Co-ordinated by Dr Barbara Pocock from Adelaide University, Professor David Peetz from Griffith University and Dr Bradon Ellem of The University of Sydney, a group of 151 Australian academics in the areas of Industrial Relations, Labour Economics and Law have submitted to the Senate Inquiry on the WorkChoices Bill evidence from research as to the likely impacts of the bill on workplace relations, society and the economy. John Quiggin and I are both signatories. Some of the academics will be appearing before the Committee today as witnesses to discuss the submission. Anyone interested in what social scientific and legal research demonstrates about the possible effects of WorkChoices, rather than ideological assertion, should read the submission, which I’ve uploaded here:
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo was an Australian group blog which discussed politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
Gee, I wonder what this research will conclude.
It could not possibly be in any way biased, and I’m sure all those who contributed to it in no way anticipated what the outcome might be.
You know what, EP, you could try reading it!
That settles the argument absolutely then, that Workchoices must be a move in the right direction. 151 ‘concerned’ academics eh? Wow!
I did actually read the conclusion and skim the footnotes.
If I was really motivated, I’d Google the names of all the signatories and find any political statements they’d made. My guess is that it would turn out that over 50% of them had a left-of-centre political viewpoint.
Now that’s research!
I have just printed this out. To anyone else thinking of doing so, in total it’s 56 pages. The actual submission itself is 43 pages inc title page. the other pages list the 151 Academics and their respective titles, Universities and positions. Our Mark is on page 52, right hand side, third from the top.
Where you are apparently completely and utterly misguided Evil, is that academics are allowed to have whatever political viewpoints they might like, and no amount of googling can prove anything but this, even if it can establish that some have public political viewpoints (itself often a logical outcome of research). The only relevant questions go to the quality of their professional research and argument, where scholarly merit is the only relevant criteria. That, of course, would require you do do some real work before you throw about gross criticisms, instead of simply parading your prejudices in this appalling way. This idea of applying political criteria to research, as you suggest, is a dark ages abomination.
No, this idea of exposing the political biases inherent in the research of many academics is an important step towards improving our democracy.
That’s why you’re afraid of it.
“151 Academics present research on WorkChoices to the Senate”
The Tree of Knowledge has come to this.
Sad.
Chris, there was a skit on the ABC’s Vulture last week that depicted nervous would-be grants recipients lined up to meet the relevant panel. The joke was that all of them were rehearsing little speeches about how their project would save whales, address inequality, repair the ozone layer etc.
Now that was on the AB freaking C!
You’re not seriously suggesting there isn’t a wink-wink nudge-nudge lingo (or ‘text’) that the academy speaks, which everyone understands and which certainly colours the nature of funding and career progress.
Get real, my flighty friend.
We don’t need no steenkin’ academics:
As Kevin Andrews said: But, you know, a group of academics is no substitute for commonsense proposals..
A sentiment with which Barcaldine’s shearers would have agreed all those decades ago.
“Groups of academics” gave us the new pedagogy of literacy education, for example, and the result is high school graduates can scarcely read or write.
This is why Dr Nelson has applied the old ‘picking winners’ industry policy to academic research.
It’s interesting to see Goward is getting stuck into the IR legislation. I don’t think the evil one will be too impressed.
Work changes risk nightmare for women: Goward
And, EP, you can’t put Goward in the left block.
CS:
I kind of agree with EP. Their findings could only be considered political, as economics does not support the left of center argument to control wages.
When we get right down to it the fight over industrial relations is the fight between two theories. Determinacy and indeterminacy (Gerry Jackson at Brookesnews has written about it extensively)
The unions say that wages are indeterminate, i.e. wages earners need to rely on them and regulations are required to help workers discover their “real wage”.
Proponents of deregulation believe that wages are determinant, which means that wages cannot be held above or below market input levels.
This argument was settled over 100 years ago, as any economist worth his salt would know.
If it wasn’t the case wages would still be closer to levels set during the industrial revolution.
Sure, unions cannot cause wages to go higher for their members- but only at the expense of everyone else, causing unemployment for those unlucky enough not to be members of a union.
The fact that some of the academics are lawyers only proves how useless it is. Lawyers know nothing about economics and aren’t expected to do so. Pretending or getting involved in this discussion by assuming the mantle of academic expert simply proves their arrogance….and ignorance.
I helped fund a booklet called, “Labor Market Wars”, which is a collection essays written by Gerry Jackson. It was sent out to all the members of the Government and some interested bodies. The PDF version is at Brookesnews website (go to Brookesnews.com and you will find it at the right of the page).
I believe it is the only booklet arguing in favor of deregulation. It was done to help the Government sell IR deregulation: seeing they had done such a piss poor effort of getting the public on side.
I can understand why the public is against IR deregulation. The GovernmentÄôs sale has been horrible.
Mr. Ex- Mining executive, Hugh Morgan was interviewed on the ABC on this subject. His answer to how would wage rates would be affected by deregulation was… to paraphrase; “the minimum wage is 58% of the median wage” …….. ThatÄôs it. This is what passes for intellectual discourse by some members of the Tory “Right”. Good one Hugh. That reminds me of the Alcoa offer!!!!
So CL, how should we dismiss these academics :
(a) simply because of ‘commonsense’
(b) on academics involvement in literacy
(c) Based on a evaluation of their statement and the evidence they present
YouÄôre not seriously suggesting there isnÄôt a wink-wink nudge-nudge lingo (or ‘textÄô) that the academy speaks, which everyone understands and which certainly colours the nature of funding and career progress.
To the extent that this operates – and I make no pretensions to being an expert in any of this, having spent most of my career in service of governments (of both colours) – in my experience it actually happens in the reverse to what you imagine, i.e. the closer an academic gets to my own political preferences, the harder on them I naturally am, and if they get close to my political preferences on a topic on which I have some expertise, the even harder I am on them.
This opposite ‘bias’ to what you foolishly imagine (due to your own political bias) operates naturally as (1) I have no wish to expose myself to accusations of bias, and (2) if they are working in one of my areas and I have a say in it, they have to be bloody good on the merits (as I care about my areas). The same goes for students, who I always warn about trying to write according to their perceptions of my preferences.
In my experience, your perceptions of ‘winks and nudges’ is arse about and invoking it is operating merely to license unjustified and unfair slurs.
Their findings could only be considered political, as economics does not support the left of center argument to control wages.
I see Joe. If economists are not right of centre, they are biased!! Very good. I hope you are not part of the academy. Save me.
(d) Based on the fact that the signatories are conservatives who believe in maintaining the status quo. Experts in the IMF, the OECD and the Reserve Bank have all called for further deregulation of the Australian labour market. Pick your ‘experts.’ Within Australia itself, there is no comparable block of rationalist IR academics because IR, qua discipline, is essentially a laborite cottage industry.
e) Howard’s views and plans for IR have been known for three decades. He was elected (and how!) to govern and is implementing a democratically valid agenda. The laws can be challenged in the High Court by multiple stake-holders and state governments (with limitless money at their disposal). Finally, in just two years the Labor Party can get itself elected and change the law.
Even though it’s not in our interest to do so, we on the right – out of common human kindness really – have been tutoring the left on how to get a Labor government elected.
To wit: come up with some policies well in advance of the election; don’t rely on demonising John Howard (it doesn’t work); and go to the polls with a vaguely sane leader.
CS:
I would be interested in reading anything refuting Determinacy. If there is such a piece the author ought to be a contender for the next prize in economics. Please, read the booklet.
“I see Joe. If economists are not right of centre, they are biased!!”.
No, economics is apolitical. Those who don’t support deregulation are doing so for reasons other than economic argument. By definition it must be because of political bias.
Actually, Ron, I don’t support the IR changes. I just don’t regard IR as an interesting issue.
But I do think that the findings of this 151-academic report might be correlated with the political leanings of its compilers, and I have suggested a practical, if time-consuming, method for testing my theory.
Chris, institutions of learning and grant-giving have become systemically biased and the fact that you’re “harder on them” says nothing about whether particular people are, in the end, favoured by those institutions or not. There are guidelines and mission statements and entire disciplines that have been contrived to advance a left-of-centre trajectory in research and preferment. As much as I appreciate your anecdotal extrapolation, it doesn’t convince me of anything institutionally wide-ranging. I’ve seen too many graduate students pursuing wilfully obsequious topics to believe there isn’t a culture of partisanship reigning in Australian academe.
NN
oh and there is another reason. I don’t support the Government’s “attempt at deregulation” because I don’t believe you need 1200 pages of news laws sweeping away the old. True deregulation simply consitutes and up and down vote in the Parliament doing away with the old laws. That’s it.
Those not supporting deregulation of market are doing so for selfish reasons- even though they may not be aware of it. If you want to assist those of low wages, do so through welfare by pitching in through taxes.
CS: the closer an academic gets to my own political preferences, the harder on them I naturally am, and if they get close to my political preferences on a topic on which I have some expertise, the even harder I am on them.
How does this square with your stated competence to academically condemn Keith Windscuttle’s book without reading it, and your professed desire to punch him in the face?
If that’s an example of you going easy on someone with political preferences far from your own, life must be pretty hard for your fellow travellers.
Economic theory may be apolitical, arguably , but economic policy is most definitely political. I can’t get worked up about the IR changes, but you have to admit there are well-defined political agendas on both sides of the issue.
I believe you’re completely wrong Joe – but I’ll argue it another time.
CL,
Chris, institutions of learning and grant-giving have become systemically biased..
You are merely disclosing to me that you have never applied for an ARC grant.
The problem with (d) CL is that you are relying on argument from authority. If you are implying that simply because the IMF, Reserve Bank or OECD said the reforms are good the reforms are good that is a waste of time.
What the IMF, Reserve Bank or OECD say means nothing unless you can distill and explain the reasons for their views. I wouldn’t suggest saying that because they are academics they are right. But then again, there are good academics and bad academics. The paper is online, I have a copy for later perusal. How about we examine what they say? Be a novel concept.
Regarding (e) at the election the impression was that the reforms would affect businesses of 20 employess or less. Even if Howard went to the election on a platform of IR change (which he didn’t) the reform were presented (as I recall) as far less sweeping than they are now. Indeed there were anecdotes from people at the IR rallies attesting to this and how angry they are the Howard escalated the scope of the reforms. But of course they were likely labor plants or even worse….academics!
Evil, as I’ve explained on many occasions, I don’t work in the area of Aboriginal history, so I don’t have to read it.
Regardless, I’ve heard him lecture and have read his shorter pieces, and anyone with even a skerrick of academic training can readily tell he fails on even the most rudimentary intellectual standards.
The very first standard of assessment is to examine whether a scholar has accurately and fairly represented the literature in his field. This does not mean favouring particular interpretations etc; it means rigorously testing your own argument against alternative arguments, and explaining why these may or may not be so. KW is astonishingly biased, inaccurate and unfair in his representation of the literature in his field. He does not meet alternative explanations and arguments, but merely ignores or misrepresents them. If a scholar cannot seriously meet the existing literature accurately and fairly, then he largely (if not completely) forfeits the right himself to be taken seriously, and certainly the accuracy and fairness of his own arguments immediately go under a cloud. As a pretension to scholarship, Windschuttle is a standing embarrassment to himself and his supporters.
I think you’ve bowdlerised my agument, Shaun. Actually, like Evil, I’m not a supporter of the IR reforms.
Against that background, I merely point out that the 151 academics are from a laborite religious order whose loyalty is to the Holy See that is the extant IR Club. Expert or not, there are many other ‘experts’ who have already put on record their belief that labour market reform is necessary and will be efficacious. I did not say that the IMF etc said the reforms were good, ergo they are good.
Finally, I point out that in an environnment of ‘experts’ claiming different things, the bigger and politically more germaine fact to remember is that these reforms – love them or loathe them – are democratically valid and may easily be changed. No-one will be killed on picket lines and employers who want their businesses to run will not come over all Dickensian and start sacking people left right and centre.
I’m the hippie egghead compared to my big-business-running brothers and I believe them when they say they have nothing to gain and everything to lose from mistreating and under-paying people. Some of Labor’s rhetoric is based firmly on the idea that Australian employers are all deadringers for Montgomery Burns. That is a shamefully divisive class wedge and I think there’s the possibility that in an increasingly aspirational culture, it may backfire on Mr Beazley and Co.
Other post-rally anecdotes I’ve heard attest that many participants felt they were being cynically yarded by speakers into the anti-Howard penn – for partisan, rather than IR-specific purposes. Also that they came away none the wiser about the reforms. I understand that as educative experience, the various harangues were a failure.
It’s okay Chris, you don’t have to justify your methods to me.
I can criticise academic works without reading them, too. Like you, I have the psychic skills to evaluate whether people are qualified by merely looking at them (sometimes just reading their name is enough).
Indeed, my analysis of academia as a whole is based on the identical methods you use to critique Windschuttle’s book without reading it. Why, I even want to punch the left-wing academic bastards on the nose, just like you do!
So you see, Chris, we’re not as different as you might suppose at first.
If anything’s shamefully divisive class war, C.L., it’s WorkChoices.
You are in effect putting an argument from authority. The arguments about labour market reform in the technical sense – and particularly in the context of the overall economic effects both in terms of productivity and employment – are quite complex. If you’ve read anything in that literature, you’d know that. However, there is very little support from any quarter for the assertion that labour market reform Howardian style will lead to anything much on either side – the American evidence suggests a decline in productivity is more likely.
I’d be quite prepared to debate these issues – and in fact that would be an interesting debate.
But if all we are going to get is EP style – “they’re all left wing and I’ve skimmed the conclusion and done some googling so I know” – then it’s a complete waste of time that could be better employed on marking essays.
If you bothered to look at the work of (for instance) Pocock, Peetz and Buchanan you’d find that rather than some sort of conservative support for the IR status quo, many working in this area are putting forth proposals for workplace regulation and arrangements which are sensitive both to the different social context (ie feminised workforce, different career paths across the life-course, etc) and also relevant insights from organisational and management literature about improving productivity through co-operative workplace relations and forms of work organisation.
But that wouldn’t fit some tired stereotype of lefty academics and IR Clubs and left/right stoushes, and might require people to actually *shock* do some serious reading before commenting, so I’d be pleasantly but very surprised if RWDBs want to engage in such debates.
Leave me out of the stoush if it’s on the basis of name-calling and uninformed and illogical “arguments”. It’s too boring – we see too much of it already.
“I can criticise academic works without reading them, too. Like you, I have the psychic skills to evaluate whether people are qualified by merely looking at them (sometimes just reading their name is enough).”
Dr. E.Pundit, PhD.(Evil Eye)
Department of Psychic Asstimulation
Waldorf College
Universamity of teh Interwebs
So: the laws will be a failure; they will negatively impact on economic growth; real wages will probably decline; workplaces will become Dickensian for all concerned; greedy cigar-smoking fatso employers will abolish toilet breaks and make people work 19 hours a day; women will be mightily put out; family life will be callously disrupted; Anzac Day will be abolished etc.
Owing to this unprecedented shemozzle, Labor will be elected in two years’ time and they will abolish the laws. Where is the problem?
And please, don’t say “but in the mean time, deaths on picket-lines and a fascist state inaugurated!” If people could get through Labor’s scorched earth recession “we had to have,” I don’t think a two year try-out of a democratically elected Prime Minister’s IR agenda is too much to ask for.
Mark, like Shaun you’ve deliberately misrepresented what I said. I’ve made no “argument from authority”, save that relating to the authority of the democratically elected government. You’re putting the augument from authority: namely, the reforms won’t work because some bloke in some paper said so.
CL, the argument that the laws will be repealed by Labor is a conservative line clearly aimed at defusing the nation’s anger.
There is simply no telling what the next election will turn on at this stage of the game, just as there is no telling what Labor will do if it somehow manages to be elected …
… and insofar as ensuring that this issue really will lead to the defeat of the Howardians and a repeal by Labor, that’s exactly what this protest and complaint etc is all about helping happen.
Your logic seems to be, shut-up it will all be fixed, and yet shutting-up is exactly what will prevent it from being fixed. This is democracy in action now. Get on board Lad.
MA, (Conflation) Islam with Terrorism, Multiculturalism with Assimilation (Sorbonne Study Group).
Hons: Sperm Theft (and the irrefutable evidence that feminists did it)
BA: Spieliological Research by Internet.
C.L., I was referring to your point about the OECD, IMF, etc.
My argument is not one from authority, but one based on research – which surveying both the literature and empirical studies on analogous trends and projecting those into the future based on the known provisions of the WorkChoices Bill – seeks to ascertain its likely impact.
Are you suggesting that we should take everything on “trust”? That economic and social policy should be made on the basis of rhetorical and ideological diktat by the goverment without any consideration of evidence as to outcomes likely to occur as a result of the policy’s implementation?
That, it seems to me, is the implication of what you are saying.
If I may also comment on the imputations you’re making with your comment about the Tree of Knowledge, C.L., it seems to me this is an entirely false dichotomy. Contrary to the claims by such foreign observers as V.I. Lenin about the essentially pragmatic and non-intellectual nature of the Australian labour movement – which were then turned around by the conservative Bede Nairn type of labour history to laud right-wing Labor – the early labour movement in this country was full of a thirst for knowledge, delight in close readings of texts (often those of Marx prior to the Russian Revolution), and a strong autodidacticism which nevertheless wanted to open the doors of education to the workers. There was also a very strong relationship – for instance in the UK with people like Laski and the Webbs and institutions like the LSE and in the US with the strong progressive Christian influence on the growth of social science – between reformist movements and academic knowledge and indeed policy analysis.
I’m sure you know all this, but you seem to forget much when you comment on blogs. I prescribe some Platonic anamnesis.
Rather than looking at the “US experience”, wouldn’t it make more sense to take a look at New Zealand?
Not a bad idea Steve. The smarter, younger, and more mobile workers of New Zealand have voted with their feet and made for Australia’s higher wages and better conditions.
Hands up any Australian who’s never worked with Kiwis?
John Quiggin and I have, Steve. Both its productivity and economic growth have been more or less flat-lining (particularly the former, the latter’s picked up recently) since the radical deregulation in 1991. And relative wages have fallen about 30% behind Australia from a relatively similar level in the 80s.
I don’t believe anyone should “shut up” Chris and haven’t said so. I’m talking about hysetrical nonsense about people being killed and the Howardian assault on Australian democracy. There is no assault on Australian democracy; there is a democratically elected government implementing its agenda. By conceding “there is no telling what Labor will do if it somehow manages to be elected,” you seem to be open to the possibility that the reforms won’t be all that bad. What, Kim will leave in place laws that have killed people? I don’t believe it – what’s Labor coming to?
These are the “academic experts” in labor markets who signed the paper.
School of Management
37
Law
16
Social Research
17
Business School
20
Labor Studies
19
Industrial Relations
4
Bright spark in London
1
Regional Studies
1
Political Science
6 (I included Quiggin in this group and not Economics for obvious reasons)
Educational Development Methods
1 (what is this?)
History and politics
1 (why are these together? IsnÄôt it asking for trouble?)
Business and Government
1
Medicine
1 (just to prove high IQ does not mean horse sense)
Art media and culture
1
Policy
1 (what is this?)
INSTITUTE FOR CITIZENSHIP AND GLOBALIZATION
1 ( IÄôm left speechless)
PhD Candidate
1 (donÄôt give it to him/her. Signing something they know nothing about proves the person doesnÄôt deserve it)
Economics
4 (I left out Quiggin as I think he had his politics hat on that day seeing he left his economics hat at home)
So we had 4 economists out of 151 sign this paper, which means to me that the majority of people who know something about this subject, ie economists, didnÄôt sign it. Ha!
As usual lawyers are represented in an area they simply know nothing about. Where are the hard science guys like the engineers etc.? maybe they are the ones showing horse sense.
Good one guys. You almost got away with it.
Peter Kemp, LLB (Licentiate in Loquacious Bombast)
MA (“On Free Speech And Incarcerating Christian Parsons”)
Joe – many people who work in Schools of Business, Management and Industrial Relations or Organisational Studies are qualified in economics. For instance, David Peetz, who’s one of the organisers of the submission is a labour economist and his initial training was an honours degree in Economics.
In any case, you might do better to examine the arguments made rather than this sort of thing.
Lawyers obviously are qualified to comment on these issues – and in fact required to – because it’s an exercise in labour and employment law – and such a complex bill that you’d want people with legal expertise to analyse its actual implications.
It’s not intended – as I said in the post – just to comment on economic outcomes – but rather social and workplace outcomes as well. If you go to John Quiggin’s blog and his UQ website, you’ll get economic commentary with which I agree wholeheartedly (unsurprisingly since John and I have collaborated on papers on IR and this collaboration is ongoing).
This group reminds me of the Doctors wives reported on during the election. These chicks felt they had something useful to contribute- telling the rest of us lowlifes they were going to vote labor- because they slept with doctors. It was the The Age, who else, who reported on the Stepford wives. Breathlessly, of course.
I am stomped. Does anyone know what this is. Someone is earning a salary teaching this.
INSTITUTE FOR CITIZENSHIP AND GLOBALIZATION
Sorry, Joe, you don’t think academics who specialise in industrial relations, the workplace, and labour law should comment on industrial relations legislation which impacts on the workplace and rewrites labour law?
Here’s some commentary on economics for you (p. 27):
You might like to check the actual documenf for the footnotes.
I’m finding debate based on ad hominem rubbishing of the motivations, qualifications and standing of the authors highly tiresome.
Can I ask people please to address themselves to the arguments in the paper and/or to the political, social and economic significance of the Bill as public policy?
Mark:
Most people, like me wnat to know the economic outcome of deregulation. In other words how does it affect my economic outcome. Lawyers don’t know this and they certainly have no business supporting a line of argument they are not trained in. As usual they get involved in areas they no nothing about. What of the Doctor. What does he’she know about the IR.
Only economists, trained in labor markets have a certain degree of knwlledge to be able to explain it. Just 4 of those people do, and maybe, if they are traching in other areas of economics.
Joe,
You don’t think that the 61 researchers in – industrial relations, business, and Management schools might have some useful input into industrial relations debate? Or perhaps even be economists?
Joe – the submission was largely drafted by those I’ve named in the post as co-ordinating it. One of them is David Peetz, who’s internationally respected as a labour economist. I have no doubt he’s responsible for drafting the relevant sections. Comment and suggestions were sought from other signatories.
It wasn’t written by 151 people.
I suggest you read the submission in full and assess the economic arguments.
In addition, as I’ve pointed out, and as Steve’s also reinforced – many of the people working in related areas I know to have training in labour economics. For instance, just looking at the Professors who signed – Richardson, Fells, Hancock, Isaac, Peetz and Quiggin are all economists. That’s only based on my knowledge of individuals and their publications. If you did the tedious task of going to each person’s university page and looking at their publications and qualifications, you’d find more.
But it would really be better to discuss the actual submission.
Anyway, I have no more time for this interchange this afternoon. I have some more essays to mark and then I’m going out for a few drinks!
Mark:
I will, later tonight.
Steve:
“You donÄôt think that the 61 researchers in – industrial relations, business, and Management schools might have some useful input into industrial relations debate? Or perhaps even be economists?”
No I don’t.
Industrial relations studies simply teaches people how to get around the maze of laws and practices etc.
Business teaches about how to run a business.
Management teaches how to manage.
Not one of these areas are expert in speaking about the economic effects of labor market reform. Not one. They have as much expertise in this area as the Doctor or the politics teachers.
Labor market economics is an extremely specialized area of the discipline. No wonder it’s called the dismal science. Everyone who knows nothing about it thinks they are experts. Just like the doctor and the lawyers.
Frankly, Joe, you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. You write that, “Most people, like me wnat to know the economic outcome of deregulation.” That may well be true, but you can’t know the economic outcome of these proposals unless you know what the legislation means. This is 700-odd pages of legislation, which must be read in conjunction with the current 600 page Act. There is an obvious role for lawyers in that process.
As for “the doctor” — in fact, Eileen Willis has published on management in the health system. In any case, there is clearly a role for medical professionals to comment on occupational health and safety issues, which are addressed on page 40 if you would care to actually read the document.
Eileen Willis is also the editor of a forthcoming book called Health Care Reform and Industrial Change in Australia: Lessons, Challenges and Implications, and here is a paper (pdf) she delivered at the Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand conference in 2004, which discusses industrial and management issues in the health system. Oh, and here’s another book she edited, on mental health issues and work.
But what would she know about IR?
Speaking of lawyers views on IR
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17274411-29277,00.html
Apparently if our curtains don’t fade with Workchoices, then we can expect important things to shrink or fall off. We’ll all be rooned.
Hey you’ll love this one. Had to pop over to see S this morning at smoko. He’s Hungarian and runs his own rigging/splicing shop for the usual grey army. Now G is a green 19yr old learning the ropes. Not a bad prospect as kids go, but he starts moaning on about the Howard govt attacking workers, unions, etc and why are they doing it? I said perhaps they know that with all us old blokes like S beginning to retire over the next few years, young blokes like you and some of your unemployed mates, are gunna have to do all our jobs, that is unless you can handle it all by yourself. Now he knows his boss S is 68 and can work like 3 of him so you can see the penny drop as the little cogs whirr and he’s looking round the room at us all. Then S chips in with- Well son I’ve been a member of the biggest union in the world and they never did me any good so I quit before you were born. Now he’s got G really puzzled that the boss would ever have been a union man and he can’t resist asking what union was that? The Soviet Union son, to roars of laughter all round. Sucked in again kid.
Observa
why did you have to bring up “smoko”. i am on my 3 rd smokeless day as I have to give them up living in fear of lung cancer and divorce if the don’t. Now I have to go out and quietly buy a pack.
Aaarrrhhh … you young’uns and an’ yer fancy “the world will end when IR reforms are introduced” …
I can remember when all this were “the world will end when the GST is introduced” … we had REAL doomsayers in them days, none o’ yer “151 academics” rubbish …
to improve productivity you need to change processes.
work processes involve employees. note the plural.
Thus AWAs are meaningles unless they are not AWAS but AWAs for all concerned except no other employee can know what the others are negotiating.
This merely leads to an attempt to cut costs which is not the same as increasing productivity.
that is mgmt101
See pete Drucker and he vis no sucker
Academics speak out about unfairness of IR laws–therefore academics must be left-wing.
Economists speak out about the unfairness of IR laws–these economists must be left wing.
Malcolm Fraser speaks of the injustices of Howard govt policy–therefore Malcolm Fraser has become left wing.
Robert Manne speaks out against the views of a renegade historian—therefore Robert Manne has become left wing.
Malcolm Turnbull, Barnaby Joyce etc etc etc.
Youse r all sounding like broken records. Could you get some new material, please?
observa returns to his fav conservative comfort straw-man line, which supposes that critics believe the world will fall in, and Evil sings the line on cue. No-one reputable has argued this, least of all the submission by 151 academics. Everyone who as studied the deal knows it is a slow poison.
Joe persists in the sad delusion that re-regulation is somehow deregulation. Go Joe!
Currency says:
IÄôm talking about hysetrical nonsense about people being killed and the Howardian assault on Australian democracy. There is no assault on Australian democracy; there is a democratically elected government implementing its agenda. By conceding “there is no telling what Labor will do if it somehow manages to be elected,” you seem to be open to the possibility that the reforms wonÄôt be all that bad. What, Kim will leave in place laws that have killed people? I donÄôt believe it – whatÄôs Labor coming to?
Well, people may be killed as a consequence of these laws if unions are restricted from policing workplace safety, no two ways about it.
This is certainly as assault on industrial democracy, and arguably a gross abuse of parliamentary democracy, since changes of this magnitude were never flagged in the election and due parliamentary process is being trashed. It is absurd, incidentally, to argue, on the one hand, that everyone knew it was coming because John Howard has stood for this agenda for 20 years, and on the other that the Australian economy needs these changes now. Any old rhetoric will do on this basis
As for the ALP, not being a political type like you Currency, I wouldn’t have clue let alone place any faith in the ALP getting elected and ripping the thing up. That says nothing about the diabolical nature of the law, only the inherent uncertainties of politics. If having 40 million working poor was a lay down misere on electing a left of centre government, George Bush wouldn’t exist. CL, I must say, you have an alarmingly if touchingly instrumentalist view of representative democracy. It must be nice to imagine that governments are dummys through which the people as ventriloquists speak … but I’ve studied history and know this is crap.
“..not being a political type like you Currency…”
!!
The only problem with New Zealand (and keeping in mind the relative productivity fall has been accompanied by lower unemployment) is that they actually slashed the size of their equivalent Workplace Relations Act – which is surely what “deregulation” means.
By contrast, Howard seems to favour the Stalinist approach to “economic reform” – be it in higher education, IR, taxation, welfare, etc.
Weathergal
“Academics speak out about unfairness of IR laws—therefore academics must be left-wing”.
I guess that was referenced to me. I never mentioned a thing about the political preferences of the signatories. I simply questioned their expertise in the dismal science. There are four practicing economists who May have some expertise in this area.
While on the subject of fairness. Who decides “fairness”, Weathergal? How do you decide fairness? What is decided as fairness? Who “receives the fairness”. I would be real interested in your opinions here.
CS:
YouÄôre unfair in your criticism. I did say I did not support the changes because I did not consider this to be deregulation in the true sense, however it is probably better than nothing. See what I said above.
I donÄôt know why people persist in bringing up productivity into this argument. Productivity has no central role in IR reform. Productivity increase may happen as a once off thing, as resources may reallocated by firms adjusting to the new environment – or may not. No one knows the answer.
The argument should be about Broadening the opportunities in the labor market. New Zealand is the perfect example of what happens when IR reform is done properly. As much as Australians would hate the idea of copying NZ, their IR reforms were done quite well. What happened there? Well since the reforms full time jobs have zoomed with labor participation much higher than here. Unemployment is now in 3.9%. And productivity? Well thatÄôs gone down, probably as marginal workers were able to find full time work.
You know this is hilarious. None of the R Wingers support the reforms but still find cause to bicker with the lefties. This is hysterical.
We are arguing over theory, Joe. The practice has already been botched, so there’s no point raking over it.
BTW – see here http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/keygraphs/Fig9.html for a graph on New Zealand’s unemployment rate since 1990. Here http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN017822.pdf for info on the participation rate.
U/E was a touch under 11% in mid 1991 and fell to 6% by mid 1995 (which is a substantially faster fall than we experienced in Australia). As we know, Don Brash presided over a monetary policy screw-up in the mid-late 90s, leading to a recession. Thus, when Helen Clark came to power in late ’99, U/E was slightly above 6% (though falling again)…and this has continued (to Helen Clark’s credit) to fall to around 3.5% today.
I can’t see how this has been a complete disaster, to say the least. But I suppose it’s a moot point for us, because we are not going to, and perhaps never will, get a reduction in labour regulation in this country.
I think it’s just sad that Kevin Andrews (? or another Liberal apparatchick – I don’t have a link to the original news item) said something to the effect that no one should take any notice of “academics” and that “common sense” should rule. Well, we might as well close the universities and get Ethel Fugg of 37 Station st Mt Waverley at random to draw up policy. this government’s anti-intellectual, anti-education stance (except for narrowly vocational education) is depressing.
Cwoorrrr, that thing the Comments do is pretty coooolllll….. in Safari, anyway… I want to see it again! *clicks Submit*
Jo Cambria: Weathergal
“Academics speak out about unfairness of IR laws—therefore academics must be left-wing”.
I guess that was referenced to me.
You flatter yourself, Joe. Read this thread and work out who it’s referenced to.
Weatherg
Sorry bout the mistake. And no I was’t trying flattery on myself.
… said no one should take any notice of “academics” and that “common sense” should rule
Excellent! The message is spreading.
Apologies if I have been unfair Joe. On the ‘de-reg’, I happened to spot this one by “5 academics” (only one of whom appears to be among the 151) at the site of the Bulletin of Labour while flicking around last night:
Paradoxically, the stripping back of labour rights and institutions will be achieved not through ‘deregulationÄô (the abstention from the use of law) but through a complex system of voluminous regulation. New institutions will be created to create and police workplace standards. If anything, a greater role for mainstream law will be generated by this prescriptive re-regulation of the labour market. Despite the increased role for law, elements of the new system are less publicly accountable and open to democratic participation than the institutions they replace.
This is consistent with Jeff Shaw’s analysis (recently published in a book edited by someone who I’m too embarrassed to mention, but thoroughly recommend).
This is great. Lots of criticism of credentials, affiliations yet nothing on the actual arguments themselves. Common sense is all we need!
CL, I don’t consider you comments vulgar enough to bowdlerize but if I did misrepresent you then my apologies. However I do agree with Mark regarding your comments.
Interestingly enough I too don’t believe that most employers will go out of their way to gut their employees using the reforms. However it does create an imbalance favouring employers which will be abused. I have good and bad bosses (good one at the moment…now he can buy me a beer) and believe that managerial attacks on employees is borne from incompetence rather than malice. Though the two often become hard to differentiate. But Howard’s reform do seem to be wanting to divide by class.
But I leave the last word to Australia’s late great rock’n'roll poet laureate. With prescience he knew blood was coming to the streets:
On a slight tanget. I now see the IR Reform Battle of the Bands. Rose Tattoo vs The Upper Crust.
Robert wrote; “This is 700-odd pages of legislation, which must be read in conjunction with the current 600 page Act. There is an obvious role for lawyers in that process.”
I think this is deliberate obfuscation to make citizens throw up their hands in the air in frustration at trying to work it out. Software developers have created versioning systems that have merge capabilities so you can read a document in its unamended, diffed and amended forms – about time government caught up and started using that through the Australian Parliament House website. Citizens dont have staffers that can do it for them.
I have read through the Workplaces legislation, and it is a herculian battle. Time for government to make it easier for the citizens to understand amended legislation that they will be assumed to follow as law should it get through.
Whilst the only argument the so-called Right have come up with in this thread is it is written by Leftists is really intellectually convincing.
I’m sure we know that’s sarcasm but my curiosity has been awoken
151 signatories that agree and endorse the content, how many were approached that did not sign after reviewing it?
anyone?
I don’t know the answer, Vee, but judging from the numbers, it’s almost everyone working in industrial relations scholarship and teaching. The message was distributed via several academic email lists which should capture the majority of scholars in the field. I know for a fact that several people who signed have voted Liberal in the past, but there are obvious reasons why I don’t want to start naming names.
I haven’t read the thing but to assess its credibility objectively we also need to know who viewed the document and did not sign it and assess those that did not sign’s credibility in the field.
Actually, Vee, to assess its credibility you should read it and consider the arguments on their merits.
Or you could find out who made submissions in support of the WorkChoices package.
* crickets chirping *