Epistles from the Apostles
Your comments in relation to Australian conservativism would appear to not hold true, given that real average and real minimum wages under the Howard Government grew at unprecedented levels.
Besides, you also fail to consider the relationship between unemployment and minimum wages. If more poor people are employees, then surely they are better off, particularly given how mean the US social security system is.
This post was written specifically in relation to some comments by Mark Richardson, who's been all race-baity of late. The wage figures come from the US, as I said.
Oh paaaaleeeaaase Leon.The Howard government not once nada never ever supported a national wage rise. That wages grew in Australia was due in most part, to the mining boom and the shortage of skilled labour.
Any connection to conservatives and pay rises is absolute arrant nonsense.I have been in the work force for the best part of 45 years.I remember when even workers compensation was a long drawn out affair and payments were made direct by insurance company's months after any industrial accident.
WAGE RISES!
And my wife wants to know why I drink.
Phill's right, Leon. Workchoices was designed to put a cap on wages in the light of the resources boom. Howard believed, as do most neoliberals, that inflation is the most evil of evils, and tried to contain it through reduced wages.
Containing inflation was one of the aims of Workchoices, but there were others which were more important:
1) increasing employment
2) improving productivity
Chris Richardson of Access Economics has stated that Workchoices did help with both of these policy aims.
"Chris Richardson of Access Economics has stated that Workchoices did help with both of these policy aims."
Of course he would know wouldn't he?
Let me see the Howard government improving unemployment, how novel. I guess all that caring and sharing and support in national wage cases, allowed workers to buy luxuries like food and clothes.
I guess that's why Howard not only lost government but his seat, I'll be fucked, he was really a much maligned and misunderstood fellow wasn't he?
The stated aims of Workchoices and their actual effects are miles apart. I don't think the coalition even attempted to pretend that Workchoices would lift productivity.
"I don't think the coalition even attempted to pretend that Workchoices would lift productivity."
Chris Richardson said it would.
Then Charles Richardson is an idiot. Cutting wages and conditions doesn't improve productivity, it merely lowers costs. In some cases, it can even stifle innovation. In China, for instance, labour is so cheap that it's better to spend your capital on labour-intensive manufacture than to invest in technology to do the job more easily.
I notice you've also attempted to shift the debate here from conditions in the US to the old argument about Workchoices. The data on Workchoices was extremely damning, however, you believed it was part of a lefty conspiracy, and dismissed it. Nonetheless, have a look at deteriorating wages in the US, and you'll have a pretty clear idea of where Australia would have been headed had Workchoices persisted.
People are not idiots simply because they disagree with you, THR. In fact, Richardson is a far more reputable authority on industrial relations than you will ever live to be.
"The data on Workchoices was extremely damning"
Lower unemployment, higher real wages. That's damning, all right.
Oh dear, OTH Leon people that disagree with you, are to be pitied.
And here us all thinking you were against government control in all things, this is the mantra of the extreme right is it not?
No Leon, people are not idiots for disagreeing with me. They are idiots if they think that cutting wages, or having people sign AWAs, will magically increase productivity. Arguments from authority won't wash here, Leon, and in any case, Richardson is an anti-union stooge for the business council.
I notice you keep avoiding the topic at hand, namely, industrial policy and wages in the US.
Lower unemployment, higher real wages. That's damning, all right.
Let's look at the facts:
1.2 million low-paid Australian workers had a decline in real wages between 2005 and 2008:
http://www.actu.asn.au/
Campaigns...aidworkers.aspx
96% of low-paid workers experienced a loss of wages in real terms in 2007, during the heart of the Workchoices reign:
http://www.asu.asn.au/media/
minw...inimumwage.html
Studies found that workers on AWAs under Workchoices earnt significantly less than those on collective agreements:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/
natio...6696757585.html
The 'no disadvantage' test failed to protect workers' conditions:
http://jir.sagepub.com/cgi/conte...stract/47/4/
393
AWAs were principally used at the instigation of employers to reduce labour costs and promote union avoidance:
http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ai...veld&
Nassif.pdf
Also, as I pointed out previously, Howard himself said that the purpose of Workchoices was to contain inflation through wage restraint. It was the ALP who ran the productivity argument, saying that if productivity could increase through education, training, and infrastructure, wages could stay as is without inflation. If Australia really bought the claim that Workchoices made life wonderful, they wouldn't have voted out Howard.
Get over it.
Those 'facts' are by themselves quite misleading:
1) 2006-2007 involved higher than usual inflation, mainly because of higher world prices for food and petrol. This was not the fault of Workchoices.
2) AWAs involve workers trading away conditions for higher pay. They are therefore not aimed at 'protecting conditions'.
3) Again, you conveniently fail to cinsier the relationship between unemployment and minimum wages.
4) Employees on AWAs earned more than those on the award or on common law contracts (both of which Labor approves of). But ultimately, comparing different employment instruments is not comparing apples with apples since employees in different industries and levels within an organisation are likely to end up with different instruments for those reasons only.
So once again, as I have found with you in the past, you conveniently tell only half the story.
1. 2008 was the year of the food price crisis.
'Higher than usual' inflation in one year is not enough to refute my statistics, since they are taken over several years.
2. But workers didn't trade conditions for more pay. The studies showed us that clearly enough. AWAs before Workchoices allowed workers to trade conditions, but with some checks and balances. Howard removed the checks and balances, hence workers lost conditions without appropriate recompense. Far from individualising contracts, workers were forced to sign pro formas or become unemployed.
3. Said relationship is tenuous at best, and in this instance, irrelevant. Employment was high before Workchoices, principally because of a resource-fueled boom. Even if we accept your completely unproven claim that Workchoices created employment, it'd still be a shite trade-off given unemployment was low to start with, and AWAs impacted on the bottom lines of millions.
4. Award conditions are the lowest of the low. It's hard to beat them for cheapness. My claim was that collective agreements trumped AWAs everytime. There have also been studies in the US indicating that collective agreements are an inducement to productivity among workrs, as it incentivises profit-making. You seem to believe in the productivity Santa Claus, who brings the economy magical treats for leaving AWA stockings by the tree.
Thus far, you've refuted nothing, dug yourself into a hole, ignored almost every one of my substantive points, and said all of nothing about the post at hand.
1. Food and fuel prices rose dramatically during 06-07. Hence why Rudd campaigned pretending he could do something about them, leading to the bogus solutions known as Fuelwatch and Grocerychoices.
2. Pay and conditions were less generous under some Workchoices AWAs in lower paid industries. But in most industries, firms were acitively competing for the services of employees, therefore pay and conditions were maintained.
3. "Even if we accept your completely unproven claim that Workchoices created employment, it'd still be a shite trade-off given unemployment was low to start with, and AWAs impacted on the bottom lines of millions."
As above, most employees had rising wages and kept strong conditions. Flexible labour market policies would however have the most benefit during economic downturns, where struggling firms can either negotiate lower wages and conditions or be forced to lay off more workers.
4. "Award conditions are the lowest of the low. It's hard to beat them for cheapness."
The award system is actually one of the most generous safety nets in the world, since they contain numerous conditions, usually even leave loadings and long service leave, and Australia has the 2nd highest minimum wage sin the world.
5. You seem to assume that I have something against collective agreements. I don't. I recognise that they are often good at lifting productivity. I admire the Keating Government for introducing them. What I oppose is your "one size fits all" approach, where collective agreements are the only way that awards can be circumvented.
I have refuted your telling of only half the story, by telling the other half.
You're still relentlessly avoiding the topic of this post. How about a comment or two on wages in the US under their relaxed labour laws? Or a comment on Mark Richardson's attempt to link wages with race in the US?
But in most industries, firms were acitively competing for the services of employees, therefore pay and conditions were maintained.
In the resource industry, yes, this is true. In other industries, where you have a small number of highly skilled, highly sought-after people, Workchoices wasn't needed, as these people wouldn't be on awards in any case, and would always have been negotiating individually. Everywhere else, your claim is bogus.
Flexible labour market policies would however have the most benefit during economic downturns, where struggling firms can either negotiate lower wages and conditions or be forced to lay off more workers.
We've been over this before. What do you think happened in countries with lax labour laws during the GFC? What do you think would happen if firms start shedding staff, or cutting pay without a cut in hours? Would the economy expand or contract?
The award system is actually one of the most generous safety nets in the world
Maybe, but they're lower than other forms of agreement.
What I oppose is your "one size fits all" approach, where collective agreements are the only way that awards can be circumvented.
Bullshit. Pre-Workchoices, we already had AWAs with safety nets, and common law contracts. You keep persisting in this deluded fantasy that Workchoices was a boon to Australian workers. It wasn't, and Australian workers knew it. It was blatant neoliberal interventionism, with an activist state operating on behalf of business. The laws stank, and every study confirmed this. The Fair Pay commission confirmed this, indirectly. Wishing away the empirical findings won't make them disappear.
By all means keep spruiking for Workchoices if you like, and convince some of your Tory mates to do likewise. That should help the Coalition's chances.
"You're still relentlessly avoiding the topic of this post. How about a comment or two on wages in the US under their relaxed labour laws? Or a comment on Mark Richardson's attempt to link wages with race in the US?"
You keep wanting me to refer to the points made in your original post. Ok, here it is.
I don't approve of the US industrial relations system. I firmly believe that all employees earning under $100,000 should be guaranteed minimum wages, annual leave, sick leave and unpaid maternity leave. The US system does not do this.
In other words, I am not for wholesale deregulation of the labour market. That is why I have not argued with you about the problems with the American system.
In terms of "linking race with ages", I don't think Richardson is doing this. He's simply making the point that its a bit silly to argue that whites enjoy a privileged position in society when working class whites in the US often struggle.
In terms of everything else you say, I don't want o repeat myself again. Those studies were flawed for the reasons I outlined. 3 years ago, I remember reading that only 25% of employees were on awards. The labour market back then was very competitive in most industries, whether it was for traditional trades, miners, solicitors, accountants, doctors, call centre staff, construction workers etc.
If you disagree with Chris Richardson, good for you. I accept the opinion of a respectable economist.
Finally, given how few employees were and are on AWAs, the notion that they were ripping off most of the workforce is risible.
THR, I certainly enjoy it when you debate conservatives, especially when they eviscerate you.
Too bad it's never happened. That thread above shows Mark Richardson in full romantic reverie mode, combined with some anonymous racists as his chorus. Stirring stuff from folks who still drag their arses on the grounded to scratch them.
Interesting how you failed to mention the effect large-scale immigration has had on U.S. wages over the past several decades.
Leftists purport to champion working class interests. They also tend to be passionate supporters of large-scale Third World immigration, largely because they see it as a way of advancing multiculturalism and also demonstrating their moral superiority over all those racist, xenophobic bigots lurking behind every corner. Yet, their support for the latter directly undermines the former - an inconvenient reality that most seem totally unwilling to admit.
Interesting how you failed to mention the effect large-scale immigration has had on U.S. wages over the past several decades.
I think your point about wages is an important one, but I think your interpretation is way off.
US wages have been undermined by globalisation, including a kind of globalisation within the US itself. It's simply cheaper to set up operations off-shore. To the extent that industry is located in the US, there are a range of factors that drive down wages. One is the pull that corporations have with government in one-industry towns (I'm thinking towns of up to a million people). Any threat of a move would be disastrous for the city/town, so the corporation has an easy way to cut pay and conditions. You also have the flight of capital from the NE 'rust-belt' areas to the relatively poor and uneducated Southern states, where there are no unions, and 'right to work' campaigns, etc. Blaiming immigrants for wage drops, which have been a serious problem in the US since the 70s, is in each and every case a racist distraction, and evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.
Secondly, to use an Australian example, labour shortages and menial jobs have been filled over decades using cheap immigrant labour, from the Irish, the Chinese, to the Australians and Greeks of the 50s and 60s, to the Vietnamese of the 70s and 80s. These are the people who built Australia, without whom it would merely be an oversized English cow town with bad food.
It is a common right-wing tactic to try and split workers on racial grounds. It is in every case imbecility, the more so since capital is globalised. Australian workers' wages are directly undermined, for instance, by sweatshop manufacturing in China. None of this has anything to do with immigration, except to a dummy, a dishonest pig, or a racist swine. Which is it for you, EF?
Commenting by HaloScan
