantage/advantage/comparative advantage - and thus are a root cause of conflict and lack of stability/security.

No. Conflicts arise from the allocation of resources. Trade mitigates this. When trade becomes impeded by externalities misallocation of resources result with ensuing conflicts.

You have the cart before the horse.

wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 8:07am:

From what I can see, it seems that the liberals have learned very little.  We know they cant be trusted with industrial relations.  The unions are awake to them.   :)

Unions will become pretty well irrelevant over the next decade or so crook.
What is a union except a cartel trying to manipulate the price of labor.
You cant manipulate the price of anything anymore.
Not in a global economy.

labor is something people "buy" and they will "buy" it wherever they see it as representative of the greatest "value"

if the call centre workers throw a strike,  a quick call to india fixes that.
if the auto makers throw a strike, thailand is happy to churn out toyotas.
if the retail workers go on strike, i'll buy online.
if the dentists throw a strike, i'll get my crowns done in the phillipines.
if the IT workers strike, koreans will write the code.
if the miners strike, brazil and south africa will get the investment.

pretty much only public servants can strike and they will just be increasingly put on contracts where the union cant help them

i expect most governments will move to contract labor,
most industries will be globalised and if you strike, the factory gets put in a shipping container and reassembled in indonesia.

you are fighting a war that cant be won
the unions are like the little boy with his finger in the dyke in holland trying to hold back the ocean.

Dont waste any more energy on wanting things to go back to the "good old days". I thought the lefties were supposed to be the party that had a clear vision of the future and the righties were supposed to be stuck in the past.
On IR, you are just ancient history. Stop the nostalgia and get to a self improvement course.

wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 8:07am:

From what I can see, it seems that the liberals have learned very little.  We know they cant be trusted with industrial relations.  The unions are awake to them.   :)

It is difficult to prove but given the productivity angle and the inability of the legislation to deliver gains in this area it seems more apparent to the discerning observer that the workchoices legislation was more about cutting off the supply of funds to their political opponents rather than attack the cause of declining capital to output ratio.

aquascoot wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 8:30am:

wrote on May 16th, 2016 at 8:07am: From what I can see, it seems that the liberals have learned very little.  We know they cant be trusted with industrial relations.  The unions are awake to them.   :)       Unions will become pretty well irrelevant over the next decade or so crook. What is a union except a cartel trying to manipulate the price of labor. You cant manipulate the price of anything anymore. Not in a global economy. labor is something people "buy" and they will "buy" it wherever they see it as representative of the greatest "value" if the call centre workers throw a strike,  a quick call to india fixes that. if the auto makers throw a strike, thailand is happy to churn out toyotas. if the retail workers go on strike, i'll buy online. if the dentists throw a strike, i'll get my crowns done in the phillipines. if the IT workers strike, koreans will write the code. if the miners strike, brazil and south africa will get the investment. pretty much only public servants can strike and they will just be increasingly put on contracts where the union cant help them i expect most governments will move to contract labor, most industries will be globalised and if you strike, the factory gets put in a shipping container and reassembled in indonesia. you are fighting a war that cant be won the unions are like the little boy with his finger in the dyke in holland trying to hold back the ocean. Dont waste any more energy on wanting things to go back to the "good old days". I thought the lefties were supposed to be the party that had a clear vision of the future and the righties were supposed to be stuck in the past. On IR, you are just ancient history. Stop the nostalgia and get to a self improvement course.

Not quite true Scoot. We've already touched on Ricardo and mentioned his work on economic rents. You will find that unions exist as part of the squabble over the division of excess economic rents between labour and capital. As such, they cannot exist in a perfect market. It is in fact the market imperfections such as monopolies, monopsonies, lobby groups etc that lead to their very existence.

aquascoot wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 8:30am:

What is a union except a cartel trying to manipulate the price of labor.

Once again, astounding ignorance.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 9:18am:

aquascoot wrote on May 16th, 2016 at 8:30am: What is a union except a cartel trying to manipulate the price of labor. Once again, astounding ignorance.

Wharfies?

greggerypeccary wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 9:18am:

aquascoot wrote on May 16th, 2016 at 8:30am: What is a union except a cartel trying to manipulate the price of labor. Once again, astounding ignorance.

enterprise bargaining is like an ebay auction.
there is a negotiation over price (for labor).
This is how the world works, circa 2016.

What unions are trying to do with labor is what all cartels try to do.

say to an employer ( a "buyer" of labor), that this is what labor will cost and we will not allow for a negotiation in price.

This works well for the mediocre items which are lumped in with the cream.

the unions are basicly an organisation that forces the cream to accept less reward and makes the buyer pay more for the mediocre then he should.

the unions call this collective bargaining.
even "collective bargaining ' for oil by OPEC is a bit of market manipulation, but, one barrell of oil is the same as another barrell of oil.

But collective bargaining for human labor is an abhoration. One worker is most certainly not the same as the next worker.
to treat them all as a commodity is extremely disempowering and humiliating for them and a form of enslavement.
Whilst its a good bsuiness model for unions, it is outdated and it will end soon.
this will be a liberating experience for the cream of workers and it will apply evolutionary pressure to mediocre workers to "evolve"

this HAS to be the next step in productivity for the economy.
there simply is no other way to go.

i await a picture of some horse droppings as greg lacks the intellect to respond with a sound arguement  ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBzXgRW-H7Q

aquascoot wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 9:33am:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 16th, 2016 at 9:18am: aquascoot wrote on May 16th, 2016 at 8:30am: What is a union except a cartel trying to manipulate the price of labor. Once again, astounding ignorance. enterprise bargaining ...

If you think that enterprise bargaining is the only thing unions do, I can only shake my head in disbelief at your astounding ignorance.

"What is a union except a cartel trying to manipulate the price of labor."   ::)

aquascoot wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 9:33am:

But collective bargaining for human labor is an abhoration. One worker is most certainly not the same as the next worker. to treat them all as a commodity is extremely disempowering and humiliating for them and a form of enslavement.

More of your astounding ignorance.

When an EBA is negotiated, the wages & conditions in that document are merely the minimum for all employees.

Employers do not have to pay all employees the same rate.

If they feel that any particular employees are more valuable than others, they can pay them any amount they want above what is in the EBA.

There is absolutely nothing stopping an employer paying their best employees twice as much as everyone else in the company.

Every single employee can be on a different rate of pay, according to their productivity etc.

Similarly, better employees can be given extra benefits, such as longer lunch breaks, more annual leave, etc.

You (and many others on here) really do know very little about EBAs and their application in the workplace.

GordyL wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 9:25am:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 16th, 2016 at 9:18am: aquascoot wrote on May 16th, 2016 at 8:30am: What is a union except a cartel trying to manipulate the price of labor. Once again, astounding ignorance. Wharfies?

Those economic rents again. Wharfies are the epitome of such.

When an EBA is negotiated, the wages & conditions in that document are merely the minimum for all employees.

Employers do not have to pay all employees the same rate.

If they feel that any particular employee is more valuable than an other, they can pay them any amount they want above the EBA rate.

There is absolutely nothing stopping an employer paying their best employees twice as much as everyone else in the company. Ten times as much, if they want.

Every single employee can be on a different rate of pay, according to their productivity, level of sycophancy, etc.

Similarly, better employees can be given extra benefits, such as longer lunch breaks, more annual leave, days off on their birthday, etc.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/6048936-3x2-340x227.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 9:45am:

aquascoot wrote on May 16th, 2016 at 9:33am: But collective bargaining for human labor is an abhoration. One worker is most certainly not the same as the next worker. to treat them all as a commodity is extremely disempowering and humiliating for them and a form of enslavement. More of your astounding ignorance. When an EBA is negotiated, the wages & conditions in that document are merely the minimum for all employees. Employers do not have to pay all employees the same rate. If they feel that any particular employees are more valuable than others, they can pay them any amount they want above what is in the EBA. There is absolutely nothing stopping an employer paying their best employees twice as much as everyone else in the company. Every single employee can be on a different rate of pay, according to their productivity etc. Similarly, better employees can be given extra benefits, such as longer lunch breaks, more annual leave, etc. You (and many others on here) really do know very little about EBAs and their application in the workplace.

this sounds like an ebay auction where there is a floor price which prevents the market operating efficiently.

my observation is that once you put a minimum bid, people lose interest in the auction.

the mediocre items need to be put up for auction with an opening bid of 99 cents and then we will find out their true worth.

This is the "purity' of the market before the unions "pollute " it by demanding unnatural conditions like a "minimum wage"

No one in small business, the engine room of the economy, has such a "minimum wage" and these are the people with courage grit and drive.

Why would we therefore give a "minimum wage" to people who are meek lazy and lack courage. 

Minimum wage for small business owners, gauranteed by the government. ;)
Workers to be paid at a rate determined by the market, to encourage them to try to become more valuable.

This is the way of the superior economy

I've got more:-

Now that Bloggistan has won the war, and the guy become Emperor Bloggist I - he sees that he has control of all the market space, and can dispose of his camel gonads and coconut leaves anywhere, any time at any price.

Before too long, a Faraway Islander, intent on gathering camel gonads and coconut leaves in the traditional manner for supper ... sees an opportunity to make a profit by harnessing the gathering of these staples, and then competing in the world market......

and so it goes....

'comparative advantage' is a descriptor - not a solution.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 9:45am:

aquascoot wrote on May 16th, 2016 at 9:33am: But collective bargaining for human labor is an abhoration. One worker is most certainly not the same as the next worker. to treat them all as a commodity is extremely disempowering and humiliating for them and a form of enslavement. More of your astounding ignorance. When an EBA is negotiated, the wages & conditions in that document are merely the minimum for all employees. Employers do not have to pay all employees the same rate. If they feel that any particular employees are more valuable than others, they can pay them any amount they want above what is in the EBA. There is absolutely nothing stopping an employer paying their best employees twice as much as everyone else in the company. Every single employee can be on a different rate of pay, according to their productivity etc. Similarly, better employees can be given extra benefits, such as longer lunch breaks, more annual leave, etc. You (and many others on here) really do know very little about EBAs and their application in the workplace.

Correct - all must be paid the minimum - if the employer feels more can be achieved by paying the best workers more.. so be it.

This sort of argument goes round and round and often using misleading of mislead interpretations.... WorkChoices was supposed to provide 'flexibility' on the part of a capable (LMAO) management and thus boost productivity - instead it became, in the minds of lesser 'managers' driven by ego and not ability -an opportunity to dominate the worker/employer relationship and drive down conditions and wages.

Stupid as....

In breaking news from Malbunistan.... car workers are set to be dumped on the jobs market at the rate of 40,000.......... meanwhile Labor has come up with a $59m plan to aid those workers....... https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/31607362/labor-has-59m-plan-for-car-workers/   ............ more in our full news at six.......

Here is some still life:-  https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/31607362/labor-has-59m-plan-for-car-workers/

aquascoot wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 11:08am:

this sounds like an ebay auction where there is a floor price which prevents the market operating efficiently.

rubbish ... most cars sold are sold with a reserve price. Market operates just fine

aquascoot wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 11:08am:

This is the "purity' of the market before the unions "pollute " it by demanding unnatural conditions like a "minimum wage"

The minimum wage is set by the Fair Work Commission.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 1:25pm:

I've got more:- Now that Bloggistan has won the war, and the guy become Emperor Bloggist I - he sees that he has control of all the market space, and can dispose of his camel gonads and coconut leaves anywhere, any time at any price. Before too long, a Faraway Islander, intent on gathering camel gonads and coconut leaves in the traditional manner for supper ... sees an opportunity to make a profit by harnessing the gathering of these staples, and then competing in the world market...... and so it goes.... 'comparative advantage' is a descriptor - not a solution.

Who ever described it as a solution. It always has been a description.

You're learning, slowly but you're learning.

I thought I was well ahead of the game there....

Dnarever wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 8:29pm:

John Smith wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 7:37pm: Webtoad wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 7:23pm: as do many professionals. professionals get an allowance for that as part f their salary They are also compensated for penalty rates for shifts that they will never work in all probability.

I am not.