Reform or risk jobs, warns Joe Hockey

    DAVID CROWE
    The Australian
    February 22, 2014 1


TIGHT workplace laws are being blamed for pushing up unemployment and keeping young people out of work as Joe Hockey signals government plans for drastic reforms that extend from industrial relations to healthcare and the retirement age.      :(

Warning that Australia would fall behind the world if it did not act, the Treasurer made the case for highly controversial changes just as the federal government prepares to cut into its biggest spending programs in the May budget.

Mr Hockey argued for more flexible workplace rules on the grounds that onerous restrictions would limit job creation and punish the young, escalating political debate ahead of a government inquiry into industrial relations laws to be launched within days.

The Treasurer indicated that the retirement age would have to be raised beyond 67 as Australia’s population aged and the government struggled to pay the bill for the pension, healthcare and the broader welfare system.

The warnings come as Mr Hockey hosts a summit of his counterparts from the world’s 20 biggest economies to agree on ways to restructure economies and lift global growth.

Using the G20 agenda to argue for domestic reform, Mr Hockey drew on reports issued on Thursday and yesterday from the International Monetary Fund and the OECD that urged action to make labour markets more flexible.

Mr Hockey said the previous government had “re-regulated” the labour market but the lesson from around the world was that too many rules cost jobs.

“There’s a very clear message here: the more regulated the labour market, the higher the unemployment ends up being,” he said at the summit in Sydney yesterday.

“And it costs people their jobs and it means young people in particular lose the opportunity for a job.”

The Treasurer stood by a Coalition election pledge to avoid any major industrial relations reform until after the next election, giving voters the right to approve the changes.

However, his comments support the case for reform as the government gets ready to introduce legislation as early as Tuesday to allow workers to trade away penalty rates, while also releasing the terms of reference for a sweeping Productivity Commission inquiry into Labor’s workplace laws.

“There is no finishing line for reform. It is a relay race with an unlimited number of runners and it will continue to go on long after we’ve gone,” Mr Hockey said.

ACTU assistant secretary Tim Lyons said Mr Hockey’s warnings about workplace rules and unemployment were “absurd” given the experience overseas. “You only have to look at the US, where there are almost no workplace protections but stubbornly high unemployment, to disprove this view,” Mr Lyons said.

“Mr Hockey seems to want to get hairy-chested about rights at work with the G20 here. It’s a pity he wasn’t that honest with Australians before the election.”    

Mr Lyons said that Australia’s labour productivity last year was the fastest in a decade and that ways to lift it included education and innovation, as the OECD report suggests.

Opposition employment spokesman Brendan O’Connor said Mr Hockey was in a “race to the bottom” on working conditions. “When the Treasurer says he wants deregulation and flexibility, he means one thing, ripping away workplace entitlements,” a spokesman for Mr O’Connor said.      >:(

The IMF is shaping the agenda for this weekend’s summit by telling G20 members they could add $2.5 trillion to global economic output if they get their budgets into balance, free up labour markets, encourage infrastructure investment and “rebalance” their economies to encourage domestic demand.

OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria added to that push yesterday by also urging labour market reform.

“What we know is that if you have excessive employment protection legislation, what you are going to do is conspire against creating new jobs,” he said at a news conference with Mr Hockey.

“If you have excessive protection of the incumbents - the ones who are already in the market - who are going to be ones who stay out, knocking at the door? The youth.”

Mr Gurria aimed his warning at European nations in particular, where youth unemployment can be two or three times that of adults, but he released an OECD report that also urges change in Australia.

The report, called Going For Growth, recommends Australia lift the GST, cut company tax and boost productivity.

The peak agency, which monitors the world’s wealthiest nations, said there was “slowing productivity growth” in Australia despite a high level of investment in tertiary education.

That conclusion is disputed by unions, however, given recent figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics showing a rise in labour productivity after years of poor results.

Mr Gurria said there was a worldwide trend to raising consumption taxes because it could reduce taxes on labour.

“We are all strapped for money, we all want to reduce deficits. Australia is in better shape there but you want to continue that.”

In line with previous OECD findings, the agency recommended Australia reduce its “comparatively high company tax rate” of 30 per cent and “rely more” on indirect taxes such as the GST.

Mr Hockey’s comments yesterday make it clear that an increase in the retirement age was on the agenda, going beyond Wayne Swan’s move in the 2009 budget to lift it from 65 to 67 in a gradual change by 2023.

Mr Hockey expressed his concern that the retirement age might not be sustainable even after the previous Labor government increased it to 67.       :o

“The starting point is we have to focus on structural challenges,” Mr Hockey said. He noted that Australia set the retirement age at 65 in 1909 when life expectancy was 65 but that life expectancy had now increased to 85.

“Now the previous government increased it to 67 but as the UK and others are focusing (on it), we have to look at ways to increase it as we live longer,” he said.

Mr Hockey said a lot of countries faced the challenge of an ageing population.

“We’re having a discussion about the quality of life we want people to have as they are ageing, and how sustainable that quality of life is.

“What is sustainable? What is the quality of healthcare? What is the quality of aged care? How are we going to get enough finance to live with dignity?”

Those comments came after the Treasurer used an interview on the Seven Network yesterday morning to also canvass healthcare reform. He warned Australia would “run out of money” if there was no change to health, welfare and education outlays. Medicare was going to increase from a $65 billion annual cost to $75bn within the next three years, he said.

Liberal Government back to old habits with the return of Individual Contracts
20 February, 2014 | Media Release Unions demand the Abbott Government drop any attempt to introduce Individual Contracts that will cut take-home pay.

ACTU President Ged Kearney said the Abbott Government has given employers the green light to cut people’s pay under the guise of greater ‘flexibility’.

“This is a blatant attempt to cut pay and conditions through Individual Contracts and shows the Abbott Government doesn’t understand the concerns of Australian workers,” she said.

“We know that the Liberal Party definition of flexibility has always been flexibility by workers not for workers and that’s exactly what we have seen again today.”

“Don’t be mistaken, this is an attempt to slash take home pays and working conditions and despite all the pre-election promises, this is undoubtedly what is happening here,” she said.

“Workers and employers need flexibility but this is an extreme and hard-line stance by the Abbott Government to say that a parent of a sick child should take a pay cut in order to look after their family.

“This is an unacceptable choice between workers earning enough to meet their living costs and their ability to look after their family.”

“Minister Abetz talks about imaginary workers that want to give up penalty rates for nothing. We’re yet to find a worker that thinks this is a good deal.”

Only yesterday new figures showed that Australia is experiencing the slowest wages growth on record while the cost of living is rising quickly, faster than wages.

“Australia is in the midst of a job security crisis with thousands of workers losing their jobs and many others pushed into casual insecure work. That’s what the Abbott Government should be focused on, not on making life tougher for people.”

But day after day we keep seeing the Abbott Government trying to drive down wages at a time when families can least afford it.

News reports today show that the Abbott government pressed SPC to slash worker’s wages by up to 40%. The Abbott Government was twice found misleading the public after private companies SPC and Toyota were forced to publicly clarify misleading statements made the government about worker’s wages and conditions.

“Now that the so called ‘wages blowout’ has been proven to be a lie, the Abbott Government has fallen back on Individual Contracts - which were a hallmark of WorkChoices - cutting wages and diminishing conditions that Australian workers rely on in order to balance life and work.”

Under WorkChoices most individual contracts removed basic award conditions:
-    65% of individual agreements removed penalty rates
-    70% of individual agreements removed shift loading
-    68% of individual agreements removed annual leave loading
-    50% of individual agreements removed public holiday pay

Who voted for these mean malicious idiots.

Quote:

TIGHT workplace laws are being blamed for pushing up unemployment and keeping young people out of work as Joe Hockey signals government plans for drastic reforms that extend from industrial relations to healthcare and the retirement age.

How'd that go again??

"The term 'Workchoices' is dead and buried."....T.A.

;)

My work has moved to only employing contractors.

Its probably illegal but thats how it is.

No problems with employment laws, good possibility of employing illegals etc

I am looking for another job.

miketrees wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 7:15pm:

My work has moved to only employing contractors. Its probably illegal but thats how it is. No problems with employment laws, good possibility of employing illegals etc I am looking for another job.

Can't blame you for that as it probably is illegal.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 7:00pm:

Who voted for these mean malicious idiots.

The majority, so suck schitt

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 7:00pm:

Who voted for these mean malicious idiots.

Other mean, malicious idiots.

Swagman wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 8:12pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2014 at 7:00pm: Who voted for these mean malicious idiots. The majority, so suck schitt

Not true.

Liberal Party 32.02%
LNP (Qld) 8.92%
Nationals 4.29%
CLP (NT) 0.32%

Total 45.55%

Lobo wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 7:04pm:

Quote: TIGHT workplace laws are being blamed for pushing up unemployment and keeping young people out of work as Joe Hockey signals government plans for drastic reforms that extend from industrial relations to healthcare and the retirement age.  How'd that go again?? "The term 'Workchoices' is dead and buried."....T.A. ;)

Workchoices is dead and buried ... Now meet his twin brother! Muhahaha!

The contractor policy was brought in under the Labor government.

You should not have laws you cant enforce, because that makes crooks rich.

My boss resisted the contractor option as long as he could but he is getting killed on price by "contractors"

Trust the Lieberals on Industrial relations - bet your bottom that you can't.

6 years of trust us we wouldn't do that was all BS.

back in 2012, i was fired from my job saying that the business couldn't pay me my wages due to how high they are.. a year later i left and they declared bankruptcy and went out of business..

Something has to be done about wages and workers Entitlements. Wages are rising despite the profitability of small businesses are decreasing, expanding Entitlements and rising wages to a point, the only people who will be afford to pay for these increase's are big business.

Rising minimal wage for example, destroy small business and the only people who could afford to pay these increase are large multinational corporation and by taking over the void left by the small businesses, they increase their power and influences.

instead of rising wages, we should try and tackle and lower the cost of living, so there is no need to increase wages, as a simple $14 an hour becomes an livable wage which is equal to today's $30 an hour wage.

Sadly there needs a balance.

Pantheon wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 9:43pm:

back in 2012, i was fired from my job saying that the business couldn't pay me my wages due to how high they are.. a year later i left and they declared bankruptcy and went out of business.. Something has to be done about wages and workers Entitlements. Wages are rising despite the profitability of small businesses are decreasing, expanding Entitlements and rising wages to a point, the only people who will be afford to pay for these increase's are big business. Rising minimal wage for example, destroy small business and the only people who could afford to pay these increase are large multinational corporation and by taking over the void left by the small businesses, they increase their power and influences. instead of rising wages, we should try and tackle and lower the cost of living, so there is no need to increase wages, as a simple $14 an hour becomes an livable wage which is equal to today's $30 an hour wage. Sadly there needs a balance.

And the CEO walks away with over 1,000 an hour.

It is a bit puzzling why there seems to be an attack on wages and entitlements right now. Wages growth has pretty much tracked inflation since the mid '90s.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/-hJipBcpxuJQ/UKxf7Zzmp0I/AAAAAAAAGKk/6wQlvqWGPc4/s1600-h/image%25255B23%25255D.png

It wasn't a problem back in 1998 so why now when the growth patterns have hardly changed. One obvious thing is the poor performance in productivity growth. This has virtually zero to do with the actual workers. Mostly the result of poor policy by successive governments in not attracting investment in technology for the production of goods and services.

The second quite cynically would be to nobble the unions further. These are the primary funding source for the opposition. Cut off the money and it makes the next campaign so much easier.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 9:26pm:

Trust the Lieberals on Industrial relations - bet your bottom that you can't. 6 years of trust us we wouldn't do that was all BS.

How can a party funded by The Trade Union movement be impartial in legislating workplace relations?

Australia in uncompetitive and needs greater workplace flexibility.
Of that there is no doubt.

crocodile wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 11:09pm:

It is a bit puzzling why there seems to be an attack on wages and entitlements right now. Wages growth has pretty much tracked inflation since the mid '90s. http://lh4.ggpht.com/-hJipBcpxuJQ/UKxf7Zzmp0I/AAAAAAAAGKk/6wQlvqWGPc4/s1600-h/image%25255B23%25255D.png It wasn't a problem back in 1998 so why now when the growth patterns have hardly changed. One obvious thing is the poor performance in productivity growth. This has virtually zero to do with the actual workers. Mostly the result of poor policy by successive governments in not attracting investment in technology for the production of goods and services. The second quite cynically would be to nobble the unions further. These are the primary funding source for the opposition. Cut off the money and it makes the next campaign so much easier.

Yes, and should that happen I'm sure your mob would reject donations, bribes and the provision
of a tame MSM by major stakeholders as being equally wrong and immoral?

No?

Then why do you think you should have the right to stop unions donating to the ALP?

Gotta love the hypocrisy of the Right, shame they can't (or won't) see it themselves.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 11:10pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2014 at 9:26pm: Trust the Lieberals on Industrial relations - bet your bottom that you can't. 6 years of trust us we wouldn't do that was all BS. How can a party funded by The Trade Union movement be impartial in legislating workplace relations? Australia in uncompetitive and needs greater workplace flexibility. Of that there is no doubt.

And equally, how can one funded by corporations and 'businessmen' be impartial?

Why is it that your idea of a 'level playing field is actually a 45 degree slope tilted
in your favour?

Australia is perfectly 'competitive' and businesses/employers/banks need much
greater and stricter regulation.

They refuse point-blank to self-regulate, so they must be regulated by law (and
by force, if necessary).

Quote:

Yes, and should that happen I'm sure your mob would reject donations, bribes and the provision of a tame MSM by major stakeholders as being equally wrong and immoral?

So who's my mob ? I'd be obliged if you could enlighten me.


Quote:

Then why do you think you should have the right to stop unions donating to the ALP?

I've read over my post several times. Stuffed if I can see where anything of a sort has been suggested.

Needless to say I'm a bit perplexed by your comments.

Its all a part of the Multicultural plan, Multiculturalism is not just about blending out the white people, with it comes a lower standard of living and a larger gap between the rich and poor, both major parties have been working on it, both with different methods. The Liberals want to reduce work place relations and the Labor party drives up inflation.

crocodile wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 11:37pm:

Quote: Yes, and should that happen I'm sure your mob would reject donations, bribes and the provision of a tame MSM by major stakeholders as being equally wrong and immoral? So who's my mob ? I'd be obliged if you could enlighten me. [quote]Then why do you think you should have the right to stop unions donating to the ALP?

I've read over my post several times. Stuffed if I can see where anything of a sort has been suggested.

Needless to say I'm a bit perplexed by your comments.[/quote]

I am not responsible for your comprehension difficulties.

My meaning is clear.

Pantheon wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 9:43pm:

back in 2012, i was fired from my job saying that the business couldn't pay me my wages due to how high they are.. a year later i left and they declared bankruptcy and went out of business.. Something has to be done about wages and workers Entitlements. Wages are rising despite the profitability of small businesses are decreasing, expanding Entitlements and rising wages to a point, the only people who will be afford to pay for these increase's are big business. Rising minimal wage for example, destroy small business and the only people who could afford to pay these increase are large multinational corporation and by taking over the void left by the small businesses, they increase their power and influences. instead of rising wages, we should try and tackle and lower the cost of living, so there is no need to increase wages, as a simple $14 an hour becomes an livable wage which is equal to today's $30 an hour wage. Sadly there needs a balance.

But as far as profits go the sky's the limit is that right??? It seems that business is allowed to have aspirations but workers are only allowed to make just enough to get by and whenever there's a downturn its the workers who have to bear the brunt of the sacrifices. 

Listen Ahovking when you say we should lower the cost of living you mean bring down prices. OK since you've identified prices as an equivalent problem then instead of campaigning to force down wages start putting pressure on business to bring down prices.  You see, the way you characterise the problem might look like its saying something but in reality its saying nothing at all since profits wages and prices have all been chasing their tail since economies began. 
   

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 11:10pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2014 at 9:26pm: Trust the Lieberals on Industrial relations - bet your bottom that you can't. 6 years of trust us we wouldn't do that was all BS. How can a party funded by The Trade Union movement be impartial in legislating workplace relations? Australia in uncompetitive and needs greater workplace flexibility. Of that there is no doubt.

What and you pretend you're impartial.  I have never once seen you propose one thing for the Aust economy that hasn't involved a windfall for you and your employers.  Not once, have you proposed anything that involved a sacrifice on your part, so please spare us your assessment of what is or is not impartial   

Kat wrote on Feb 24^th, 2014 at 8:34am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2014 at 11:37pm: Quote: Yes, and should that happen I'm sure your mob would reject donations, bribes and the provision of a tame MSM by major stakeholders as being equally wrong and immoral? So who's my mob ? I'd be obliged if you could enlighten me. [quote]Then why do you think you should have the right to stop unions donating to the ALP? I've read over my post several times. Stuffed if I can see where anything of a sort has been suggested. Needless to say I'm a bit perplexed by your comments.

I am not responsible for your comprehension difficulties.

My meaning is clear.[/quote]

And I can't help your eyesight. There is nowhere in my post that suggests anything about anybody having the right to stop party funding.

Take your hand off your organ, it causes blindness.

miketrees wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 9:17pm:

The contractor policy was brought in under the Labor government. You should not have laws you cant enforce, because that makes crooks rich. My boss resisted the contractor option as long as he could but he is getting killed on price by "contractors"

If you are employed as a contractor but work at the same place doing regular shifts & don't work at any other place or any other employer Fair work considers you an EMPLOYEE.

To be considered a contractor you must do work for more than 1 employer.

They can call you whatever they want but they must pay you as an employee & all entitlements that go with it including Super & long service.

I know several companies who have been caught by this ruling.



Quote:

WITH a broad grin and his thumbs up, the owner of Newcastle-based airport shuttle service Happy Cabby looks every bit the part on his company's website. But Graeme Paff (left) has less to smile about after Happy Cabby Pty Ltd was fined $286,704 and Mr Paff was fined an additional $47,748 by the Fair Work Ombudsman for underpaying seven employees a total of more than $26,000. It is the biggest fine handed down by the Fair Work Ombudsman in NSW. For 11 months the seven Happy Cabby bus drivers transported passengers to and from Newcastle and Sydney's airport during 2011 for a fixed rate of $170 per run, regardless of whether it was a weekend or the time of day. The court documents show the drivers, who were aged 50 to 71, should have been paid an award rate of up to $17.98 per hour as employees. Instead, they were being paid as independent contractors, which meant they were not paid for overtime, weekend rates, public holidays or early or late shifts. Nor were their hours logged, or how long they waited at the airport for passengers, the documents show. Judge Rolf Driver said Mr Paff's refusal to pay the correct wages, even after a letter of caution from the ombudsman, was "wilful blindness". "There is a well-established link between fatigue and poor road safety," Judge Driver said. "As a result, there is significant public interest in keeping track of the hours worked by drivers of public vehicles to ensure that the drivers do not undertake excessive shift lengths and are granted appropriate breaks to ensure they are alert and responsive when on the road," he said. Fair Work Ombudsman Natalie James said the case highlighted how serious "sham contracting" is, as it leads to employees being denied workplace rights and entitlements. "In cases where we suspect sham contracting is occurring, we look behind the often carefully drafted legal documents to determine what the correct classification for workers is under workplace laws," Ms James said. On Mr Paff's website he still prides himself as the only operator of an airport shuttle bus from Newcastle. "With a great professional team working with me Happy Cabby has now provided transport for over 500,000 passengers to and from Sydney Airport," he writes.

As well as the scenario described by dsmithy70 there is also the enforceability of contractors to be taxed under employee rules.

Alienation of personal services income was introduced by the Howard government in 2000 to prevent workers signing on as contractors when that contract formed more than 80% if income.

http://www.ato.gov.au/General/Contractors/In-detail/Personal-services-income/Personal-services-income-terms-explained/

Also a means to stop single entity contractors from income splitting with their spouses.

crocodile wrote on Feb 24^th, 2014 at 9:18am:

Kat wrote on Feb 24th, 2014 at 8:34am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2014 at 11:37pm: Quote: Yes, and should that happen I'm sure your mob would reject donations, bribes and the provision of a tame MSM by major stakeholders as being equally wrong and immoral? So who's my mob ? I'd be obliged if you could enlighten me. [quote]Then why do you think you should have the right to stop unions donating to the ALP? I've read over my post several times. Stuffed if I can see where anything of a sort has been suggested. Needless to say I'm a bit perplexed by your comments. I am not responsible for your comprehension difficulties. My meaning is clear.

And I can't help your eyesight. There is nowhere in my post that suggests anything about anybody having the right to stop party funding.

Take your hand off your organ, it causes blindness.
[/quote]


Really?

What's this, then...


Quote:

to nobble the unions further. These are the primary funding source for the opposition. Cut off the money and it makes the next campaign so much easier.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2014 at 9:05am:

Pantheon wrote on Feb 23rd, 2014 at 9:43pm: back in 2012, i was fired from my job saying that the business couldn't pay me my wages due to how high they are.. a year later i left and they declared bankruptcy and went out of business.. Something has to be done about wages and workers Entitlements. Wages are rising despite the profitability of small businesses are decreasing, expanding Entitlements and rising wages to a point, the only people who will be afford to pay for these increase's are big business. Rising minimal wage for example, destroy small business and the only people who could afford to pay these increase are large multinational corporation and by taking over the void left by the small businesses, they increase their power and influences. instead of rising wages, we should try and tackle and lower the cost of living, so there is no need to increase wages, as a simple $14 an hour becomes an livable wage which is equal to today's $30 an hour wage. Sadly there needs a balance. But as far as profits go the sky's the limit is that right??? It seems that business is allowed to have aspirations but workers are only allowed to make just enough to get by and whenever there's a downturn its the workers who have to bear the brunt of the sacrifices.  Listen Ahovking when you say we should lower the cost of living you mean bring down prices. OK since you've identified prices as an equivalent problem then instead of campaigning to force down wages start putting pressure on business to bring down prices.  You see, the way you characterise the problem might look like its saying something but in reality its saying nothing at all since profits wages and prices have all been chasing their tail since economies began.

profits are rising, yes, however, expenditure are also rising rapidly, and while the large corporations are able to survive they are, no way thriving.

And Agreed, we should be putting pressure on business to bring down prices, But forcing them, wont work.


Kat wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 11:21pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 23rd, 2014 at 11:10pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2014 at 9:26pm: Trust the Lieberals on Industrial relations - bet your bottom that you can't. 6 years of trust us we wouldn't do that was all BS. How can a party funded by The Trade Union movement be impartial in legislating workplace relations? Australia in uncompetitive and needs greater workplace flexibility. Of that there is no doubt. And equally, how can one funded by corporations and 'businessmen' be impartial? Why is it that your idea of a 'level playing field is actually a 45 degree slope tilted in your favour? Australia is perfectly 'competitive' and businesses/employers/banks need much greater and stricter regulation. They refuse point-blank to self-regulate, so they must be regulated by law (and by force, if necessary).

See the problem both parties are impartial to their backers.

And no, Australia is not competitive and the statement 'businesses/employers/banks need much
greater and stricter regulation' is very debatable.

And yes, because it worked so well in the soviet union... Leftys never learning from history.

Kat wrote on Feb 24^th, 2014 at 9:52am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 24th, 2014 at 9:18am: Kat wrote on Feb 24th, 2014 at 8:34am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2014 at 11:37pm: Quote: Yes, and should that happen I'm sure your mob would reject donations, bribes and the provision of a tame MSM by major stakeholders as being equally wrong and immoral? So who's my mob ? I'd be obliged if you could enlighten me. [quote]Then why do you think you should have the right to stop unions donating to the ALP? I've read over my post several times. Stuffed if I can see where anything of a sort has been suggested. Needless to say I'm a bit perplexed by your comments. I am not responsible for your comprehension difficulties. My meaning is clear. And I can't help your eyesight. There is nowhere in my post that suggests anything about anybody having the right to stop party funding. Take your hand off your organ, it causes blindness.

Really?

What's this, then...


Quote:

to nobble the unions further. These are the primary funding source for the opposition. Cut off the money and it makes the next campaign so much easier.

[/quote]

Put your glasses back on. There is nowhere in that piece where I have stated that this is what should be done. That statement is a reflection on what the reasons are for the government to be attacking entitlements. Along with poor productivity growth this would seem a valid argument. There is absolutely no comment on whether I support it or not.

Pantheon wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 9:43pm:

back in 2012, i was fired from my job saying that the business couldn't pay me my wages due to how high they are.. a year later i left and they declared bankruptcy and went out of business.. Something has to be done about wages and workers Entitlements. Wages are rising despite the profitability of small businesses are decreasing, expanding Entitlements and rising wages to a point, the only people who will be afford to pay for these increase's are big business. Rising minimal wage for example, destroy small business and the only people who could afford to pay these increase are large multinational corporation and by taking over the void left by the small businesses, they increase their power and influences. instead of rising wages, we should try and tackle and lower the cost of living, so there is no need to increase wages, as a simple $14 an hour becomes an livable wage which is equal to today's $30 an hour wage. Sadly there needs a balance.

Well, I'm not sure why sadly, But I Concur that balance is needed and it is needed desperately!

And, those issues to balance include, the Workplace Entitlements, the needs of the Employee/Contractors for a fair paying job & the needs of a business to provide a job with fair pay & entitlements, whilst still making a fair profit!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 11:10pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2014 at 9:26pm: Trust the Lieberals on Industrial relations - bet your bottom that you can't. 6 years of trust us we wouldn't do that was all BS. How can a party funded by The Trade Union movement be impartial in legislating workplace relations? Australia in uncompetitive and needs greater workplace flexibility. Of that there is no doubt.

Andrei, unfortunately the diminution of entitlements only papers over where the core problem lies.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/-hJipBcpxuJQ/UKxf7Zzmp0I/AAAAAAAAGKk/6wQlvqWGPc4/s1600-h/image%25255B23%25255D.png

It is evident that wages growth has been stable for at least the last 16 years and pretty well just tracking with inflation. The reason that business is feeling the heat is the poor record sustained over many years and successive governments of declining productivity growth.

Suppression of entitlements and enforced flexibility may improve bottom line profits in the short term and provide an easy fix. Unfortunately, while productivity growth slides further and our international competitors improve theirs, in a relatively short period of time we end up back to square one. What next. further suppression of entitlements perhaps. What happens when they cannot go any lower.

Howard, Rudd, Gillard and Abbott have all talked about productivity along with their respective treasurers. So far, none have been able to undo the last fifteen years of policy failure in this area because of the political fallout it will attract. For many years we were able to get away with it because of once in a lifetime income from primary resources and high commodity prices. A bit different today, the Asian and Latin economies are improving productivity growth and putting on the squeeze.

Hockey in his speech to the Sydney Business Chamber has this proposed reform:
"The sad truth is that productivity growth has stalled under this Government. GDP per hour worked fell over the 18 months to September quarter 2011[11]. Australia has been producing less for a given effort.…

The Coalition has a compelling strategy to help lift productivity.

First will be genuine welfare reform to lift participation in work since there is no-one so unproductive as the person who is able to work but is not doing so."

He just shows his true ignorance. He is talking about the participation rate. The impact on productivity certainly nil and probably backwards. He does not understand that productivity is measured by output per worker per hours worked. He seems to think that simply increasing output in GDP terms is magic pudding.

Nobel prize winning economist, Paul Krugman summed it up pretty well way back in the '90s.

"Productivity isn't everything, but in the long run it is almost everything. A country's ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker."

No economist, left or right refutes this axiom. It is absolutely imperative that business investment in productivity increasing tools be encouraged and the last 15 years of neglect turned around.

Pantheon wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 9:43pm:

back in 2012, i was fired from my job saying that the business couldn't pay me my wages due to how high they are.. a year later i left and they declared bankruptcy and went out of business.. Something has to be done about wages and workers Entitlements. Wages are rising despite the profitability of small businesses are decreasing, expanding Entitlements and rising wages to a point, the only people who will be afford to pay for these increase's are big business. Rising minimal wage for example, destroy small business and the only people who could afford to pay these increase are large multinational corporation and by taking over the void left by the small businesses, they increase their power and influences. instead of rising wages, we should try and tackle and lower the cost of living, so there is no need to increase wages, as a simple $14 an hour becomes an livable wage which is equal to today's $30 an hour wage. Sadly there needs a balance.

Yes, there needs to be a balance.

Looking for fat to trim in the wages budget? Start at the top. Bloated CEO salaries. Some CEOs earn more in a week than an average employee earns in a year. I cannot possibly take this "cut salary" argument seriously as long as massively overpaid CEOs are not leading by example.

Cost of living? Hard to bring that down. House prices are insane. Even commercial real estate prices are insane. And many of these properties have massive mortgages over them. We can't just wave a magic wand and make salaries smaller because there's over a trillion dollars worth of bank loans that need to be serviced. If that happened, there would be bankruptcy on a massive scale. Your "cut salaries" mantra is very poorly thought out.

The biggest factor in the cost of living is the price of real estate, not salaries. We can bring down the cost of living by reducing real estate prices in real terms over time, but it cannot be done quickly. We need to address the factors that make it difficult to buy a house within reasonable commuting distance of good jobs for less than half a million dollars, while living in a country with three people per square kilometre.

There is a lot of dribble here trying to excuse the Liberals ripping off employees again.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24^th, 2014 at 12:38pm:

There is a lot of dribble here trying to excuse the Liberals ripping off employees again.

How is it  ripping off?