Tas
Premium Platinum
Veteran
10k Posts
30k Posts
North Melbourne - 2022 Kaitlyn Ashmore and Aileen Gilroy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne AFLW - 2021 Aileen Gilroy and Kaitlyn Ashmore Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
TheBrownDog
- Dec 23, 2002
- 62,061
- 60,194
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- There can be only one...
Like the Feminism movement, it had its time and place but going on for the point of going does more harm than good.
Unionism has grown from beyond looking out for the best interests of employees to power and control. Measures taken to protect workers and their rights go against the fundamental principals of our chosen economic system and in many cases undermines the workers as a whole.
I think unions have their place in order to represent worker rights in terms of the conditions of employment, because employers neglect their responsibilities as employers and often treat workers as a liability instead of the asset they are.
However, some of the fundamental principals of unionism create massive employment barriers for prospective employees. Minimum wage rate has caused chronic unemployment issues with younger people, especially during harder economic times. Are you going to pay minimum wage to a young inexperienced kid or someone mature with more experience? It is a bad deal for younger potential employees, they do not have the option to compete for employment.
Younger people often have significantly lower personal overheads, many live with family or in shared accommodation, they are usually in a better position to exchange lower remuneration for the opportunity to gain vital training and work experience. With minimum wages this cost is an additional burden to the employer which makes younger people less attractive to employ.
Younger people are more likely to be on welfare payments for longer, have lower prospects for employment and get less experience by the time they mature than they would with a supply and demand system. Working, even for less, is a better alternative to a welfare state.
Defined minimum wages have made us unable to competitive in some markets, there would be significant more opportunity for part time and casual work for less hours for more people in performing work for some industries where we are competing against significantly lower foreign wage rates and destroying our own industries. While the average person needs a significant income to meet their requirements, not everyone does, there are many people who could be productive but are not because they are at risk of losing welfare benefits for working at all, even on a casual or part time basis.
Our welfare system makes it to easy for people to get on it and too hard for people to get off it. It doesn't empower people to work or maintain a level of self-respect, people are looked down who are on welfare and there are massive employment barriers for people who have been on them for too long.
Our welfare system could encourage people to take lower paying work without losing benefits for a period of time, would allow them to gain much needed experience and develop social skills required, it would help promote productivity rather than sloth and waste.
Unfair dismissal protection is another problematic aspect of unionism, if the employer doesn't think the employee is suited for the position any longer he should be able to let go the employee, the principal of unfair dismissal was appropriate back in ye olden days where jobs were often a lifetime commitment, that isn't the case any longer. We have massive barriers now which makes it very hard to remove poorly efficient employees, especially where militant unions are involved. This makes it an even bigger decision for employers about who they let through the doors.
Easing up on draconian rules of employment would make employers more willing to employ, more willing to give ****ups with poor employment history a go at lower wage rates until they prove themselves, more willing to give kids out of school opportunity at a fair rate given their lack of skills and usually lack of physical conditioning for many jobs to do them as productive as a mature worker.
A problem we have is the moral compass of employers is broken, many do not invest in their employees, most value short-term profit over long-term growth because they employ CEOs and reward them for achieving short-term benchmarks and the bottom dollar looks better if you fire people and overwork the ones remaining int he short-term but is often destructive to the business long-term.
We don't need unions because the health, happiness and well-being of the employee should be of paramount importance of the employee, the business and the shareholder.
We are stuck in an old system, a defunct one and it is causing significant harm to our nation economically and socially. We need to overhaul our system, our way of thinking before our bloated system becomes too big a mess to resolve like it has for other nations.
Unionism has grown from beyond looking out for the best interests of employees to power and control. Measures taken to protect workers and their rights go against the fundamental principals of our chosen economic system and in many cases undermines the workers as a whole.
I think unions have their place in order to represent worker rights in terms of the conditions of employment, because employers neglect their responsibilities as employers and often treat workers as a liability instead of the asset they are.
However, some of the fundamental principals of unionism create massive employment barriers for prospective employees. Minimum wage rate has caused chronic unemployment issues with younger people, especially during harder economic times. Are you going to pay minimum wage to a young inexperienced kid or someone mature with more experience? It is a bad deal for younger potential employees, they do not have the option to compete for employment.
Younger people often have significantly lower personal overheads, many live with family or in shared accommodation, they are usually in a better position to exchange lower remuneration for the opportunity to gain vital training and work experience. With minimum wages this cost is an additional burden to the employer which makes younger people less attractive to employ.
Younger people are more likely to be on welfare payments for longer, have lower prospects for employment and get less experience by the time they mature than they would with a supply and demand system. Working, even for less, is a better alternative to a welfare state.
Defined minimum wages have made us unable to competitive in some markets, there would be significant more opportunity for part time and casual work for less hours for more people in performing work for some industries where we are competing against significantly lower foreign wage rates and destroying our own industries. While the average person needs a significant income to meet their requirements, not everyone does, there are many people who could be productive but are not because they are at risk of losing welfare benefits for working at all, even on a casual or part time basis.
Our welfare system makes it to easy for people to get on it and too hard for people to get off it. It doesn't empower people to work or maintain a level of self-respect, people are looked down who are on welfare and there are massive employment barriers for people who have been on them for too long.
Our welfare system could encourage people to take lower paying work without losing benefits for a period of time, would allow them to gain much needed experience and develop social skills required, it would help promote productivity rather than sloth and waste.
Unfair dismissal protection is another problematic aspect of unionism, if the employer doesn't think the employee is suited for the position any longer he should be able to let go the employee, the principal of unfair dismissal was appropriate back in ye olden days where jobs were often a lifetime commitment, that isn't the case any longer. We have massive barriers now which makes it very hard to remove poorly efficient employees, especially where militant unions are involved. This makes it an even bigger decision for employers about who they let through the doors.
Easing up on draconian rules of employment would make employers more willing to employ, more willing to give ****ups with poor employment history a go at lower wage rates until they prove themselves, more willing to give kids out of school opportunity at a fair rate given their lack of skills and usually lack of physical conditioning for many jobs to do them as productive as a mature worker.
A problem we have is the moral compass of employers is broken, many do not invest in their employees, most value short-term profit over long-term growth because they employ CEOs and reward them for achieving short-term benchmarks and the bottom dollar looks better if you fire people and overwork the ones remaining int he short-term but is often destructive to the business long-term.
We don't need unions because the health, happiness and well-being of the employee should be of paramount importance of the employee, the business and the shareholder.
We are stuck in an old system, a defunct one and it is causing significant harm to our nation economically and socially. We need to overhaul our system, our way of thinking before our bloated system becomes too big a mess to resolve like it has for other nations.