Re: The Thread that never Ends
RE: Power play:
It's a matter of opinion and I think you're reasoning is valid enough to not dispute it.
RE: Dispute frequencies:
You're exclusively looking at the numbers of people involved without considering how many people it takes to constitute an industry. Inroads have definitely been made to reduce disputes which I think is superb. Regardless, if all the baggage handlers at Sydney Airport went on strike, you have effectively compromised the movement of people into Australia. Strikes affect more people than just union members. I have no qualms about linking wages with inflation provided that these employees concerned are doing the same work at the same level of productivity but institutionalising this is risky as inflation could move out of reasonable bounds thus precipitating a price/wage spiral. Provided stability in the economy, I don't dispute this.
I accept that it affects more people than the union members. I accept that a strike could shut down the entire country if it was big enough. Regardless I think that that is every persons invidivual right to be able to do so. Would it annoy me? God yes, but I support the right of people to take such action. At the moment we aren't in a position where that is likely to happen. Yes, some sectors may suffer one off from a strike, but overall the economy is growing, and I don't think there is any cause for complaint about how we are travelling at the moment. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
RE: Carbon tax jobs:
As I stated, the dispute is with the carbon tax itself, not the loss of employment. The Coalition believes that the Carbon Tax is not the right way forward, and they indicate the risks of implementing the wrong policy. Essentially jobs which do not deserve to go because of poor policy are at risk. It doesn't have anything to do with an employee's performance. Arguably, the individuals being cut from the public service deserve to go because they aren't adding anything comparable to the price being paid. The ones affected by the carbon tax are worth their value, thus the argument used by the Coalition. Keep in mind, I don't like the sensationalism used by the Coalition to sell their policies. The policies themselves are valid, but I think they've taken the easy way out (as would any political party).
Why don;t the jobs deserve to go? From my understanding of your argument, if increased productivity is required through job losses, then those job losses are okay. The Carbon Tax is a cost on bussiness, therefore we can assume job losses are to increase the productivity of the bussiness owing to rising costs? Ergo they are okay by your logic.
Before you raise that the carbon tax is an avoidable impost from the government, I'd be interested to hear how you feel about tobacco taxes. Doubtless they impose a cost on tobacco companies, which we can assume has resulted in job losses in the industry, are those job losses then not good because the cost to the bussiness is government imposed? or does the benefit of less smokers outweigh that desire, because I don't see the coalition arguing against increasing tobacco taxes (ironically I am actually opposed to increased taxes on tobacco, but there you go)
RE: Risk negotiation:
Because risk is different across businesses. You can't automatically suggest that business X has the same risk as business Y because they are in the same field. Things aren't that simple. You still make a valid point though about standardising such practices, but a union isn't necessary to do this. The position being offered is different, the terms of the contract are different, the skills an individual brings to the table is different.
No I agree a union isnt necescary, but that shouldn't stop you being able to utilise one. Free market yo, the union is offering a service people are willing to pay for, isn't that what the liberal party is all about?
The position and terms aren't always, nor do they have to be, different, in all cases, and the skills could easily be comparable.
RE: Big Business:
If big business believes that incurring risk to save money is a decision worth pursuing, then they are entitled to do so. If a business does not value the people working for them, they would be better off moving somewhere else. If an employee is contracted for x amount of years, and no breach of contract required an early termination, then a business is entitled to say they want them to move on. That's point of a contract.
Yes, they are entitled to do so, and no doubt they will eventually succeed. But just as they are entitled to go forward, the employees are entitled to fight tooth and nail to stop them if thats what they so desire. Most people aren't contracted for X years, they are contracted, effectively, for life, until one side decides to terminate the contract, either for breach, or just because.
