What is Wrong with John Howard's IR Laws?

[medusala]

Ive asked you a very simple question; you have continually started that increased spending on educations cimply goes into increased wages for union members, i have asked you supply the information that you have used to make this claim, that shows the break down of the % of spending that actually goes into wages verses spending on education and training?

Education and training is spent on wages. You think teachers dont get paid?

Also how does the spending on wages as a % of education spending compare in relation to other countries; you must nop this as you keep attacking the wages paid to the providers of education and training?

It matters little. As the OECD said the relationship between spending and outcomes is dubious.

Nice try in using education spending that are in the main state government spending responibilties and trying to pass this off as Commonwealth government spending(typical from you though).

Have increased spending with worse outcomes.

Your continued arguement that education, training and investing in R&D doesn't equal increased productivity and increased economic growth just shows you failure once again to have even a basic understanding of simple economic principals (thats why you support the howard governments $22+ billion baby bonus, government run super funds, etc etc).

You don't seem to understand that many countries with low r&d spending have signficantly out performed those with higher r&d. I have posted tables on this. The concept of correlation is beyond you. You seem to think that a drop from 150% to 125% is going to cause spending to fall over a wall.

Oh and what does class sizes have to do with somehow supporting your argument that spending on education, training and R&D doesn't help economic growth and productivity?

Decreasing class sizes means spending cash which does nothing for outcomes.

How hard is that to grasp.

And im still waiting for the figures you have used to make the claim that investors are better off ov er 30+ years earning cpi increases verses full market interest rates tax free at retirement?

Once again hopelessly trying to twist an argument given the paucity of your case. PS workers have long enjoyed better super. Not only was mine in the DVA better than that in the private sector but I was able to withdraw it when I left.

 

[bmwofoz]

So you agree hard work and integrity and devotion to the firm will see more people promoted than brown nosing?

Actions speak louder than Words, Brown nosing isn't what get you promoted, fitting the companies culture will, and the boss has the right to set the culture thats why he/she is the boss.

 

[TheBloods]

Actions speak louder than Words, Brown nosing isn't what get you promoted, fitting the companies culture will, and the boss has the right to set the culture thats why he/she is the boss.

LOL! What fantasy world do you live in!?!

 

[Richo83]

Actions speak louder than Words, Brown nosing isn't what get you promoted, fitting the companies culture will, and the boss has the right to set the culture thats why he/she is the boss.

Yeah, a culture of brown-nosing. You brown-nose and you fit into the culture nicely.

 

[bmwofoz]

LOL! What fantasy world do you live in!?!

Yeah, a culture of brown-nosing. You brown-nose and you fit into the culture nicely.

If you were a Boss would you promote someone whom you didn't like.

 

[Alvin Teal]

So you agree hard work and integrity and devotion to the firm will see more people promoted than brown nosing?

Unfortunately, this not always the case.
But that's how you distinguish a good employer from a bad one. A good one promotes on merit. A bad one doesn't. That the tale of the tape, in a nut shell.
A worker with potential and nous won't stick around where their talents aren't recognised.

 

[lost_20]

Title should be what isn't wrong with them? Seriously people wouldn't be putting up such a stink if there was nothing wrong with them. Even top lawyers have looked at the legislation and said Employees are the ones who are getting the bad end of the deal.

 

[bmwofoz]

Unfortunately, this not always the case.
But that's how you distinguish a good employer from a bad one. A good one promotes on merit. A bad one doesn't. That the tale of the tape, in a nut shell.
A worker with potential and nous won't stick around where their talents aren't recognised.

Agree totally on the money

 

[TheBloods]

If you were a Boss would you promote someone whom you didn't like.

Depends. But the thread is about the IR laws and that's mainly about bosses being able to sack people whenever they feel like it - that is a real problem.

 

[Alvin Teal]

Depends. But the thread is about the IR laws and that's mainly about bosses being able to sack people whenever they feel like it - that is a real problem.

Depends on your perspective.

If it means your malingering days and easy ride to abusing priveleges given to you in order to support your efficient performance of your role ( sick leave &c ) are over and you'll be called to account for your abuse of them, then, yes, I guess it is a problem.

If you're a decent hard working individual who's sick of having to carry the can for bludgers - no problem whatsoever.

 

[TheBloods]

Depends on your perspective.

If it means your malingering days and easy ride to abusing priveleges given to you in order to support your efficient performance of your role ( sick leave &c ) are over and you'll be called to account for your abuse of them, then, yes, I guess it is a problem.

If you're a decent hard working individual who's sick of having to carry the can for bludgers - no problem whatsoever.

Again you completely miss the point. Plenty of hard working people are being sacked because (i) their boss doesn't like them, (ii) their boss wants to replace them with cheaper casual labour, or (iii) their boss wants to avoid redundancies.

 

[Alvin Teal]

Again you completely miss the point. Plenty of hard working people are being sacked because (i) their boss doesn't like them, (ii) their boss wants to replace them with cheaper casual labour, or (iii) their boss wants to avoid redundancies.

Plenty? Or a few noisy ones who have had a rainbow ride for ages?

Casual labor isn't always cheaper either.

 

[tortured_soul]

FWIW

My position is this

Negatives

Abolishment of the No Disadvantage Test

Ensuring Decline of Real Wages in the Economy/Role of AFPC- Call me crazy but my position is not to compete with China, it is more to diversify and work with China to enhance our bottom line (through our capability to sate their mining needs) There is no need to reduce wages to Chinese Levels, nor to American levels where the Min Wage is at the same level as it was during the Reagan Era.

Trying to compete with China is a fallacy a more sustainable comparison is Sth Korea, which has undergone a carbon Copy of Workchoices with Government instituted attempts at Workplace Flexibility

Reducing Role of AIRC as Mediator

Role of AFPC

The way in which it is worded
Case in point "An employee is any employee who is employed" ??????

Positives

Attempts to stimulate Workplace Flexibility by institutionalising it via Legislation

Streamlined IR processes

 

[Dry Rot]

Streamlined IR processes

Hm, what is this?

 

[Mr Q]

Plenty? Or a few noisy ones who have had a rainbow ride for ages?

Casual labor isn't always cheaper either.

Casual labour is a perfect lead in to under-employment. Plus an employer has ultimate flexibility with casual labour. Don't like them even if they're doing a fine job? Just cut their hours until they're forced to move on - it's been happening in retail forever.

 

[bulldogtragic]

My main gripe apart from the abolishment of the no-disadvantage test is the guidelines for assessing the needs for minimum wage rise. Under the AFPC they were to consider the needs of lowest paid workers in the context of current living standards. Under the AFPC, they are to consider the nations economic prosperity - No mention of protecting the most vunerable in the community. That to me is piss poor.

 

[TheBloods]

Plenty? Or a few noisy ones who have had a rainbow ride for ages?

Casual labor isn't always cheaper either.

'Plenty' yes. As noted already, as well as personal observation, I have a couple of friends in IR law who see it a lot.

Casual labour can be cheaper.

 

[1jasonoz]

The OECD clearly states there is a poor correlation between spending and outcomes. Spending is only productive if made in the right way. ALP govts havent done this.

A simple notion to follow but clearly beyond your grasp


Youd better tell them that and Julie Bishop aswello!!




Well the head of the IMF did talk of firing constraints hurting employment.




What nonsense, you are clutching at straws. You can't even see an obvious correlation between unfair dismissal, high min wages and unemployment.



I provided the link to the senate hearings where it showed they were clearly against choice. That should be no surprise, unions have always been pro compulsion even if it means a baseball bat and balaclava to achieve it.



Children were threatened and thrown of SIEVS. Its in the senate hearings, which once again I posted.



I have repeatedly shown that Newspoll showed the libs in front before Tampa.



Happy for all subsidies (not that they get much) to end to farmers as long as hopelessly uncompetitive manufacturers get theirs cut and a knife is taken to the PS. Australias most efficient industry.

You stick to defending an unproductive union monopoly on the docks etc.



You were made to look like a complete nonce with your efforts at claimining EU regulations were mandatory in the UK and couldnt be opted out of .

The OECD clearly states there is a poor correlation between spending and outcomes. Spending is only productive if made in the right way. ALP govts havent done this.

A simple notion to follow but clearly beyond your grasp

Is the OECD back on your reliable list, i thought it was on your unreliable, hold on no their reliable, nope sorry their unreliable, bugger which list are they on again?

Spending is only productive if made in the right way.

You have denied that their is ANY link whatso ever between investing in education, training and R&D and economic growth and increased wrokplace productivity!!!

A simple notion to follow but clearly beyond your grasp

No i fully understand your basic inability to understand simple determinents of economic growth, contract law, infrastructure spending viz states v Commonwealth etc.

What about Julie Bishop, is she incorrect when she stated that education and training and determinents of economic growth?

Youd better tell them that and Julie Bishop aswello!!

Speech – Hon Julie Bishop MP, Minister for Education, Science & Training

ADDRESS TO THE COMMITTEE FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF AUSTRALIA, BRISBANE 1 FEBRUARY 2007

There is no doubt that education plays a key role in the economic and social fabric of any society. (youve denied their is a link between education training and productivity and economic growth remember, except for you argueing in defence of your government sponserd course!!)

Oh and why did you totaly miss this section?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21228752-601,00.html

The OECD, the Paris-based economic think tank, said Australia's productivity was well below that of the leading nations (productivity has collapsed under the conservatives actualy Med) , and its employment rates for low-skilled and older workers were relatively poor.

As well as improving the education system, its annual review of the strategies countries should adopt to stimulate economic growth said the Government should do more to tighten its disability pension scheme and lower the high effective tax rates levied on many low-income people (you remember argueing that low income earners didn't face high EMTR'S?). It also urged dismantling the award wage-setting system and improving competition policy.

Quote:
Training and productivity
Research suggests that investment in training appears to be associated with higher levels of worker productivity in many industries.

Well the head of the IMF did talk of firing constraints hurting employment.

You didn't answer my question, you have attacked the IMF as beinf unrelaible/biased, now your quoting them, and they suddenly reliable again?

Children were threatened and thrown of SIEVS. Its in the senate hearings, which once again I posted.

Children where thrown of the vessel as Howard stated during the Tampa Affair?

Howard was telling the truth and the ships captain, head of the ADF are lying when they said they never told Howard or any minister that children had been thrown overboard as claimed by Howard and Co in the lead up to the 2001 election?

I have repeatedly shown that Newspoll showed the libs in front before Tampa.

No you haven't!!

Everytime you have stated that you have newspolls showing that the Libs where infront before the Tampa(whish don't appear on the Newspoll site) you claim to have access to newspolls not published and which i have continually asked you to provide a link to to but each time you refuse to do so!!!

Oh and enjoy this Med(the political newspolls from every year 96-06)

http://au.acnielsen.com/reports/LatestACNielsenPoll-October2005.shtml

Happy for all subsidies (not that they get much) to end to farmers as long as hopelessly uncompetitive manufacturers get theirs cut and a knife is taken to the PS. Australias most efficient industry.

1/ Never get in the way of a farmer and taxpayers money!!

2/ You still haven't told me what other industries besides farmers get to minimise their tax by averaging their income over a number of years,

Get to minimise their tax by depositing it into tax free accounts(what other industries get to put their income into accounts tax free??).

What other industry gets deprectiation rates at twice the average rate as all other industries as a standard allowance; hint its not manufacturing!!

3/ If manufacturing is so uncompetitive, why do we export more in manufactured goods than we do from agriculture; as do more than afew other sectors of the economy actually?

You stick to defending an unproductive union monopoly on the docks etc.

You still clutching at straws over cobotage are you, not your best subject is it!!

You were made to look like a complete nonce with your efforts at claimining EU regulations were mandatory in the UK and couldnt be opted out of

Yes Med the only person i no who claims that somehow Australians working in the UK under contracts exist in a system that somehow blocks the implications of hundreds of years of common law court rulings, statute law, by have no protections implied into their contracts, because they don't have contracts with anybody, they have contracts with themselves!!!!

 

[1jasonoz]

Education and training is spent on wages. You think teachers dont get paid?




It matters little. As the OECD said the relationship between spending and outcomes is dubious.



Have increased spending with worse outcomes.



You don't seem to understand that many countries with low r&d spending have signficantly out performed those with higher r&d. I have posted tables on this. The concept of correlation is beyond you. You seem to think that a drop from 150% to 125% is going to cause spending to fall over a wall.



Decreasing class sizes means spending cash which does nothing for outcomes.

How hard is that to grasp.



Once again hopelessly trying to twist an argument given the paucity of your case. PS workers have long enjoyed better super. Not only was mine in the DVA better than that in the private sector but I was able to withdraw it when I left.

Education and training is spent on wages. You think teachers dont get paid?

Of course teachers get paid, but your the one making another claim you can;t seem to be able to back up with any factualy supporting evidence, that increasing education and training spending simply correlates into increased wages for the workers in the industries involved, and not into spending on activities that will asist with increased productivity and increased economic growth?

Ive asked you to privide the supporting data that you have based this opinion on?

It matters little. As the OECD said the relationship between spending and outcomes is dubious.

So it was the states increasing spending on education and training whilts it was the conservative commonwealth government that has cut back spending causing overall spending to contract in Australia by 7% in real terms since 96; whilts the average increase in spending across the OECD increased by 40% over the same period!!

You don't seem to understand that many countries with low r&d spending have signficantly out performed those with higher r&d. I have posted tables on this. The concept of correlation is beyond you. You seem to think that a drop from 150% to 125% is going to cause spending to fall over a wall.

Are yes you old R&D aswell as education and traing does not in any way help economic growth or increased workplace productivity chant!!

1/ The level of national investment into R&D by industry has only just reached the level it was at before the cuts to R&D spending by Howard in 1996, causing long term economic damage.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/isr/r_d/subs/SUB31.htm

Enjoy!!

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/20/1082395857729.html?from=storyrhs

Growing lag in research spending
By Aban Contractor
April 21, 2004


The Federal Government has been told by its own officials that spending on science and medical research and development is dangerously low and well behind other Western countries, a confidential cabinet paper reveals.

The gap between Australian expenditure on R&D and the OECD average had "widened considerably" since 1996 and the importance of research in areas other than science, engineering and technology was neglected, the briefing paper says.
"Australian expenditure on research continues to decline in comparison to our international competitors," the paper, seen by the Herald, says.

". . . The OECD average GERD [Gross expenditure on R&D] per GDP has increased steadily since 1990-01, and thus the gap between Australian expenditure on R&D and the OECD average has widened considerably."

Cabinet will meet in Melbourne tomorrow to finalise some budget and pre-budget items. The Prime Minister and the federal Education Minister, Brendan Nelson, are expected to announce soon a multibillion-dollar package for the research sector which, government sources said, would help close the funding gap. It is expected to include a research infrastructure taskforce to rationalise and centrally allocate funding, forcing universities and publicly funded research agencies such as the CSIRO to share facilities.


Scientists working in areas of government priority, including research that benefits homeland security, are expected to win a large slice of the new money. And there will be financial incentives for greater collaboration between public universities and agencies and private institutions.

A Ministerial Council for Business-Industry-University Collaboration and a modest amount of new money to fund additional places for postgraduate students - to keep pace with population growth - in a revamped Research Training Scheme are also expected.

Dr Nelson is also pushing for a new research performance fund, merging the Institutional Grants Scheme and Research Infrastructure Block Grant Scheme. The new fund will be increased by more than $100 million a year "and allocated more strictly on the basis of genuine research performance".

Labor's industry, science and research spokesman, Kim Carr, called for a radical overhaul of research funding, saying the Government needed to consolidate the number of programs and boost spending on research.

"We've suffered a major brain drain, our economy is facing stiff competition and our standard of living is at risk. If we don't invest heavily in R&D to improve productivity we face a bleak future," Senator Carr said.

"The Government wants to spend money on short-term tax cuts at the expense of the long-term future of the country."

The Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee chief executive officer, John Mullarvey, said that when the current five-year $2.9 billion Backing Australia's Ability program ended in 2006, the Government would need to invest $1 billion a year for the next five years just to maintain funding levels.

Decreasing class sizes means spending cash which does nothing for outcomes.

How hard is that to grasp.

Nice twist their Med!

Once again hopelessly trying to twist an argument given the paucity of your case. PS workers have long enjoyed better super. Not only was mine in the DVA better than that in the private sector but I was able to withdraw it when I left

How am i twisting an argument??

You have stated that PS enjoy better super than private sector workers; and i have asked you a very simple question to get you to justify this statement!

You have stated that ex-employees like myself are better of with my money being stuck in a non interest accruring, CPI indexed unfunded employer super fund, over 30 years(in defence of the governments future fund i might add).

I have continually asked you how can my Military super fund be better than a private sector super fund earning full market rates of return?

Heres the equations you work it out;

Private sector employee 30+ year time frame;

9% employer contributions;
30+ years of market rates of return;
Choice of fund in being able to maximise their return;
Tax free if taken after 60

My Government Military super

18% employer contributions;
Only increasing by the CPI each year for 30+ years;
Refused the right to roll over the money to maximise my return;
given a 10% tax discount on the income earned if taken at 60, the other 90% is simply taxed at PAYG tax rates.

Which is superior?

http://www.militarysuper.gov.au/benefits/preserved/preserved_benefits.htm

Not only was mine in the DVA better than that in the private sector but I was able to withdraw it when I left

All employee contributions pre 1999 can be taken from a super fund, either public or private.

Since 1999 all employee contribution have been locked into the super system, all employees with the choice of fund have been able to transfer their money into the fund of their choice.

The part that is locked away and is lossing me tens of thousands each year in lost returns, is my employer contributions that are locked away for 30+ years.

Imagine the rage if a private sector employer refused to allow an employee the right to transfer their employer contributions into a fund of their choice after leaving the employer!! Imagine if the employer new the employee whould be significantly worse off after 30+ years, but the employee could not do a thing about it!

 

[1jasonoz]

Hm, what is this?

The streamlining bit is that previously any agreements put to the authority had to pass the no-disadvantage test, be vetted by the authority, and also have been received by the workforce in the completed document form at least 14 days before it was certified. Under Workchoices these requirements no longer exist.

 

[bmwofoz]

My main gripe apart from the abolishment of the no-disadvantage test is the guidelines for assessing the needs for minimum wage rise. Under the AFPC they were to consider the needs of lowest paid workers in the context of current living standards. Under the AFPC, they are to consider the nations economic prosperity - No mention of protecting the most vunerable in the community. That to me is piss poor.

If you read the AFPC section of the act, all employees may never obtain a pay review, that word MAY is a very poor word legally

 

[Alvin Teal]

Casual labour is a perfect lead in to under-employment. Plus an employer has ultimate flexibility with casual labour. Don't like them even if they're doing a fine job? Just cut their hours until they're forced to move on - it's been happening in retail forever.

Yes, as it it will tend to do in industries where high staff turnover due to stress and burnout is a normal occurence. Customer service, call centres, hospitality, retail, front end banking etc.

The really ironic thing about this debate is that I get quite often described as ultra cynical WRT my views on Labor and their horrifying track record of interest rate hikes, increased taxes - particularly sneaky, insiduous ones - fiscal irresponsibility and overpermissive, small ' l ' kiberal attitudes. But the whole opposition to these IR laws is the product of overly cynical ramblings.
The legislation is in place to target ' lead swingers ' , not everyone. The aim is to make the workforce and businesses more efficient. Full stop.