Re: The Thread that never Ends
1) If the attitude was the businesses should be screwed over, then who will be the ones making the businesses? Where will progress come from? If individuals have the perception that being a business owner is too risky, then where will the jobs come from? No-one will be willing to have a punt and say I've got a great idea for a business (which will employ worthy individuals) because there is an inherent risk that I can't not re-allocate my resources to achieve their aims.
2) If most are re-negotiated without striking, then good on them. I get the impression though that when they feel the terms aren't favourable, then they hold everyone hostage. They don't get the idea that sometimes they aren't worthy of better conditions because they haven't increased their performance. How can you justify raising conditions if people haven't made improvements? You could sit on your ass all day and the unions would still argue that better conditions are the way to go. Compensation must be made relative to performance; that's how the labour market works.
3) The Coalition is calling into question the credibility of the original policy, not just the fact that jobs will go. They argue that a carbon tax isn't appropriate because they don't believe this is the best way to tackle the problem of climate change. Discussing the subsequent effects that will have employment is a side argument which emphasises how making the wrong decision will result in wider problems unrelated to climate change itself. Just for the record though, I myself think some of the policies that the Coalition have come up with are flawed (e.g. not supporting a profits tax won't effect employment if mining companies have intelligent people planning extraction) so I'm not towing the party line.
4) If there is lack of job security, then employees should be compensated for that risk. You are right there. Much of this would be dependent on the terms of the contract and type of position being negotiated.
5) You're forgetting that businesses are competing against each other. The world of business isn't some sort of cartel where collusion is a regular thing. Businesses want the best employers and they will subsequently negotiate accordingly to secure the services of an individual. Suggesting that there will be massive decreases is an understatement. Every individual has a value in the labour market (Yes, there are bigger things than putting a number on a person's head; I'll give you that) and the market will accordingly indicate that.
6) I'm not going to make excuses and suggest that the market is perfect. It isn't and I am well aware of this. Personally, I think we need to see an investment in education to improve labour mobility so individuals don't have to spend X amount of time learning new skills independent to employment. Things like TAFE should be supported with the view of students being employed while in conjunction to studying. This allows industry restructuring to occur while allowing unemployed people to find a new job more quickly. Yes, this is government intervention, but this is intervention which is being justified on the basis of facilitating an improvement in the free market, hopefully resolving some of the problems already present.
P.S. I would rather you not call me a "heartless bastard" Alex. You're better than that.
GOD FUCKING DAMN IT - I WAS JUST ABOUT TO POST A LONG REPLY AND THIS FUXKING SHITHOUSE IPAD DECIDES TO FUCKING CLOSE ITSELF YOU STUPID PIECE OF SHIT APPLE. Moving on
1) there is always going to be a disparity between employees and employers in negotiation. I think the upper hand should belong to the employee as in the long run the employer will have the upper hand. I don't think that employees should have all the power, but I think the status quo we have now works well. Yes it might result in a small decrease in future businesses opening up, but I don't think it would be large enough to be of concern, personally I think the gain to employees should be worth it.
2) I don't think "I get the feeling" is a compelling argument. Only 1% of employees were involved in disputes according to the latest stats. It equates to 3.5 days lost per 1000 employees. Not historic lows no, but certainly lower than they have been in the past. I don't believe unions go on and ask for new conditions without giving anything in return. Despite public opinion fueled by liberal party propaganda, they don't just out something on the table then strike the moment they don't get it. They negotiate. As for pay Rises, they should be in line with inflation at least, if not in line with company profits.
3) like I said, I thought it might be okay for them to discuss the job losses. You've explained why the liberals mention them, you haven't addressed why that doesn't contribute to the sense of entitlement you dislike. Why are carbon tax job losses are wider problems but job losses due to increasing productivity are good and should be accepted.
(as an aside, not directed at you I find it laughable that the liberals say that 100 job losses from the carbon tax are a national crisis but 20,000 public service job losses are fine and dandy and won't have any repercussions)
4) if you accept that then I don't see how you can have a problem with unions. What's the harm if instead of one employee facing less job security negotiates better pay and conditions, several get together and negotiate the same (something that will ultimately save everybody time). Perhaps because as work choices demonstrated individual contracts often aren't individually negotiated, they are pro forma contracts issue t employees on a take it or leave it basis with no opportunity for genuine negotiation.
5) as I said above, in theory they do, and I don't doubt in some sectors of the economy that there would be individual negotiation. But what about the thousands upon thousands of employees employed in low paying jobs where their skills are a dime a dozen, don't you think they deserve some sort of protection from big business. QANTAS has shown this themselves, they don't want the best pilots, they want the cheapest, hence them employing cheaper, potentially less qualified, overseas pilots.
6) similar to above, even if you skill people up and whatnot, there are still going to be shitkickcer jobs which people are going to need. I honestly don't have a problem if employees want to opt out of the current system and try negotiate their own conditions, but it should be the employees choice to do so.
P.S. as you'll see I edited part of this comment before you posted that indicated I was being sarcastic/hyperbolic. I apologise, I should have chosen my words more carefully. That being said, never make the mistake of thinking I'm better than that, I am not.
