Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

While I appreciate, Hamish, your journalistic desire for a minute-by-minute analysis of what minute-by-minute commentators are, minute-by-minute, analysing about what other minute-by-minute commentators are saying, I do not think we are any further on than we were when I last commented on this legislation before we saw it.

In my view, it is liable to be struck down by the High Court as a matter of principle: the corporations power could not conceivably be that wide. Some of the learned friends disagree but some agree. Until there is a justiciable issue, we will not know who is right.

While I feel for the workers who will suffer in the meantime, isn't it interesting that neither the Employers nor the Unions are trying very hard to manufacture a justiciable issue which would lead to a determination of the question?

More importantly, why does Andrew Bartlett get paid the small fortune he gets without having the nous to point out the bleeding obvious? Is he just stupid or lacking the necessary technical capacity?

For you, Senator, we haven't met but I'm eminently contactable if you want to be insulted to your face or engage otherwise in discourse.

I've no idea why the changes were made Gareth Eastwood having no insight into the workings of most government departments apart from the fact that the Howard government's insidious habit of politicising their workings means everything is suspect today.

What this definition does mean that a person working one hour a week is not employed in reality but is for the purposes of compiling stastistics. Their methods are a complete sham. Fudging figures does not change the reality of people's lives.

Just as those who make the absurd claim that a "good" employer won't want to sack his employees and re-hire them on lower wages puts forward the fantasy thinking that the past hundred years of unions and workers fighting to obtain rights were just some sort of bizarre aberation that was totally unnessary.

It's bad enough that Howard has wiped out those rights obtained after the massive struggles people have endured over decades - and that includes the nitwit young Liberals who chose to gatecrash a union students protest yesterday and who seemingly believe the privileged lifestyle they live was handed to them by fairies, but his government has proposed the most facile and retrograde solutions for the very real problems all Western goverments are facing with the globalisation of labour.

The sad fact is that Howard and his coterie of silent cowardly backbenchers have chosen political survival as their main task in life - not the management of Australia's economy which does well at present despite them.

The issue of measuring unemployment is frequently raised on WD. In my opinion there is definitely an argument to extend the suite of labour statistics produced by the ABS. A commonly used and appropriate measure of underemployment would be the obvious one I can think of. For example, someone who wishes to work 30 hours, but can only get 10, would be counted as underemployed.

The method of unemployment used by the ABS is consistent with that required by the International Labour Organisation. I quote the ILO’s definition of being employed.

Employment

9. (1) The "employed" comprise all persons above a specified age who during a specified brief period, either one week or one day, were in the following categories:

(a) "paid employment":

(a1) "at work": persons who during the reference period performed some work for wage or salary, in cash or in kind;

(a2) "with a job but not at work": persons who, having already worked in their present job, were temporarily not at work during the reference period and had a formal attachment to their job.

This formal job attachment should be determined in the light of national circumstances, according to one or more of the following criteria:

(i) the continued receipt of wage or salary;

(ii) an assurance of return to work following the end of the contingency, or an agreement as to the date of return;

(iii) the elapsed duration of absence from the job which, wherever relevant, may be that duration for which workers can receive compensation benefits without obligations to accept other jobs

Michael de Angelos, I must admit I wasn’t aware of the slight change in measuring unemployment and its ‘duration’ (WD is to learn right?). However the impact on unemployment figures is insignificant. According the ABS:

In April 2001, changes were also made to the definition of unemployment. These changes also had an impact on the statistics for duration of unemployment. In particular, under the new definition, persons who had been away from their job without pay for less than four weeks up to the end of the reference week because of insufficient work (that is, persons temporarily stood down), have been reclassified from unemployed to employed. Analysis of monthly data for the period April 1986 to March 2001 shows that, on average, 19,900 persons were reclassified from unemployed to employed under this new definition. Also under the definitional change, people who were not working, were actively seeking work, but were not available to start work during the reference week due to temporary illness, have been reclassified from unemployed to not in the labour force. Analysis of monthly data for the period April 1986 to March 2001 shows that, on average, there were 4,300 persons reclassified in this way.

I did some calculations using ABS figures, as at March 2006 the workforce included 10,614,100 people and 546,400 unemployed. I added back 5,000 people to the labour force and 25,000 to the unemployed to estimate the impact of the measurement change. This changed the unemployment figure from 5.2% to 5.4%.

Here’s why the ABS made the change.

This change aligns the ABS definition with International Labour Organisation guidelines for measuring duration of unemployment.

So Michael do you think the Howard government instructed the ABS to amend their measurement of unemployment in order to reduce unemployment statistics by 0.2%? Or did the ABS make the change to align with the ILO?

The link you post Gareth Eastwood certainly does say as you have quoted but further delving into the site produces this:

DEFINING UNEMPLOYMENT
"In April 2001, changes were also made to the definition of unemployment. These changes also had an impact on the statistics for duration of unemployment... Persons are considered to be employed if they worked in the reference week for one hour or more for pay, profit."

Reading the site completely one gets a good insight as to how the Howard Government has maintained it's so-called low unemployment figures - it's all a smoke and mirrors trick.

Paul Walter, you complain about the nonsense posted on this thread. Fair call I agree there is a bit. No need to add your own though, I'm referring to, "real unemployment figures are masked by the inclusion of part-time work, rather than being assessed as they were until the nineties, as a measure of full time work only."

I'll quote the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

"The way in which unemployment is now measured by the Labour Force Survey dates back to 1960."

You're right Paul, the measurement of unemployment has been raised many times on WD. Unfortunately numerous posts relating to this have been factually incorrect.

The thing that annoys me most about the new IR laws is that - regardless of people's ideology about capital and labour - they are far more complex and unclear that they needed to be. This was the main point I should have emphasised in my original post.

I'm no fan of the 'Liberal' government, but I acknowledge that many people voted for them. However, the least Mr Howard and his crew could have done is (a) told people before the election what he was really wanting to do on workplace laws, and (b) made those laws clear and comprehensible.

Instead, he has rushed ahead with laws spurted forth from an ideological wet dream, without any thought for the business people, let alone the 'battlers' he supposedly is concerned with.

My bet is that we will still be arguing about what these new laws actually mean a year from now - hardly a recipe for 'certainty' for battlers or  small business folk alike.

"The dwindling power of unions "

More myths and spin. There has been an increase in membership of unions of 4% in the last year which is hardly "dwindling". That will increase in the coming years. Rightwingers love to point to the numbers of actual union members and forget that one member probably has 2 to 4 family members who think likewise so they represent a far greater proportion of citizens than given credit for.

Just as the Labor Party has a greater number of members than the Liberal Party or corporate unions-associations of employers given highfalutin names -all have tiny memberships compared to unions but all represent far more people than their members, the exception possibly being the business associations who are forever whinging about costs.

"it resulted in an explosion of businesses leaving these shores because of costs and a major rise in casual labour ". You give the game away Jay White. That's what all this is about-driving down wages and that's why it's going to be a hard sell.

The myth of "unfair dismisal" is just that. I run my own small firm and only have 5/6 full time employees and several part-timers at different times in the year. Never had a problem yet firing someone not up to the job.

Ross Chippendale, the IR reforms are a dramatic shift in many respects. They will therefore take time and fine tuning. Nothing of this size will ever go off without one single hitch. One thing most agree upon is that there was a need for reform. If parts of the reforms are not working I see no reason changes and adjustments cannot be made down the track.

"As to tax cuts being the best pay rise, what utter rubbish. A tax cut is always eaten up by bracket creep, health fund increases, interest rate changes and subsequent additional tax in other forms to get it back. Or it is simply removed by a future budget. If a pay rise is given all future pay rises too will increase by a certain % as time passes. By all means go for the tax cut Jay, I'll take the opposite every time. Perhaps a quick research on compound interest may assist"?

A tax cut correctly implemented is not always eaten up by "bracket creep" at all. Not in the short to medium term at least. You have supplied some of the very real nasties that do take away from meaningful tax cuts in this nation. You could also add to that list a raft of State and local taxes that seem to find a outlet after EVERY Federal tax cut. Talk about robbing from Peter and than being robbed by Paul!

Personally I may decide the opposite is a better option as well. This all depends on the deal. Spending on services may also be a way to keep interest rates in check. No doubt many of these issues are being thought of as we speak. There is nothing wrong with spending money correctly and with meaning on quality services.

I do not take the position that government is always right and money is always better spent by them than by me. In fact most of the time government is wrong and they are getting to much of it (my money) whilst making these mistakes. There is not a government nor government employee that could even come close to spending my money on me as well as I could do myself.

Throwing more money meaninglessly at say education and health will do little to improve the situation. If the system itself is not working any  money spent will be equal to throwing more down a endless blackhole. Take health for example - combining state and federal health departments itself can easily save one extra billion dollars a year. Simple easy postive steps and hey presto here is another bill or so.

I see little need in my money being wasted on paying doctors and teachers more without improvement and a big improvement at that in these areas. Without these improvements for me it is a simple case of give me more of my cash and I will take my own chances with it  thanks very much.

Syd Drate: "What the hell is wrong with an employer being able to get rid of a worker who is not doing his job, or who is a drag on the company?"

Actually nothing to a rational person.

Unfair dismissal is an obscenity and has in fact only been around since the early 90's. A case of a extremely incompetent government (Keating) attempting to farm out its problems onto private business. It did of course not work (it resulted in an explosion of businesses leaving these shores because of costs and a major rise in casual labour), along with that the Keating government was kicked out and has been known as a bunch of economic imbeciles ever since.

Lets face it Syd, you and I are hardly alone in having little to no faith in Labor and the economy. Going off previous efforts it would take more than a leap of faith for me, at least something akin to a miracle more like it. Labor and sensible economics just don't mix do they?

I mean take medicare tin for instance. How could any person bring on such a idiotic social darwinist policy as that rubbish? Forget your young working people and make for a rat race of all older people (percentages growing by the way) hoping to get to magic figure without paying any insurance and for a large part little tax. In an attempt to steal a blue ribbon place from a younger generation paying full whack to prop up the system. How could an older person come close to agreeing to something like that with a clear conscience? Thankfully most did not.

And Gillard, the person charged with this disgrace is being seriously spoken about by some as a future leader? I think not only Latham has gone completely crazy.

Most people are not in unions and most do not wish to be. The greatest song and dance comes from those happy in their cushy easy worlds and not wanting competition in any form. It is known as watching one's own arse.

The dwindling power of unions is the biggest reason for the current Labor pre-selection problems. Rats leaving a sinking ship and looking their hardest to continue with a work less overpaid lazy lifestyle. Hence the reason for one oxygen thieving git so much wanting to change the world he lost federal pre-selection and ended up in the world changing Victorian Upper House!

He will I am sure not be alone!

Boy, am I laughing at some of the nonsense contributed to this thread, but only to avoid crying.

Let's start with unemployment. As we all know from previous debates in WD, the real unemployment figures are masked by the inclusion of part-time work, rather than being assessed as they were until the nineties, as a measure of full time work only.

Secondly, "Wealth Creation".

"Wealth Creation" occurs when innovation and efort increase the pool of social economic wealth. Employers scavenging wealth from their subjugated workers does not increase social wealth but only (mis)appropriates from what's currently available from the "have nots" to the "haves". Alienation arising from the knowledge of the theft by the majority, nationally and internationally only creates frustration, apathy, resentment and strife, eating into creative potential.

Finally, the vile comment from Rob Wearne that Bartlett and others are "guilty of ...perpetuating the lie that governments can ...ameliorate the facts of life in the global marketplace".

What are the "facts of life" concerning this "marketplace"? The notion that the greedy and powerful will rob the poor and nothing should be done to move civilisation beyond this mean spirited perversion of Hobbesian materialism? Are we not yet any better than animals?

Quite the opposite, one might think. If some resistance to the nightly obscenites on the TV news are not resisted, then we will have the sort of deteriorations Wearne predicts.

"Market Forces" is such a contemptible myth. It was only exploited by ideologues over recent times to preserve the interests of the wealthy. How can "Market forces" prevail without an even playing field?

No, firstly we get the problems of inequality of opportunity world wide sorted, then see how things go. All we have at the moment is systemic failure, because a generation of politicians and corporate sociopaths have opposed any move to create a fair free market within which all can interact and "wealth create" on the basis of merit mediated by good health and sound education, rather than as slaves to an entrenched privilege increasingly reverting to feudalism.

The GST Jay White , was a tax delivered by the Howard Government and a rogue Democrat that is collected by the States and dispensed by the Commonwealth government. Let's not re-write history. Nor is the NSW Labor government a "left" administration but more like the Liberals pre-Howard. Bob Carr was just Nick Greiner in a different package.

Your pathological hate of unions shared by Syd Drate is odd - every Australian worker has benefited by the actions of unions for 80 years in this country and that includes all those in Parliament on all sides of politics. Unions and their bosses are just made up of ordinary Australian workers looking for a better deal in this life.

 In my lifetime of experience with unions and that of my father and grandfather before me, I've never encountered any worker who views those who run unions as being solely interested in accumulating power unless it is to benefit the union's members. They would be voted out by the members if that was their objective.

The numbers will win this fight. Workers out-number their employees and actions like Cowra meatwork sackings and the hasty re-employment after government intervention just highlights how vunerable workers will now be. Howard and Co can spin this one until the cows come home but it won't change the way the majority of workers now view their security.

I believe Howard is playing a risky game this time and seeing just what he can get away with before he retires. He has handed the next election to Labor - all that remains to be seen is who will they will be opposing as PM, for it won't be John Howard.

On about the third day after the new IR legislation came into effect, the Printing Industry Association (an employer representative group) sent to its members a circular to the effect that as picnic days were an award entitlement, and not a State Government declared public holiday, employers were no longer required to pay employees the printers picnic day.

The Picnic Day had been set for 18th April. Some printers I know of are holding to the picnic day this year, and abandoning it in future.

The PIA has sent at least one furthur circular reinforcing the idea that printers should not be obliged to pay the picnic day either now or in future, as it is not enforceable, and that employees should be taking an annual leave day if they wanted time off.

However, upon contacting the PIA for unrelated information, I found that the PIA employees themselves were all taking the day off, as they were in a "related industry". So, it's fine to advocate your members stiff their workforce, yet take the day off yourselves? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

(Disclaimer: although I work in a Printing related industry, I do not take the picnic day, whether declared or not.)

Michael de Angelos: “It's just a smoke and mirrors trick played out by the biggest taxing government in Australia's history, this unending campaign of delivering lower income taxes but consistently increasing other taxes – in many cases, as with the GST, we have taxes on taxes.“

Which taxes? The GST by the way is a State tax in that all proceeds are delivered to the States, which I am sure you already knew. The GST was implemented to replace a raft of idiotic tax disincentives that have no place in this century, such as provisional tax and wholesale sales tax along with any number of state taxes such as stamp duty on new houses. Somebody forgot to tell the NSW government though. How the largest State in Australia can be run by such economic uneducated morons is still a mystery to me.

“The IR changes are bound to deliver uncertainty as small business – the nation’s greatest and perpetual whingers, takes full advantage and paves the way for corporate Australia to do likewise.“

No, they will deliver certainty. Such as being able to tell some lazy mug the money well has dried and it might be time to move on. Unfair dismissal is the greatest fraud put on this nation. It come about in the early '90s because the then incompetent Labor government could not control unemployment. They attempted to switch this job onto private employers. Like most things they tried this failed badly and did not improve the situation, it made things worse. No thinking person has ever accused them of being a brains trust.

“Far from this country doing well – although we are benefiting from sales abroad of our great natural resourses which neither the Coalition or Labor parties are responsible for, Australia's manufacturing base is being eroded at an alarming rate while our workforce becomes a services industry open to competition from cheaper workers worldwide.“

The old "we are only going well because of a fluke". If this was the case why do Labor governments never have any luck? The government improved the resource boom by suppling incentives for infrastructure and by taking away what was likely to be the most stupid tax Labor ever thought up. That is the taxing of exports.

“Australians carry the greatest personal debt on this planet and continue to fool themselves that the wealth in their homes, and with the greatest world home ownership per population, is real rather than illusory.“

Speaking for myself, I am not in debt. Maybe you are, but that is hardly the governments fault. They cannot do your banking for you. That, I am afraid, is your own personal business.

“If we continue with this Howard government, which is incapable of even recognising the very real problems facing western economies, our only hope is that someone with the right credentials like Malcolm Turnbull replaces one of the worst treasurers we have ever had.“

Well it would be better him than anyone from Labor. In fact, how many in the Federal opposition have ever owned a business or had a real job in their entire lives? Somebody who’s only qualification is talking crap down at the local Uni or down at the local union workshop for a couple of years hardly has me brimming with confidence.

Let's face it, for Turnbull this current job is a downgrade in many areas, for Labor members their current job is the best they will ever have. Most would not and do not have the skills to make upper middle management in some of the larger world companies, let alone run the worlds 12^th largest economy.

That is a fact of life for anyone that chooses to open their eyes and look for themselves.

It's just a smoke and mirrors trick played out by the biggest taxing government in Australia's history, this unending campaign of delivering lower income taxes but consistently increasing other taxes – in many cases, as with the GST, we have taxes on taxes.

The IR changes are bound to deliver uncertainty as small business – the nation’s greatest and perpetual whingers, takes full advantage and paves the way for corporate Australia to do likewise.

Far from this country doing well – although we are benefiting from sales abroad of our great natural resourses which neither the Coalition or Labor parties are responsible for, Australia's manufacturing base is being eroded at an alarming rate while our workforce becomes a services industry open to competition from cheaper workers worldwide.

Australians carry the greatest personal debt on this planet and continue to fool themselves that the wealth in their homes, and with the greatest world home ownership per population, is real rather than illusory.

If we continue with this Howard government, which is incapable of even recognising the very real problems facing western economies, our only hope is that someone with the right credentials like Malcolm Turnbull replaces one of the worst treasurers we have ever had.

Ross Chippendale, the best pay rise one can gain is a tax cut. Over time it will prove to be the much more worthwhile pay gain. Over time and such is meaningless if taxed to pieces. It is nothing more than a case of working for the government.

Less taxation combined with growth and low inflation actually results in the government gaining a greater monetary take. Meaning more money available for services. For proof compare the NSW government to the Federal government or the Howard government to the Keating government.

Australia is headed in the correct direction.

Rob Wearne, you are of course correct. Facing up to the truth is the hardest thing a person can ever do. For proof of that look no further than France.

There will be winners and losers from IR reform, and there will be winners and losers from globalisation. When has the world ever and I mean ever been any different?

The best thing an Australian government can do is to attempt to put the majority of people into at least a position of advantage. Pretending in some way the clock stopped in 1975 will not go any way to doing this. That type of world and that type of government are as dead as the dodo.

Reality is upon us all.

The changes brought in by Howard are simply allowing more people to use holes, intended or not in what they call protection. Employers and employees who are so inclined will study the legislation, or consult lawyers, to find ways to either increase their profits as employers or protect what they currently have, as employees.

I worked in IR for long periods and can say that all such legislation is daily pushed to the limit of the law and frequently develops "precedents" which are then used in all cases. This both by employer and employee.

I wholeheartedly agree that there was a need to simpify the majority of awards as they mainly were sand built on sand and common interpretations frequently took precedence over the intent.

But Good old John has gone the other way with the hundreds of pages of incomprehensible statements and the like.

Just the cost of delivering entitlements to employees and reporting on such to employers was huge and rarely adequate. Johnny's changes would horrify any administrator or small business simply because they face the reality of having separate entitlements for each individual. There aren't enough programmers to keep up with that let alone money to pay for the processing and recording of data.

That to me should have been the focus of the changes but it has been used simply to reduce entitlements with the lure of trading conditions away for more $. Short term gain, long term pain. Few will understand the benefit of three or four weeks annual leave until it is gone. Without that many will simply cave in, and quickly. Perhaps that is part of the intent as well.

I shudder to think that our lifestyle, incomes and conditions at work will lower to equate other countries but I can't see any other direction with this legislation.

Although Senator Bartlett is correct in pointing out that the wealth gap is increasing between those with capital and those without, unfortunately this is an inevitable consequence of globalisation.

It would be more helpful if he could understand what we have to do as a nation to compete in a globalised world where millions of Asians are ready, willing, and able to do the same work as Europeans, Americans and Australians for 10% of the pay - and none of the safety net.

Unfortunately the policy of relatively heavy taxation of capital in this country by way of 20^th Century labour laws and support of the welfare state will do nothing but expedite the removal of the remaining small base of manufacturing and other service jobs such as IT.

This is not the recipe for wealth creation otherwise North Korea would be the wealthiest country on the planet.

The mentality of entitlement that has been hallmark of the mainstream political class in this country and the rest of the West, and which is inculcated into the majority of our populace will inevitably be shattered by the bankruptcy of the statist dominated systems.

Andrew Bartlett and every other politician including Howard and Costello are guilty of this by perpetuating the lie that governments can significantly ameliorate the facts of life in the global marketplace.

The massive global imbalances between the West and East will inevitably see our comparative standard of living decline – increasingly statist policies as evidenced by increasing protectionism in the US, failure of taxation and welfare reform in Australia and labour reform in Europe will only make this decline worse.