the dying unions have a wimper... Re: [LINK] Surveillance in extremis

[Chris Maltby]

> Chris Maltby [chris at sw.oz.au] wrote:
>> Whatever you think about the need for what is euphemistically called
>> workplace "flexibility", it's worth observing that AWAs have been
>> available for quite a few years already. There was, however, almost
>> no take up of them until the new legislation removed the previous
>> "no disadvantage" test that applied to them.

>> So, if this much lauded flexibility is both a good thing in itself,
>> and has lots of valuable benefits for working people as the government
>> is always saying, why did employers wait to push AWAs until they
>> included the right to unilaterally cut wages and conditions and sack
>> people for not agreeing?

On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 06:53:48PM +1000, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> according to whom exactly? greg combet of the dying union movement?

Vic,

It was a question, not a statement. Did you notice the "?" on the end?
You gave us a load of stuff about how the mining industry is booming
and paying its workers heaps at present. None of which answers the
question. Why did the takeup of AWAs lag until the no-disadvantage
test was elminated?

>> And since when has increased job insecurity been good for the economy?

> you are clutching at straws here.   flexibility means shifting the
> work force around. isnt about job security or insecurity. its
> about removing the cost to employees of getting rid of dead wood
> in the organisation and removing the adverse costs to investment.
> there are countless articles on google about it, look for yourself.

Once again you avoided answering the question...

You made a bit of a Freudian slip there with "cost to employees".
The cost to employees is job insecurity and it's been increased.
The new laws certainly allow employers to reduce direct and indirect
labour costs, which might deliver higher profits or even higher wages
(depending on the bargaining power of the workers).  Whether increasing
the profit share at the expense of the wage share is good for the
economy and the society it is meant to serve remains an open question.
I guess we're presently conducting an experiment and might find out,
unless the coming end of the commodity price boom masks the effect.

> even mcfarlane outgoing governor of the reserve bank just said that
> flexibility was already having a positive effect on the economy.

For someone concerned about increasing wages (and tax cuts) adding
fuel to inflation, I suppose it's natural to be in favour of measures
that allow wages to fall.

Chris