World Problem 5 Employment WORLD PROBLEM: There is a demand for jobs but the jobs are getting shorter in duration, the rights of employees are diminishing, people are getting paid less money, and fewer training opportunities in return for high levels of multiskilling work and profit for employers. TRENDS SUPPORTING THIS VIEW AND THE SOLUTIONS SOUGHT BY GOVERNMENTS AND BUSINESS PROFESSIONALS: The current economic system values money and people in this system see money as the key to solving all world problems. Therefore jobs that pay money are viewed as vital for one's own survival in this system. Because without a job, there is no money earned. And no money means you cannot afford to buy food and other essential products. If people prefer to live in the current economic system (mainly in the cities), jobs are seen as a kind of social status and a symbol of wealth where you can improve your own standard of living to almost any level you wish (restricted by how much time you spend in the job and your salary level). If you don't have a job in the current economic system, you will quickly learn how expensive it is to purchase essential products for your survival, let alone the things you want. The importance of having a job can be observed in all cities where you will find an area set aside for poor people who have no jobs and another group of people who do have a job termed the well-off and usually living in more affluent and prime city locations. Jobs are seen by governments in the current economic system as critical to maintaining the economy in areas where there is a demand for services and products by the consumer in the local, national and international markets. This includes products that cannot be recycled and services designed to provide quick solutions. NOTE: There is much talk about sustainable practices by leaders in the economy, but rarely is it properly implemented. Where there is an exchange in money for receiving products and/or services through a business, governments create the business of collecting revenue known as taxation. Creative ways of getting people to pay extra taxes may occur to ensure enough money is available for general services and infrastructure for the community and to keep enough people in well-paid government jobs and give politicians enough money for their superannuation. For example, in Australia, the Federal (Howard) Government has to classify more and more people as earning a high income through "tax bracket creep" so people have to pay extra tax. Then around election time, the Government may give a small tax cut (roughly $4 to $8) to its citizens as if the people have short memories and therefore will re-elect the Government for being nice enough to give some money back. As the Australian Labor Shadow Treasurer Mr Mark Latham has remarked in September 2003 about tax bracket creeps: 'As wages go up [for the average working Australians], people move into higher tax brackets. They pay more taxes through to [Treasurer Peter] Costello. And the government at budget time gives part of them back in the form of a sandwich and milkshake tax cut. 'So it's a bit of a pea-and-thimble trick, to collect more taxes over the 12 months and then give back part of them in the budget. That's not something that's actually going to help the average Australian family.' (1) As the Government encourages people to make more babies to help replenish the aging population now reaching retirement age and to fill critical skills shortfall in certain industries to meet international, national and local demands (eg. Australia in 2005), the amount of total mouths to feed will increase placing demands on businesses and government to provide even more products and services (especially in areas of food, health, clothing, housing etc). The Government is prepared to bring into the country skilled overseas employees to fill certain jobs in an attempt to meet the skills shortfall because it costs too much to train the local unemployed, school leavers and other groups in the community trying to enter the workforce to do them as well as improve the working conditions and pay for a number of those jobs and it is easier to let run down to the ground various training centres (eg. TAFE). NOTE 1: Industry will welcome this move because at the end of the day businesses need people to perform jobs to meet high consumer demands as well as creating a high enough profit. NOTE 2: R-wing governments of the day (eg. Australian Federal (Howard) Government) will naturally refute any cost-savings practice on their behalf when employing already-trained overseas workers saying this is a view politically motivated by the opposition party on the grounds it hates migrants. Funny that considering R-wing governments are prepared to lock up migrants in detention centres for years at a time before a decision from DIMA officers finally arrives. Now who is hating the migrants this time? It seems as if migrants that have the right skills will be made welcomed in a developed nation. But if migrants don't have the skills, or skills not in the right areas, they are not wanted. Is education and training such an expensive proposition for governments of developed nations? NOTE 3: To avoid the cost of providing education and training by government and business leaders, some people will argue it is really a question of labour shortages rather than skill shortages. For example, in Australia, the Federal (Howard) Government intends to bring in 20,000 skilled and semi-skilled people from overseas to fill the skill shortages in areas such as hairdressing, cooks and so on. But the fruit growers in some Australian towns say it is more a labour shortage. As Steve Balzary, director of employment and training at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and a strong supporter of the Government's aim to import overseas workers said: 'This is not about skills shortages; it's about labour shortages.' (Kerr, Joseph & Thompson, Matthew. British gain most from visa changes: The Sydney Morning Herald. 16-17 April 2005, p.10.) So why aren't enough unemployed people in Australia being attracted to those areas of labour shortages such as fruit picking and cleaning jobs, assuming this is the reason for bringing in 20,000 overseas workers into the country? Perhaps it comes back down to the age-old question of getting reasonable pay and conditions from stable enough "permanent" jobs (needed to solve the government's problem of the aging population through effective build up of superannuation funds) while hoping to find enough money to make the cost of living in Australia seem affordable. Let us put it this way: how many people feel comfortable in knowing they will retire with financial security while working as a temporary low-paid cleaner or fruit picker? Add to the woes for Australian workers are the cost of living. Statistics are showing the cost of living in Australia is higher than the United States and Europe, let alone the developing nations. Maybe this is the reason why overseas workers from developing nations are happy to work in Australia on a temporary basis (and the Australian Government is willing to bring them in) because they know anything would be better than where they live (given the really poor conditions and pay in their own country). And once the workers can earn enough money from their temporary Australian jobs can return home, realise how rich they are, and live a much more comfortable life for longer periods of time than those staying behind because the cost of living is much lower in developing nations such as India and China than in Australia. If one ever needs evidence of this, why not download Nike's 108-page report available from its web site admitting abuses and poor conditions of its overseas workers. In what is considered the most comprehensive picture yet of the conditions overseas workers in China, Thailand, South Korea, Vietnam and other Asian countries have to endure in the factories making footwear for Nike for the little pay they receive, workers are being forced to work overtime, have restricted access to water, and rarely able to have short breaks until work finishes. The report comes after Nike paid US$1.5 million (A$1.95 million) to settle allegations of false claims by the company, saying the workers were treated well when in fact evidence was found on the contrary. The report also admits the problem is widespread. It literally opens the door to the possibility that many more companies are using cheap overseas labour without paying attention to the conditions and pay these workers are going through in return for the companies' high profits. Of course, why look overseas? Overseas workers have been brought into developed nations such as the US and Australia to do the same kinds of work, except it is more in secret, but with the same low pay and poor conditions. In some cases, women from Thailand and Indonesia are also expected to work as prostitutes to pay off "debts" while still earning a pittance. And if we really look deeply at the reason for bringing in overseas workers into Australia, one would find the Federal (Howard) Government is actually suffering from economic myopia as reflected in its past policies. As Les MacDonald of Balmain in NSW noted: 'The essentially short-term orientation of this Federal Government could nowhere be better on display than in its reaction to the skills [or labour?] shortage that has been developing in Australia for around a decade or more. 'Instead of acting to deal with the approaching shortage when modifications to education and training policies would have ensured there were sufficient Australian-trained tradespeople, we leave it until it is an emergency and import skills from overseas while leaving young Australians unemployed ("Skills shortage prompts increase in migrant intake", Herald, April 15). Brilliant.' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Left short again (Opinion & Letters). 16-17 April 2005, p.38.) In essence, it is all to do with minimising costs to help maximise profit (ie. taxes earned) for the Federal Government. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 8 May 2005 ANU demographer Professor Peter McDonald said: 'Because of the high demand for young workers skilled in new technologies my feeling is that this higher level of migration is likely to be necessary for some time. 'In today's competitive economy, which is heavily reliant on technology, there is a great need for young workers who assimilate the technology. We can't just rely on old people working longer. They are complementary [workers], not substitutes. We can't teach old dogs new tricks. We really need new tricks in the competitive global market.' (Streak, Diana. One world, one nation — Flow of migrants' skills in past, present and future growth: The Canberra Times, 7 May 2005, p.B4.) Is it true to say older unemployed people cannot be taught new skills? And why are there plenty of young Australian unemployed people willing to learn new tricks? It really is a question of providing the training, unless of course the Government wants to save money by choosing skilled migrants as the only solution (since they are already trained). We can also add to this the fact that there are plenty of Australian employers seeing the value of young skilled migrants as a way of saving money (ie. pay lower wages). The Government encourages school leavers (ie. Year 10) to enter the lean years of apprenticeship training (often requiring support from their parents to keep the young adults at home so as to minimise costs for the government and the young apprentice). Assuming, of course, there is apprenticeship training. Current estimates on the pay provided by the government for apprentices is roughly in the order of A$6 per hour. As Lisa Powick of Chapman, Canberra, wrote: 'Here's an idea for those unable to think outside the square. Pay more than the paltry $6 per hour that apprentices currently earn and perhaps some of the country's teenagers will leave their $20 per hour jobs as kitchen hands and learn a trade. 'In five years' time, Australia's current skills shortage could be over.' (Powick, Lisa. Bump up apprentice pay rates: The Canberra Times. 12 March 2005, p.B10.) Any money from the Government for apprenticeship training is primarily in hospitality and retail (eg. Australia). To reduce costs, little money is directed to training in other areas until the demand for products and services in those areas suddenly increases or there is a clear need to keep the economy going. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## September 2005 Australian Prime Minister John Howard believes too many people attend universities but not enough are doing apprenticeships. However the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) this month has unveiled figures showing the greatest need is in skilled and sophisticated training in the use of the latest technology for use in information management, administration work and other skilled jobs. And only those with a degree or diploma are the ones spearheading these mostly full-time and potentially more permanent professional and semi-professional jobs paying better than many other jobs. Apart from the construction and mining industries, the number of jobs for tradespeople are in decline. But you wouldn't think so from the way Mr Howard is talking. If one were to look at say the mid-level and elementary clerical, sales and service workers, there is a large growth in new part-time jobs (355,600 new jobs). This might support Howard's apprenticeship drive. But the reality is many employers are looking to reduce business costs by employing a significant number of people in these areas on a casual basis. This is supported by the fact that only 26,200 new full-time (and therefore potentially permanent) jobs were created in these industries. Now compare this to 781,200 new full-time jobs created for professionals, managers, administrators and semi-professionals (348,700 new part-time jobs in these areas), and it is clear the growth area is clearly in skilled, well-paid and full-time (and thus potentially more permanent) employment. And the interesting thing about this figure is that many of these jobs require good thinking skills, a trait well developed by people with degrees and diplomas who have attended universities. Far from diminishing the need for universities providing traditional "thinking" courses, the statistics indicate people with degrees and diplomas have a much higher chance of gaining more permanent, well-paid and full-time jobs in information and technology industries than in any other jobs. (Uren, David. Training trade-offs in force: The Australian. 24 September 2005, p.22.) People creating essential products for the survival of the population (eg. farmers) are giving little money for their effort. Those who receive the products later and resell them or can get the products direct to the consumer do so at premium inflated prices. If lots of people fill the shortage in workers for a particular industry, the risk of destabilising the economic system should the industry suddenly experience a decline in demand by consumers because of new technologies or changes in the international market is very high. Unemployment can suddenly jump and destabilise the economic system should one or more industries face severe hardship (eg. the sugar industry). Small businesses provide a large proportion of the jobs for people. A small number of jobs are from governments. Business professionals and governments providing the jobs are classified as employers. To lower the costs for employers, jobs will often be short-term in nature. We usually call these short-term jobs as casual and/or on a contract basis. Short-term jobs help employers to reduce costs and time involved in employing and firing someone by legally reducing the rights of people to have certain things (eg. no sick days, holidays, litigation etc). Sometimes short-term jobs may force some employers to spend more money on training every time a new employee is brought in to do the job. So it is not unusual for employers keen to reduce costs to selectively choose potential employees from job interviews who already have the skills. This leaves the governments to spend the money to train unemployed people for jobs to make them more attractive to employers. As one retired executive said about a flexible workforce working in casual positions for employers: 'They [employers] had to go after new markets, persuade people to retrain, and design new products. Anything to avoid expensive redundancy pay-outs. Now they just lay off their casuals and wait for the market up-turn, then hire a whole new set of casuals who have to be trained for the same old tasks. It's difficult to think of a more flabby way of doing things.' Employers will take advantage of people in short-term employment by getting them to do any kind of work for minimal wages and with the least amount of training required (if at all). Employers, especially the more profit-motivated ones, are likely to get a quick verbal agreement from people to accept a certain wage which is often below the standard award wage for the type of job being provided. Should staff fail to attend one day of work (even after 1, 2 or 20 years of service if they are lucky to work this long), it is likely the employers will dismiss the employee in favour of other cheap and more reliable employees. In other situations, employers are prepared to pay a little more to permanent full-time employees if the workers are prepared to convert to contract work. For example, Federal Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews has been forced to investigate claims that Melbourne company Kemalex Plastics, a supply of plastic parts for car manufacturers, is breaking the industrial law by re-employing its assembly line workers as independent contractors. Mr Andrews has felt compelled to act as a union began to campaign against Kemalex which is now spreading to its other factory in the city of Adelaide. It is claimed around 55 low-paid permanent workers earning A$12.60 an hour will be paid more if they accept contract positions. This would force the employees to take out their own Australian Business Number (ABN), pay their own superannuation and would lose entitlements to sick leave, long service leave and annual leave. In this way, employees who do take leave from work for any reason could face the sack without any rights of appeal under the unfair dismissal laws currently in place for permanent workers. The dispute is getting worse with claims that company representatives are visiting the homes of employees at night delivering threatening letters and a group of motorcyclists was used by the company to break through a picket line organised by a union in support of the vulnerable workers. (Phillips, Mark. Probe into legality of "sham contracts": The Canberra Times. 14 May 2005, p.11.) The Government has to change legislation to help classify more and more people as employees rather than "self-employed" contractors running a business (including situations where they allow recruitment agencies to match clients for them and/or after working for a period of time for one client). In that way, the Government can maximise the tax these people have to pay. An example of this has occurred in Australia where the Federal (Howard) Government has implemented such a scheme following the introduction of the GST in 2000. The jobs are relentlessly stressful to employees when they do find a job not only because employers have the upper hand when it comes to sacking their temporary and casual staff, but also because those who do have a permanent job have extra responsibilities due to a reduction in permanent staff as well as helping temporary staff to adapt to the work, not to mention the number of clients requiring assistance has suddenly increased. NOTE 1: Australian Prime Minister Mr John Howard wants to abolish state-based industrial-relations systems in favour of a single Federal industrial-relations designed to give employers greater power to decide the future of employees. For example, employers will soon be able to shorten the duration of employment, give no sick days, choose when to sack employees at any time without giving a reason (or if employees say "No" to any unreasonable or extremely difficult to fulfil requests from the employers might be reason enough to sack someone), give the least amount of wages to employees (if any wages at all given the emphasis by Australian business and government to find volunteer workers in preference over paid workers), and remove the no-disadvantage test which will see Australian Workplace Agreements undercutting existing awards. This new system is being pushed through parliament after 1 July 2005 thanks to its Senate majority. But as Family First Senator Steve Fielding said: 'Realistically it is great to have a job but there is no point in having one if it's not secure. 'The [industrial-relations] legislation that is being put forward is a lot to do with job security and I want to make sure people feel secure in their jobs.' (Peake, Ross. Lib warns Govt not to abuse majority: The Canberra Times. 2 July 2005, p.4.) The only way a job can be given a sense of greater security in the eyes of employees is if you become a manager and/or you are a very good worker. Only then will employers offer special incentives such as maternity leave, flexible hours, annual leave, sick leave and access to training as part of a more individual Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) to keep you in the job and get your complete loyalty to the business or government department. Otherwise, for ordinary workers including school-leavers, AWAs will offer virtually no incentives and, given the shear number of such workers, be based on collective agreements. For these workers, these will become what New Zealanders describe as the working poor. This is based on a solid 14 years experience after New Zealand went through a similar reform in 1991. As former Australian Prime Minister Mr Bob Hawke said: 'What chance has a young kid got, particularly if they were going into an industrial situation, of bargaining with an employer?' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Great conciliator joins industrial relations war 9-10 July 2005, p.4.) NOTE 2: For ordinary workers, employers will use limited funding as the preferred excuse for offering short-term employment. At first, potential employees may apply for what appears to be a permanent job. Then discover on being offered the job by the employer that the job is for 3 months or less to see how the employees do their jobs. Afterwards a decision might be made to extend the job's duration. But if not, employers will pretend to have a reason for sacking employees by claiming inadequate funding (instead of training, finding more suitable employment, give incentives, improve work conditions etc). This avoids creating the impression in the employees' minds of possible discrimination by the employers and so protect their bottom-line and their reputations. The current employment situation sees more and more people looking increasingly desperate for any type of job and in keeping it once they find one, even if it is not what they like or enjoy. Requirements of "Love whatever work you're in", "Smile constantly", "Get cosmetic surgery to force a natural smile", "Lift up your breasts and make them look bigger", "Lose weight" and so on, start to become the norm for staying in the job longer. Otherwise some employers will find an excuse to sack employees for not "looking right" for the job. To keep the jobs, people are often prepared to work overtime, perform shift work, work faster and within tighter deadlines, and even go without holidays and accept overtime just to prove to the employer how valuable they are at work. The consequence of this approach is that there is often very little time to do anything else other than work. Thus all those other important things like family life, exercising, sleeping and eating a good diet are often overlooked. Then the children of these overworked parents grow up with poor food eating habits, too much watching television or playing games on the computers if not preoccupied with homework, become obese, display poor behavioural manners when dealing with strangers, and have little person-to-person communication unless it is on the Internet. Or people may decide not to have a family at all so they can perform their work without other stressors to contend with. Staying single or getting a divorce is therefore quite common. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 25 October 2003 It is actually easier and less costly to co-habit with one or more people under one roof. The expectations on individuals to meet the needs of others becomes much less and therefore people can live with far less financial and social stress. As a result, the divorce rate is now no higher than in 1981 because people are choosing cohabitation as the way to survive today. However while divorce rates for married couples remain high, those co-habitation circumstances leading to a de facto relationship between two people are increasingly likely to experience a break up now than had occurred in the past. According to recent statistics on Australian couples, as early as 1970s, only 16 per cent of people had lived with their partner before getting married. In 1995, the figure has jumped to 72 per cent. When couples do actually get married within 5 fives of co-habiting under the same roof, 64 per cent would do so back in the early 1970s. In the 1990s, the figure has gone down to 40 per cent. And when couples co-habiting under the same roof decide to break up, the figure was 40 per cent in the 1990s compared to 22 per cent in the 1970s. Of course, in such potentially intimate arrangements between couples (usually of opposite sexes) children may be brought into the world. Consequently this explains why more and more children are living with a sole parent (usually with the mother) today. The statistics support this view when we see that around 3 per cent of children born to a sole mother occurred between 1963 and 1975. In 2001, the figure has grown to 11.4 per cent. These figures were drawn from a study conducted by Professor David de Vaus at the Sociology Department in La Trobe University. The results were published by the university in a book titled Diversity and Change in Australian Families. To get people to accept temporary or casual employment considered hard to fill, the Government and businesses are prepared to pay a higher than usual starting hourly pay rate just to get people into the jobs and later reduce the pay rate or allow the Government or businesses to reduce the work during the course of the contract and so give them the power to pay less to people for doing less work. Unfortunately, due partly to profit motivations and/or high population levels, the jobs will have little or no certainty in how long people can stay in the jobs. In the case where employment is permanent and often advertised in the employment sections of papers, these are usually highly multiskilled and stressful positions where people stay for only a short while. The Government and businesses will try to keep people in these positions for as long as possible through extremely high salary levels, but the truth is most people get out of these positions as soon as they have earned enough or cannot cope with the job so they can enjoy a seachange because of the stresses of work. The people who manage to keep their jobs permanently and stay in the jobs for a long time are over 40 years of age, highly "L-brain" people, living very well off at home and socially, who support the policies of R-wing governments of the day, and will never want to share their jobs with younger people for fear of losing the jobs until they retire. And even then, people who do take over the jobs must have a similar belief system and thinking as the original people who owned the job. Hence the economic system is maintained as usual. In support of the higher numbers of people competing for employment and the need for more and more people to be multiskilled and to work faster, students at school are made to follow a similar trend. From primary school right up to college, students are placed in large class sizes and are forced to complete a large number of different courses in a short timeframe in order to get a reasonably broad (but not indepth) range of skills. The Government starts to blame people for not finding jobs or accepting certain jobs when they are provided. The easiest target to blame someone are the people termed the unemployed. A great deal of effort is made by the government to highlight the odd few individuals who abuse the social security system in an attempt to convince taxpayers all unemployed people must be rorting the system. Then the government feel they are morally in their rights to subject the unemployed to an unexpected overpayments which have to be paid back often at a late stage, a sudden and unexpected reduction in rental assistance from the government, the use of secret surveillance activities to find out whether people are doing the right thing or not, indirectly influencing the disadvantaged to join the Defence force, reducing government funding to public educational institutions in order to get the disadvantaged to join the Defence force or to enter specific areas of employment which the Government wants (2). The Government and businesses use dubious methods of negotiation in an attempt to get what they want, instead of doing the right thing of ensuring there is a Win/Win situation for everyone by asking, listening and implementing everyone's own potential solution to society's problems. For an example of the dubious negotiation methods employed by the current Australian Federal (Howard) Government, take a look at this article; The terms of a legally-binding document and the activities to be performed by the unemployed such as the Preparing for Work Agreement at Centrelink in Australia is not properly negotiated by the Government and Job Network members. For example, the Agreement prepared by the Federal Government and the activities to be performed are selected by the Job Network member and the Government without negotiation. To get the unemployed to sign quickly without giving them an opportunity to read the terms and the activities, time is often heavily restricted to the unemployed and the Job Network member will even complain to the unemployed about wasting time and therefore are not serious at looking for work. And if that psychological tactic of frightening the unemployed to do the right thing is not possible, the unemployed may receive a letter prior to attending the interview for negotiating the Agreement stating a particular activity has been chosen for the unemployed and must be performed without negotiation in the hope of avoiding having any discussions about the activity in the interview. Hence any financial hardships the unemployed may experience in performing that activity is not considered important when preparing the Agreement. The aim is to make it as hard as possible so that the unemployed may hopefully suddenly find "employment" just to save time and money for the Federal Government. For example, if an unemployed person finds a mandatory activity in his letter that he must attend the Job Network member at least three times a week to be financially difficult due to transport costs, there will neither be financial assistance from the Government to solve the problem, nor will there be negotiations to reduce the number of visitations per week. Also, the Government may ask Job Network providers to give a subtle description for the forced sign-up of job seekers into slave labour Work-for-the-Dole programs of the Government's own choosing as an information seminar. In truth the Government really wants all job seekers to participate in programs run like you are in the Army with no choices and with no expectation of job seekers ever having a future of their own (ie. limited training, doing only manual labour jobs, and with no guarantees of permanency and pay in those areas in the real world). And once the job seekers are in the programs, it is also possible for the Government to choose a time when there is turmoil and disorganisation within the programs (eg. staff are moving to new premises, staff are still working out a training program etc). This is a subtle way of seeing whether it is possible to create evidence of a lack of motivation and seriousness in job seekers in doing work because of the disruptions. And if the job seekers keep asking for things to do, very specific and difficult jobs are provided without a discussion of the big picture just to put them under considerable stress. The Australian Federal (Howard) Government knows they can do this because as L-brain people it is okay to influence job seekers to join the Defence forces or force job seekers into specific boxes to help minimise costs and maximise profit for society while at the same time they can take advantage of unemployed people with their limited education and/or experience to do slave labour or put them under stress. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 27 September 2005 Professor Jeff Borland has co-authored a study with Yi-Ping Tseng known as Does work for the dole work?. According to the study of 800 participants in the World-for-the-Dole pilot phase in 1997-98 compared to people who also received unemployment payments but did not participate in the Work-for-the-Dole program, the researchers discovered people on Work-for-the-Dole tend to stay on unemployment benefits instead of actually getting them into employment. The problem with Work-for-the-Dole programs is that they do not provide the actual skills and qualifications needed to get into paid employment. There also had to be incentives to get people to to continue job searching. As Professor Borland said: 'Originally, the work-for-the-dole program had the objectives of gaining work experience, building networks, improving self-esteem, and contributing to projects that are of value to the community. 'It was quite clear this was part of the armoury of policies to attack the problem of youth unemployment. 'You would have to say that the available evidence is that this scheme has not been successful in moving people more quickly to work or providing significant skills.' (The Daily Telegraph: Work for the dole not working. 26 September 2005) ******* Here are more examples: the terms of the Agreement can be written in such a way that the Job Provider and the Federal Government need not have to provide documentary evidence of any kind prior to certain events taking place (eg. appointments, job interviews etc) or when they wish to vary the Agreement, there is nothing the job seeker can do about it except perhaps write a letter after the Agreement has been signed explaining the problems. And if the Job Provider or the Federal Government chooses to provide written evidence, it is given after the event has taken place but with the opportunity to vary what was verbally agreed. In that way, the Federal Government can claim the job seeker had not listened properly and had not met the obligations to find work. Hence the job seeker will be breached and efforts will be made to keep the person off unemployment benefits (or penalised with reduced payments) for as long as possible. And there is nothing in the terms to allow the job seeker to give reasons or to be provided with any evidence the Government may have against the job seeker as it tries to implement a cost-cutting program that would involve breaching the job seeker for any wrong-doing. As one anonymous Australian job seeker has written in a letter to the Federal Government on this issue in August 2002: 'With regards to this [Intensive Assistance] Agreement, I wish to state that I'm not entirely happy with the way it was negotiated and prepared. Apart from the fact that [Job Provider] doesn't have enough resources to help me perform certain approved activities like getting work experience because of a lack of insurance, I have to say that the terms of the Agreement have been written in such a way that the Job Provider and the Federal Government don't have to provide documentary evidence of any kind prior to [or any reasons why] certain events taking place or when they wish to vary the Agreement... 'What I would like to have included in the Agreement is to have some form of written documentary evidence sent to me prior to an important event (such as a Centrelink appointment, job interviews etc) taking place... 'I wish to mention these requirements because being unemployed for a long time and after experiencing numerous overpayments and other stresses in the past has made it difficult for me to remember all the details needed to meet my obligations in the Agreement for the Federal Government and therefore need something to refer to in case I have other things to do. 'Similarly should the Intensive Assistance Agreement be varied by the Job Provider, Centrelink, or any other government department, I would like to be notified in writing and for the details to be properly negotiated with me before implementing the changes. 'My other requirement is that should Centrelink consider having me breached for not meeting my obligations under the Agreement, I wish to have the opportunity to explain my situation. As it currently stands in the Agreement, it appears I do not have a right to provide a reason before a breach takes place and there is no indications of what my rights are should a breach occur. 'I have asked my case manager [name withheld], a recruitment specialist at [Job Provider], to include all of this into my Agreement, but to no avail. I have been told such an Agreement would not be allowed in accordance with Federal Government policy.' The Government has to influence certain Job Providers to behave in unfavourable ways toward their clients (ie. job seekers). For example, Job Providers may be asked to give only verbal advice such as how busy they are with another client and that they will soon make an appointment to see the job seekers, but conveniently never come around to making one despite regular requests from the job seekers. Weeks, even months, may go by and the Job Providers will do nothing. Even if the job seekers hand in an application form or selection criteria to the Job Providers for advice, they may not say anything about it. Then Job Providers may choose to go the opposite way for the Government and have interviews with job seekers when they want to on a regular basis (now very common as Job Providers have managed to get agreement for the Government to pay Providers for each interview they make with job seekers). If the job seekers miss one interview, no matter what good reason is given by the job seekers, the Job Providers may selectively choose to interpret the situation as the job seeker choosing to cancel the interview or not attending and hence must be seen as a lack of interest in finding employment. Then the job seeker may be breached or, in the latest deal, suspend payments for two weeks or more forcing the unemployed to delve into theft or other criminal activity to make their money. Please note that the new deal to cut-off social security payments known as a "suspension" rather than a full on breach will involve contacting the unemployed by telephone only twice in two days. Failure to reply to the phone calls will see the Job Network member provide a Participation Report to Centrelink who in turn will make two telephone calls to the unemployed "usually within two days". There is no indication of whether the job seeker would have avenues to provide reasons for not being able to contact the Job Network member or Centrelink (eg. lying in a hospital unconscious for four days, Telstra has disconnected the phone line for unpaid telephone/Internet bills, etc). Furthermore the Federal Government and participating Job Network members needing the Government funding can be extremely nasty to the job seekers to the point of being "trigger happy" when they want to decide on an interview usually at an inconvenient time for the job seeker (ie. at the end of the fortnightly period where income is particularly low for job seekers or simply because a particular day is just not suitable when dealing with other matters). Then the Job Network member can claim they have called the job seeker by telephone for the interview but may choose not to leave a message on the messagebank or virtual answering machine (now free with Telstra). Or they may not use the free email address of the job seeker even if the job seeker requests the information be provided this way. One should note a Job Network member supporting the Government's aims can now mark interviews chosen at times to suit the Job Network member as "cancelled" and create a new interview time of their own choosing instead of having just one interview categorised as "rescheduled" only once after negotiating the times with the job seeker. This makes extra money for the Job Network member for each interview created. But it can also help the Federal Government create alleged evidence of a consistent pattern of failing to attend interviews by a job seeker. In that way, the Government can claim the job seeker is not serious at looking for work and therefore should be suspended or breached on the grounds that he/she is constantly and deliberately "cancelling" the interviews, when in truth the interview times were never negotiated with the job seeker until the Job Network member is forced to provide a suitable time. But by then, the pattern has already been created and the information will be used against the job seeker. The same tactic is used at the actual interview. When a job seeker comes to the interview expecting a one-on-one discussion with the Job Network member of the various activities to be negotiated and requirements of the job seeker and then sign a Preparing for Work Agreement, the job seeker will instead be thrown into another meeting of job seekers (including a Centrelink staff member acting as a job seeker) who have already signed the Agreement and have agreed to certain rules — rules which were not negotiated or discussed with the targeted job seeker prior to attending the meeting. The aim is again to create evidence of the job seeker not willing to participate in searching for work. As Democrat employment spokesperson Mr John Cherry said: 'In the seven months to February 2003, 160,800 breach recommendations from Tony Abbott's Job Network were rejected by Centrelink, including: 37,300 for not considering reasonable and valid excuses; 13,600 because the job seeker was incapacitated; 14,000 because the job seeker had moved or the letter was sent to the wrong address; 4,700 because duplicate reports had been submitted; 3,500 because of inappropriate referrals; 2,300 because the wrong letter was sent; 2,200 because the job seekers didn't understand the request; 2,400 because they were at a job interview at the time; 17,800 because the job seeker was working at the time of the interview.' (3) Cherry believes an improvement to the Job Network system run by more compassionate people will go a long way to ensuring administrative errors are minimised, job seekers gain access to proper services, and all job seekers are treated like human beings even when breaches may be recommended by members of the Job Network system. But while the Federal (Howard) Government remains in Office, the aim will not be of a compassionate nature. Rather, the aim will be to deter job seekers from performing certain activities so that the Government can later get the job seekers into trouble for not meeting their obligations. In the end, it is all about saving money for the Government who would prefer to spend it in other areas (mainly as part of the Defence budget) or to make the economy look good on the world stage. And the Government has to do it by influencing Job Network members to behave in certain adverse ways towards selected job seekers (usually the long-term unemployed). For example, media reports published by radio and television on 20 September 2002 has revealed complaints from Job Providers that the Australian Federal (Howard) Government via the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) and Centrelink are influencing them to act in certain socially unacceptable ways towards a number of job seekers. Job Providers cannot be named or give specific examples for fear they would lose their funding from the Government. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 2 October 2003 The Australian Federal (Howard) Government has now decided to target males aged between 25 and 54 who are unemployed because it is believed these people represent a threat to society. Why? What kind of threat are we talking about? Does that mean unemployed males are more dangerous than terrorists? Or is it because they are more likely to be unemployed than the opposite gender and probably get into trouble because society doesn't encourage them to achieve any worthwhile goal for the good of all? Perhaps the Federal (Howard) Government is contemplating a national sex day to ensure all unemployed males have a family to support and hence a better prospect of finding a job and so ultimately maintain the economic system? Or maybe the Government wants to force all unemployed people into the Armed forces (especially males)? ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 31 July 2004 Chief Executive of Centrelink, Ms Sue Vardon, has sent an email to all staff earlier this month requesting no further information is to be leaked to "the media, unions and political parties". As the email stated, Ms Vardon believed it was "disappointing to see negative stories about Centrelink in the media that have clearly originated from internal information leaked by employees." Ms Vardon further goes on to say that: 'Integrity has always been part of our shared behaviours and I know that we all take great pride in this. 'The leaking of official information or making public comment, including to the media, unions and political parties, is counter-productive and damages Centrelink's reputation among the public, customers, client departments and fellow public service agencies. 'We are all part of the Australian Public Service and have a duty to behave according to the values and behaviours expected of us.' (4) So much for Ms Vardon's effort to stop the leaks. The email containing the above quote was eventually leaked to the media within a matter of weeks! Ms Vardon was not available for comment on this latest bad publicity to emerge from Centrelink. Instead she chose to set a fine example of the behaviour public servants should be displaying to the public through the "no comments" attitude and "everything is fine at Centrelink" statement. We wish her well in her endeavours to make Centrelink look positive to the public! The Government will attempt to develop a case from selection criteria responses of selected long-term unemployed persons sent to Government departments that they do not deserve support from the Government because the unemployed are capable of doing any kind of job without looking at the problem of getting experience needed to convince employers of employing the unemployed. Or why not the government employ them? The Government have to use a market research company to indirectly find out if certain long-term unemployed persons are not seriously looking for work and then secretly use the information to justify breaching the person for not meeting their obligations. For example, in Australia, the Federal Government agency Centrelink may employed a company like Orima Research P/L (as of February 2003) to conduct an unexpected survey with selected long-term unemployed persons. The survey will be verbal and conducted over the telephone. The questions asked in the 20-minute survey are framed initially to focus on Centrelink services and how the unemployed person perceives the level of service provided to him/her and later towards the end focus on questions where the unemployed person has to give his/her level of agreement or disagreement to statements provided by the market research company. These last set of statements would help to reveal the unemployed person's general view on unemployment and whether he/she is looking for work. Although by law the market research company is required to keep the responses from the unemployed person confidential and used in a general way without identifying specific individuals via the telephone number, there is no reason why the Government could not indirectly obtain specific information through legal loopholes or other devious means. For example, one unemployed person has managed to discover the survey can be conducted at least 7 days before the official Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) letter explaining the survey is sent to the person (even though the letter should take less than two days to deliver by standard post). The letter invites unemployed people to participate in the survey and that it will be conducted in the next week or two. However, because the survey was conducted before the official letter was sent to the unemployed person, this allows DEWR to avoid getting into trouble with the law if they are found to be accessing the responses from the unemployed person before the letter was released. All that DEWR has to do is show the letter was sent after the actual survey was conducted. In that way, it can cover their legal "ass" by claiming they are not responsible for Orima Research deciding to conduct the survey earlier than usual and providing the responses to DEWR before the letter was sent. This is how DEWR / Centrelink staff can secretly determine any angle by which the responses from the unemployed person can be used against the person. The telephone number of the market research company will also not be displayed on the unemployed person's telephone during the survey so he will not be able to call directly to the staff member of the company concerned. The staff member may also give a bogus or incorrect telephone number when asked by the unemployed person for identification. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## November 2005 Centrelink (ie. the Federal Government run by R-wing christians) will also get indirect assistance from a government-funded agency such as the christian-based organisation named Lifeline Australia to obtain information (which may be used by the Government to incriminate the person or reduce possible future financial assistance) by temporarily employing a long-term unemployed person in a job. Any evidence of premature quitting from the job (reasons are not considered) will definite be used by Centrelink to suggest the person is not seriously looking for work. Attempts will also be made by participating agencies to offer the person alternative employment in another agency of the same employment duration as the current job so that Centrelink can later claim the person is deliberate not interested in sticking to one employer and finding permanent employment. Otherwise if all else fails, information from telephone calls made by the person (for determining relationships with people) will be gathered and used by Centrelink. The agency will also have access to faxes sent to the person by having one staff process the faxes electronically and emailed to the person. A psychologist may also be "suddenly employed" in the same or similar position" (eg. in data entry) and will work directly opposite or adjacent to the person in order to make assessments of the person in the workplace. Questions about whether the person is running a business will be asked to see if the person can financially support him/herself. If little information can be gathered, access to certain web sites at work may be denied to the person. Access to illegal web sites not relevant to work and/or the extra costs incurred for unusually high downloads per month are often mentioned by IT help desk. An IT help desk will then ask the person who wants to unblock a web site how he/she is accessing the site. The web address will often show the username and password to the help desk person where the data can be sent to Centrelink. It will also help Centrelink to determine whether the person is running a business online through a particular web site accessed through the agency's web servers. When IT help desk is questioned more specifically about this, the person will later be told that there is in fact no penalty or extra costs for Internet access. Just a mistake on the IT help desk side it would appear. The changes were mainly to speed up internet access by installing a proxy server to help cache web sites people access. No monitoring or other secret agendas (highly questionable). Yet the person under surveillance (useful for anti-terrorism work as well) will also discover the original email suggesting the reasons for blocking web sites and setting up a proxy server has never reached anyone else in the office. Email address for the person targeted is hidden by a generic address book name suggesting everyone received the email. Yet no one talks about the email. And when asked, staff look puzzled and have no idea what you are talking about. Then hopefully everything will return to normal. Behind the scenes, however, Centrelink will try to use this information secretly to inspect personal email accounts, files and anything else from the person having the same password protection. Personal belongings left unattended at the person's work desk for a long enough period of time is another source of value information. The ultimate aim here is to find anything to suggest Centrelink may have a legal avenue not to financially support the person in the future should he/she become unemployed again. In fact, it might be better to find anything illegal so the person can be sent to prison instead of receiving social security benefits. These are just the tip of the iceberg of the sorts of things the Federal Government will do to save money. To cover up the low budget spending in social security services where possible and so pretend everything is okay, the Government has to employ within the social security system over a hundred psychologists and psychiatrists nationally in attempt to get as many unemployed people off welfare benefits altogether or onto lower levels of financial support where possible so that the statistics for unemployment will look better for the Government and at the same time will not have to spend too much money on supporting the human population. Afterwards, the government will try to use the statistics for the number of unemployed people on welfare in the future to convince the public that the government is really doing the right thing in the hope of being reelected at the next election. Evidence for this massive Government interest in employing psychologists (and psychiatrists) at Centrelink appeared in the employment section of The Canberra Times dated 13 April 2002. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 1 May 2003 Some young psychologists are now being used by Centrelink to pose as employment consultants for selected Job Network Members. The aim of these psychologists is to find any evidence that certain job seekers are not seriously looking for work. For example, one long-term unemployed person arriving at a Job Network member for the first time has noted how an employment consultant was "suddenly" employed by the member. During conversations with the consultant, the job seeker discovers he/she is a psychologist. But even if the unemployed person mentions personal issues such as unstable accommodation and the consultant claims to have listened and written down what was said so that other services could be employed, at the next meeting, the consultant will not ask about this. The consultant's aim is purely to find evidence that the job seeker is not serious at looking for work. NOTE: Using young professional psychologists at Centrelink in this manner also helps the Government to later claim they are not responsible for any wrong doing because all the Government has to legally say is the psychologists were too young and hence "inexperienced" in what they were doing. Where there is a sudden influx of psychiatrists and psychologists going into certain Government institutions in the attempt to support the generally heartless aims of the Government, the non-Government institutions that require the same specialists are often struggling to find enough of them to support a range of more socially-responsible programs of helping people who suffer from mental illness or other problems. As the number of people experiencing mental illness increases in society, these latter institutions with limited funds, staff numbers and other resources are faced with the unenviable task of trying to minimise support to these mental health sufferers and then have them put back into society as quickly as possible for them to survive on their own with hopefully no further follow-up support. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 4 October 2003 The current Australian Federal (Howard) Government has increased welfare spending from 34.7 per cent in 1996 to 41.0 per cent today (a more meaningful way of understanding where the budget goes instead of looking in terms of how many billions of dollars were spent). Based on these figures one would think the Government is doing the right thing by supporting the unemployed until they find a job. What is not revealed by the figures, however, is the fact that the increase was necessary partly to offset the increase in the cost of living for average unemployed Australians due to the GST (the Government has already partly offset the effect of GST by lowering income tax for working Australians), and the fact that many people are finding themselves regularly in casual employment followed by unemployment, then casual employment again, followed by unemployment and so on. This is despite the Government's recent announcement that it has managed to create up to 68,000 new jobs (mostly short-term casual jobs by the way). As a result of the increase in welfare spending, the Australian Federal (Howard) Government has, since 1996, taken on a view that all unemployed people are not serious at looking for work, especially the long-term unemployed. And some of the techniques employed by the Government to reduce welfare spending to its absolute minimum has been socially harmful and devious to say the least as we shall see later in this document. The latest technique used by the Australian Federal (Howard) Government as of August 2003 to reduce funding to the long-term unemployed involves being careful to look like they have the money for training and other needy areas (eg. stable accommodation, obtain full Driver's license, training etc) and the signed Centrelink Preparing for Work Agreement and Job Search Plan would suggest this (to help convince outside observers that the Government appears to be doing the right thing) but in fact are choosing to delay as much as possible (through excuses like they are too busy) and/or generally finding reasons not to let the money or other support services go to the unemployed. For example, the Government will come up with a reason for refusing a support service or funding in an Agreement by saying the unemployed person must first find a job with an employer and for the employer to agree to the benefits if it is considered important for the job, which naturally defeats the purpose of getting the funding and support in the first place to help value-add and increase the probability of the person getting a job with an employer. So while some unemployed people are denied access to funding and support for this reason, the problem of unemployment will remain and the piece of paper signed by the unemployed will be used by the Government to give the impression that they are doing the right thing. Job Network members are secretly being asked by the Federal (Howard) Government through Centrelink and DEWR offices to behave in this way towards the long-term unemployed. The ultimate aim is presumably to force the long-term unemployed to join the Armed forces, commit suicide, enter a mental institution, or else survive homeless and starving on the streets for a while if they don't go to prison after committing a crime. Just so long as these people are no longer classified on the statistics as 'unemployed' so the Federal Government can win the next election. Whereas people who formerly had a disability pension are usually forced to receive donations from the more compassionate sector of the Australian community. People working for the Department of Social Security or the policy arm of employment services (eg. Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, with help from Defence) may also employ techniques to determine whether certain unemployed people receiving financial assistance from the Federal Government are declaring the correct type of relationship as this will affect the payment received by the disadvantaged person. In other words, any unemployed person who claims to be living in a border arrangement with someone else may be tested by the Federal Government to determine whether this is the case or, in fact, may be in a de facto relationship. If the Federal Government can create any kind of evidence to suggest it could be a de facto relationship, the disadvantaged person will be breached and could lose all social security benefits. For example, certain people working for Defence and/or the Federal Government may bring with them, or allow their associates and/or family members to bring with them, their babies or children, or to discuss ideas of sex and contraception, in a social discussion to see what the reaction is. In that way, the Government can hopefully determine whether the relationship between the unemployed person and the individual providing the accommodation is not what it seems. In other circumstances, the unemployed person may be subjected to a form of sexual harressment from a stranger of the opposite sex outside of the home environment to see whether or not the person already has a de facto relationship with someone else or is prepared to get into a girl/boyfriend relationship with that person doing practically all of the harrassing. The sole aim of this devious tactic is to create evidence that a de facto relationship probably does exist. In that way, the unemployed person can be breached for not declaring the relationship to the Government which would otherwise result in a reduction in the amount of financial assistance the person gets and thus deny further assistance to the unemployed person. The Government has to use dubious means of getting the disadvantaged into the Defence forces. For example, it would not be unusual if young Defence cadets were to suddenly hang around near a long-term unemployed person who happens to be at one regular location (eg. the library), and start talking about how great it is to be in Defence, getting paid for going to university etc. If that does not provide sufficient indirect incentive to get the long-term unemployed person into the Defence forces, there is also the nasty approach which is to find anything the disadvantaged person may be doing wrong and try to get them into trouble with the law until the person cannot continue with his/her activities. You write a letter to the Federal Government department whose job it is to tackle employment issues about this Defence solution for unemployed people (eg. DEWR), and a letter comes back to you from a policy officer saying along the lines of: '...it is now standard government policy to include the Defence forces as part of a complete solution to the unemployment problem. Therefore if you want to join the Defence forces, there is nothing stopping you from doing so.' The Government has to change the eligibility requirements for receiving disability pension from the Government from 20 hours per week to 6 hours per week of employment. So if the Government can find a way to argue that a disabled person can work at least 6 hours per week in any job, then the person will receive less support from the government and the government can be seen as if there is no unemployment to report. As Annette Ellis MP, Australian Federal Member for Canberra and Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Minister for Family and Community Services, has commented: 'As part of the Budget measures, the Coalition [ie. Liberal (Howard) Government] sought to restrict access to the DSP [Disability Support Pension] by dramatically changing the eligibility criteria. The most significant change was a proposal to reduce the activity test from 30 to 15 hours per week. The Australian Labor Party refused to support this Bill. The Government withdrew the Bill. 'The Government has introduced a new Bill which appears to be identical. This second Bill proposes that those receiving DSP up to 30th June 2003 will continue to be accessed under the old rules, but any application (or reapplication) after 30th June 2003 will be subject to much harsher conditions. These include the requirement that anyone considered able to work more than 15 hours each week should be on Newstart [which pays a lower rate of support] rather than DSP. 'Our objection is based on these harsh new rules, not on the date from which they will be applied. Should this second Bill be passed, we would have people with the same disability paid different rates, and under different conditions, depending not on their condition, but on when they qualified for DSP. 'We cannot see the fairness in this.' (5) ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## December 2005 A wrath of social security reforms have taken place. Most are designed to force disabled people to work. To reduce the blow, those on genuine disability pensions under the age of 21 years will receive an extra $6,80 to A$10.50 per fortnight in social security payments. Those disabled people classified as unemployed because it is claimed they can work 6 hours per week will be pleased to know they can enjoy a lower rate of pay known as Newstart Allowance. See it as an incentive from the Government to find a job and earn the extra 6 hours of work to cover the loss and hopefully be enough to survive. Mind you, one should always be grateful. There are many countries in the world that don't have social security of any kind. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 11 March 2006 The Australian Federal (Howard) Government is realising 2007 is an election year. So now the intention is to be seen like doing the right thing on a social level. Not targeting the disabled this time, the latest news suggests the Government will provide up to two years of rehabilitation to injured and sick people to get them off welfare and into work. The requirement is that if as a sick or injured person you can work 15 hours per week, your sickness or injury is not that serious so do some work. The only exception to this rule are the severely ill people (basically you have to carry the bird flu or have something else really drastically wrong with you); these people will go on disability pension. As Human Services Minister Joe Hockey said: 'You're only asked to go to work if you have the capacity to work 15 hours a week after up to two years of rehabilitation.' (The Canberra Times: Welfare to work. 11 March 2006, p.4.) and plus financial penalties and other punishment regimes to make the incentive to go to work sound more attractive. It is known as The Job Capacity Assessment Program. Another way for the Government (notably the Australian Federal (Howard) Government) to look like they are doing the right thing (as of September 2003) for long-term unemployed is to work with certain private contracting agencies who can provide temporary employment to certain long-term unemployed people. Now this may seem noble on the surface of things, but if you look carefully at the type of jobs being made available to the long-term unemployed, they tend to be the occasional 1-day job interspersed with long spells of no job at all as if short-term employment like this will permanently solve the unemployment crisis. Furthermore the jobs tend to come around just before election time in the hope the unemployed will be kind enough to reelect the same government. Long-term unemployed people often need stable, long-term (preferably permanent) employment to allow them to build up their self-esteem, confidence in society, and skills and experience in the job itself. This is simply not possible with 1-day jobs, or as some people describe it, "The quick bang, thank you ma'am" approach to solving social problems. Another angle the Australian Federal (Howard) Government will apply to reduce unemployment numbers involves making life difficult for the unemployed people in achieving their obligated job searching and training activities by employing a Government official (posing as an ordinary staff person for a local Job Network member). ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## September 2003 The Australian Federal (Howard) Government has issued to the Australian media on 11 September 2003 an unemployment figure considered the lowest in 13 years. The Federal Treasurer Mr Peter Costello who released the figure claims he is surprised by the result and can't understand why it is so low! The Government claims to have created over 68,000 new jobs but the figures are believed to be lower than expected. Perhaps Costello should also release the figures for the people who had to leave their new short-term or casual jobs after a day or maybe (if lucky) a few months before going back on the dole. And when they were forced back on the dole, whether they were forced to join the Armed forces thinking this is the answer to the unemployment problem, world security, and the expected Budget deficit in the economy over the coming 40 years as more money is spent on Defence and the cost of health and education is too great as the population grows ever skyward? Or what about those joining the ranks of criminality in society as the alternative solution to the unemployment problem? By having these figures on hand as well, maybe Costello could have revealed the real truth behind the unemployment figures! ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 8 November 2003 The level of unemployment has dropped even further to a 22-year record low of 6 per cent and the Federal Treasurer Mr Peter Costello has just realised why there is such a low unemployment figure in Australia. The government has introduced suspensions in the social security system and have developed devious ways of creating evidence in an attempt to justify the view that the unemployed are not serious at looking for work or are not doing the right thing and therefore deserve to be suspended. Yes, now we know! In the meantime, the level of crime on the streets is increasing with property being damaged or stolen. Where the Government saves money in social security, it is later spent on law enforcement. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## July 2004 The election is nearly upon the Australian Federal (Howard) Government and now Prime Minister John Howard and his ministers has suddenly seen the need to shower a few thousand long-term unemployed people with short-term government-related jobs in the new financial year and especially ones they can easily do for about 3 months in duration or less (ie. where no training is required). Just long enough to hopefully convince the unemployed how wonderful the Government is in solving unemployment and also the average citizen when they see how much lower the unemployment figure has reached. But do expect Mr Howard to later reintroduce his world infamous draconian measures of punishing the unemployed and placing them in hardship once more after he is reelected, if he is lucky again. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## October 2004 Prime Minister John Howard is re-elected. It makes you wonder what people were drinking at the time to bring this person back into office. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## March 2005 The reality behind the low unemployment figures is unravelling itself this month with news that the real jobless rate is actually closer to 14.8 per cent, not the official jobless rate of 5.1 per cent from the Federal Government which would have been the lowest in Australia for 28 years. It is called the hidden jobless pool estimated at an extra 1.2 million people beyond those officially classified by the government as unemployed and out of a total 3.8 million people of workforce age but not included as being either employed or officially unemployed. The 1.2 million consisting of those Australian individuals wanting to find work but are forced to stay at home because of (i) inadequate child care; (ii) they feel "too old" given the way employers discriminate older workers in favour of young, more naive, pay less and easily moulded people under 35 years of age; (iii) they had physical disabilities or illness; (iv) they lacked necessary skills or training; (iv) no appropriate jobs in their local area; and/or (iii) other factors. The ability to pay less to employees is actually an important point. Employers will try to take advantage of young people because they do not always know the minimum wage for the jobs. Pushing the boundary of how much less they can pay their employees is seen as good business sense. But when there is talk in the community of a minimum wage rise or employees ask for a rise in their wages, the employers will usually sack their employees and employ another cheap workforce and later complain publicly a rise in the minimum wage would result in a loss in jobs when in truth they are protecting their own profits. Lower wages suit young single people, not those who may have a family to support, have a disability, need training and extra skills, or who are older. The solution to this problem, according to the Federal Government under the auspices eyes of Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews, is to introduce the biggest industrial relations reform in Australian history. Up to 3.6 million workers will be affected by the new Federal workplace reforms. The reforms would see employers able to sack employees without a reason and a greater opportunity for employers to choose more casual employees willing to accept lower wages. To put it succinctly, the reforms are based on the assumption that "management knows best" and what the employee thinks is irrelevant, exactly as we see in the American system. Somehow we feel the industrial reforms or the latest welfare reforms on suspending the unemployed based on contrived evidence or poorly-interpreted and biased evidence gathered through surveillance activities will not solve the obstacles to gaining employment and providing job security. Rather, it will create a working poor of the 19th century where businesses chose the lowest paid workers to work anywhere in almost any condition, for any amount of time the employers want, for the sake of maintaining the only ugly beast that matters to businesses and governments: the economic/capitalist system. At present the Federal Government is providing a Trojan Horse on minimum wages to voters by claiming it will set up a so-called new Fair Pay Commission to set the minimum wage. But this move is a smokescreen designed entirely to convince hapless voters the reforms are okay and necessary for Australia. Once the reforms are in, there would be no reason for the Commission to exist. So under the disguise of funding cutbacks, the Commission will go and the minimum wages will fall to any amount. Welcome to the 19th century! Already signs are heading in this direction with news of German employers auctioning jobs online where the winning bidder will earn the right to work at the lowest pay possible. Germany has no minimum wage and with high unemployment reaching 12 per cent, the government is prepared to let businesses dictate the conditions and pay though an auctioning system. For an example of this, visit http://jobdumping.de/. More controversial are the type of jobs people are expected to apply for in Germany. For example, Germany has recognised prostitution as a profession for several years. So now the German government has decided to treat prostitutes as employees/employers and therefore subject to pay taxes just like any other worker. As a consequence of this decision, the ban on sex industry employers to advertise at job centres has been lifted. Furthermore German women offered to work as prostitutes could face a cut to their social security benefits if they refuse. In Australia, the Federal Government is increasing the levels of unemployment to force this kind of demand for any job in people and at the same time ensure the lowest possible wages are paid by employers once the industrial reforms are passed after 1 July 2005. It is doing this by getting single mothers and the disabled to join the unemployment queue. And it is all because there are too many ordinary people to support (sounds more like too many Defence people to support given how much money continues to be spent in weapons and Defence), many of which are old and wanting to live a convenient life in the cities without contributing much more to society except to consume products. So what's stopping the Australian Federal (Howard) Government in following Germany's footsteps? Absolutely nothing. Come to think of it, if Mr Howard could be replaced with Adolf Hitler, would Australia be any different from Germany just prior to the start of World War II? Supporters of the reforms claim it will stop employees working inefficiently. As Any Yeoh of Harris Park in NSW said: 'It is about time small business and employers are not held to ransom with unfair dismissal by inefficient employees. Congratulations to John Howard and his team that Australia is coming to its senses in workplace rules.' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Work changes an unfair dismissal of workers' rights (Opinion and Letters). 28-29 May 2005, p.38.) But will it? What is the real reason for the alleged inefficiencies of workers? Yes, some might be inefficient at work. But that clearly hasn't hurt the Australian economy. Australia is light years ahead as far as managing its budget and generating profit. And not all so-called inefficiences in the workers is due to deliberately avoiding work and responsibilities. How about training? How about understanding the personal difficulties of the workers and finding solutions so you can be guaranteed of reliable and committed workers to your business? How about changing the way things are done in business so you can give workers more flexibility? As for those businesses who support unfair dismissal laws, how is it that businesses can earn millions if not billions of dollars in profit, the directors take home millions of dollars in salary, and later sack employees at will (like the banks can do)? What reason can one give for dismissing the workers in this situation? Inefficiency? Highly unlikely in this situation. And what about bosses who make misleading statements to shareholders leading to the collapse of a business? HIH insurance is a classic example. Shouldn't employees of the business be given the same unfair dismissal laws to sack their bosses if the Federal Government intends to do the same to employees? As Peter Fyfe of Lavender Bay, NSW, quite rightly mentioned: 'In the interests of fairness, I hope Mr Howard's reforms also include the right for workers to sack their boss or a board for failing to follow their excellent advice and then cocking things up completely.' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Work changes an unfair dismissal of workers' rights (Opinion and Letters). 28-29 May 2005, p.38.) And would such a new workplace relations system where unfair dismissal is standard practice force an Australian version of a French revolution to take place just to stop the rich and powerful running businesses and government from having the unfettered upper hand on the future of workers in a nation? In the meantime, the Federal Government plans to use its power in the Senate after 1 July 2005 to lift the secrecy threshold on political donations from A$1,500 to as high as A$10,000 according to members of the Liberal Party during a parliamentary committee earlier in 2005. It will do this to give it greater financial power to win elections, which it will need if the industrial relations reforms gets passed in parliament after 1 July 2005. NOTE: The unions in Australia are unifying together and boosting their political donations to the Labour opposition to help counterbalance the potentially higher donations from business managers to the Liberal party. Corruption through money for the sake of staying in power will be rife. The Australian people should have a lot to worry about. If not now, then definitely later and especially when they don't have a job or, if they do have a job, pays poorly and is of the insecure type (which covers most jobs in private industry except for the board of directors and managers). ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 28 May 2005 The Federal (Howard) Government has quietly increased the size of businesses exempt from unfair dismissal rules from 20 to 100 employees, surprising some observers. NSW Premier Bob Carr described the latest industrial relations reform of the Australian Federal (Howard) Government as an "arrogant grab for national power" (Doherty, Ben. States considering High Court challenge: The Canberra Times. 28 May 2005, p.7.). As Carr said: 'We're united in rejecting what the Prime Minister is proposing. 'Our state systems have proved fair to workers and their families, and we don't want that lost, so we will be taking these arguments to Canberra. 'We're looking at a range of proposals...we are all considering the prospect of a High Court challenge initiated by us or in partnership with the trade unions.' Only the ACT will be unable to counter the reforms. The Territory is under Commonwealth law and as such will face the full brunt of the reforms first before the other states. And so the ACT will become the guinea pig for the Federal Government's social experiment. Nearly all of the private-sector workforce consisting of 100,000 workers in the ACT will be affected as most businesses employ less than 100 employees. The Federal (Howard) Government argues the reforms will not affect workers' rights. Lawyers disagree saying workers would not be told of the reason for the dismissal thereby making it harder for the workers to determine whether they are being unlawfully discriminated against by the employers unless civil action is taken out against the employers. And even if it could be fought, the new reforms guarantees it is more costly for workers to do so. The government tries to counter this by saying the new reforms enshrines basic conditions such as annual leave, sick leave, parental and maternity leave and maximum working hours in new legislation rather than awards. This means employers must respect these rights under law. However, the unfair dismissal laws would also allow unscrupulous employers to sack employees at any time and when it suits them at a time when employees who need to take a sick day or request a reasonable annual leave are not likely to see a connection. Effectively it means, "We are aware of your basic rights, but we have the power to sack you at any time irrespective of your rights". The reforms are more designed to instill fear in the workers to work long and hard hours. If workers want to take leave or a sick day, they are better off lying six feet underground. Strongly opposing the new reforms, the Victorian Premier Steve Bracks likens the government's industrial laws to a football match where the umpire is chosen to be totally biased towards one team while the opposing team much accept the umpire's decisions. As Bracks said: 'It's like playing football and saying to the umpire, "You can go away and I'll bring in one umpire to have one side be preferred." 'It goes against the Australian character of a fair go for all.' (Pearlman, Jonathan. Premiers unit against plans, but don't want industrial action: The Sydney Morning Herald. 28-29 May 2005, p.9.) All the state's six premiers and the ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope are in complete agreement after talks were held in Sydney on Friday 27 May 2005. The Queensland Premier Peter Beattie added: 'I can't understand why after a period of sound economic growth the Prime Minister wants to stuff it up. Our strike rate in Queensland is the lowest it has been for about 30 years....The Howard battlers will leave him in droves after this.' (Pearlman, Jonathan. Premiers unit against plans, but don't want industrial action: The Sydney Morning Herald. 28-29 May 2005, p.9.) Some observer are seeing the new reforms as part of the Federal Government's new agenda to make it easier for unemployed people to find work if they accept lower pay. Well, if it is true, then as Save Mack of Macclesfield in SA said: 'John Howard's next "progressive" industrial relations reform will be to pay public servants with rations of rum.' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Work changes an unfair dismissal of workers' rights (Opinion and Letters). 28-29 May 2005, p.38.) Will the reforms be for the better for Australian workers? Somehow people are sensing another misleading statement coming from Mr Howard when he said about the industrial relations reforms: 'My guarantee is my record.' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Quotes. 28-29 May 2005, p.44.) He is probably referring to his record of misleading the Australian public, not his belief that workers will be better off under the reform. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 20 May 2005 The Human Services Bulletin of 20 May 2005 said: 'No current employee where covered by a CA [Commonwealth Agreement] can be forced into signing an AWA [Australian Work Agreement]. A current employee must be given 14 working days to decide whether to accept the AWA. A new wmployee must be given 5 working days to decide. 'No current employee can be sacked or discriminated against for refusing to sign an AWA' After 1 July 2005, not signing an AWA (versions of it exists in the private sector) would be a good enough reason to be sacked by an employer. You might as well be forced to sign the bloody thing and forget about the 14 or 5 working days to decide! The more time you spend deciding, the more likely you will be sacked. If this is not the case, then why is it that the Federal Government has made it necessary to tie university funding to university staff signing AWAs? ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 26 June 2005 NSW Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca said federal Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews repeatedly failed to discuss the reforms with the states. Add to this the amount of feathers being ruffled among senators and MPs in the Liberal Party and there is a possibility the reforms will fail to get off the ground after 1 July 2005: 'Mr Andrews is facing a mutiny from within his own ranks with the list of coalition senators, MPs and businesses who are critical of the reforms growing daily.' (The Canberra Times: Feds facing mutiny over ill-thought-out reform: NSW MP. 26 June 2005, p.4.) ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 2 July 2005 One of the defining reasons why the Federal Governments would prefer a single industrial relations system under the "employer-oriented" Commonwealth rule is because the government thinks it can trust employers not to take advantage of their employees by offering employees with lower pay (or slightly higher pay but with no annual leave, sick days or other entitlements). Such so-called employer responsibility was blown out of the water recently after news that the proprietors of Sydney restaurant Pink Salt, contestants in the Australian Channel 7 television program My Restaurant Rules, wanted to shift all their waiters, cooks and other restaurant staff on to Australian workplace Agreements for the sole purposes of minimising wages. Perhaps this should have been My Employer Rules? On hearing what happened, the opposing union were creative in exposing the practice by advertising on Google Adwords. So when users entered the keywords, "my restaurant rules", they would see an advert from the union. Combined this with a carefully targeted email campaign and around 160,000 people were said to have been successfully able to view the advertisement of which around 3,000 of them decided to click through to the union page for more information. It is on this page that visitors could send an email direct to Pink Salt to express their views. Approximately 2,000 of the visitors disagreed with the proprietors approach to handling their staff according to the emails sent. More embarressing moments for the restaurant, this time on television and in parliament when a NSW industrial relations inspector decided to visit the restaurant to look over its books just as it was being filmed by Channel 7. And not long after NSW Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca used the restaurant as an example in parliament of what would happen if the Federal Government gets it way with industrial relations reforms. As Bosca said: 'This case provides conclusive evidence that the Commonwealth Government's proposed single industrial relations system...would be used to lower wages and reduce working conditions.' (Gray, Patrick. Net politics: The Sydney Morning Herald (The Icon Supplement). 2-3 July 2005, p.3.) All this negative publicity soon saw the proprietors of Pink Salt backed down and awarded its staff with more than A$8,000 in back pay. As the union's national media and campaigns officer Andrew Casey said: 'I set up an email campaign. On top of that, we then used Google. If a person put in words like "my restaurant rules" [into Google], on the right-hand corner they would see our ad. 'It's a relatively cheap way to get the message out and to young people. I've used Google Adwords for a number of campaigns. 'The guy who owned it [Pink Salt] admitted our campaign had been effective.' (Gray, Patrick. Net politics: The Sydney Morning Herald (The Icon Supplement). 2-3 July 2005, p.3.) ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 16 July 2005 Australian union leaders have begun an early campaign to show the negatives of the industrial relations reforms. The Federal Government has been caught off-guard by the move and has hastily advertised in major newspapers the positive of the reforms. One of the positives, as we are led to believe and mentioned by the Government in the section of the advertisement titled Under Our Plan to Protect against Unlawful Dismissal, is the following: 'It will remain unlawful for workers to be forced to sign an Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) or be sacked for refusing to sign an AWA.' However, as Pauline Westwood of Kambah has noticed about the Federal Government: 'Yet it appears that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations itself compels new staff to sign AWAs, and to gain access to full federal funding, universities must do likewise. 'Either the department must be acting unlawfully, or the Government's advertisement is quite misleading.' (The Canberra Times: IR advertising (Letters to the Editor). 16 July 2005, p.B8.) The government later adds: 'The Government's plan includes assistance to workers who have been unlawfully dismissed.' We must assume assistance will be of the form of brochures and telephone numbers of lawyers and the law courts. Just make sure you have enough money and time to pay for the legal service. NOTE: The truth behind the bargaining process at DEWR is unravelling itself with news as of 6 August 2005 of staff joining the union at a rally explaining the process to a new certified agreement has not been finalised after more than a year. Why? Because management want staff to accept a reduction in redundancy entitlements and to take away the rights of staff to access the independent Australian Industrial Relations Commission when resolving disputes with management. In that way, every trick in the book will be used by management during a dispute to force vulnerable staff to accept the new conditions. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 22 July 2005 As the Federal (Howard) Government prepares to splurge A$20 million on a television and radio campaign to explain the positives of the industrial relations reforms, the government office responsible with policing individual workplace contracts revealed more than it should about sample workplace agreements on its website. Provided by the Office of the Employment Advocate's website, a number of sample agreements have effectively proven it is impossible to protect employees from being taken advantage by employers. One such sample workplace agreement contract was for painters in the building industry. This agreement sets out a 40-hour week as standard, except that the employer can cut hours when work is slow and there are no penalty rates for working overtime and weekend or other public holidays. Under the present building industry's basic award, workers should be allowed to receive paid holiday and sick leave as well as penalty rates for working overtime and public holidays. In another sample agreement, the hourly rate can increase slightly in return for no paid annual leave or sick leave claiming these payments are already included in the hourly rate. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 29 July 2005 In another classic negotiation tactic of R-wing people in the 21st century, the Federal Government through Mr John Howard and National leader of the coalition party Mr Mark Vaile will try to calm concerns within the Coalition ranks by stating at a Liberal Party's state conference recently that up to seven "minimum conditions" will be protected under legislation, including three new conditions not made part of the original industrial reform deal — namely, public holidays, meal breaks and "smokos". The tactic is patently clear when we realise R-wing people in the government almost invariably provide the worse-case scenario and later add a few positive improvements along the way in the hope this will be enough to quell the concerns of everyone. Whatever the outcome, the essence of the reforms must remain and that is to give employers the right to dismiss people without giving a reason (and make it too expensive and time-consuming in the courts to find out why). This is the only way Mr Howard can see the economy will remain healthy and persist in its current form while most people in the system struggle to make enough money and survive while the remaining 10 per cent or so get richer. Actually the treasuer Mr Peter Costello has hinted the possibility that unfair dismissal laws will be completely removed for all businesses of any size "probably next decade" as Mr Costello said. Mr Howard was quick to get on a Melbourne radio soon afterwards to distance himself from Mr Costello's claim saying "Nothing is going to change in these areas". Sounds like another so-called "iron-clad commitment" from the Federal Government. And Australians all know what they think of this. Just mention the words Mr Tony Abbott and Medicare and everyone will understand. As for the Unions trying to stop the Government in the law courts from spending megabucks of taxpayers money to promote the benefits of the industrial reform, there is nothing the unions could show to the judges to prove they would be financially worse off or reveal what damages it will experience under the Government's proposed advertising blitz. Now the Australian public will face a barrage of government advertising. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## Friday 5 August 2005 A meeting of state and federal industrial relations ministers today has went sour. Federal Industrial Relations Minister Mr Kevin Andrews has not provided details of the proposed legislation and would not give a written guarantee that wages and conditions would be protected. The Federal Government was also suggesting it would use its Commonwealth's corporations power to enforce the national IR system irrespective of the State government's concerns. Consequently a High Court challenge is expected later in the year. As Victorian Industrial Relations Minister Rob Hulls said: 'We would be arguing that under the corporations power, the Commonwealth does not have the authority to engage on a hostile takeover of the state IR systems.' (The Canberra Times: IR dispute heads for a showdown in the High Court. 6 August 2005, p.11.) Mr Andrews appears to be acting as if he can't see what the fuss is about. He is arguing the State governments are wasting time in not accepting the national system. However he doesn't seem to appreciate the concerns relating to the protection of wages and conditions for all employees under the national system. As Andrews said: 'This posturing about not having a national system is really quite absurd. We should have one, The offer remains on the table and we hope that they see the light and they will refer their powers [to the Commonwealth].' (The Canberra Times: IR dispute heads for a showdown in the High Court. 6 August 2005, p.11.) Anyone willing to sell their soul to the devil? Not if you're Cardinal George Pell. In an unusual move from a conservative religious R-wing leader, Cardinal Pell expressed his concerns at the changes urging Mr Howard to reconsider the situation very carefully. He said: 'It seems at this point that the proposals shift the differential of power in favour of employers, who can have a propensity to mistreat workers in the interests of the business. 'Further...casualisation of the workforce should be avoided. 'People need breaks and leave and holidays....I'm not sure we should encourage foolish people to barter these things away too quickly.' (Morris, Linda. Religious right unnerved - Pell and Jensen raise IR protest to critical mass: The Sydney Morning Herald. 6-7 August 2005, p.6 (pp.1 & 6).) ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 20 August 2005 ACT Senator Kate Lundy claims to have been approached by a former building worker saying the Federal Government is making secret Industrial Relations changes in the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Bill before introducing the main Workplace Relations Act for Senate approval in October 2005. The changes already being made are a lot worse than observers have suspected thanks to the Government's majority in the Senate. According to the whistleblower in the building industry, who wishes to remain anonymous, the Government is introducing a new commission to replace the Building Industry Task Force. It has been known for some time the latter body used "draconian behaviour against building industry unions and activists". However, the new body will be even more strict and tougher. A range of new coercive powers is to be made legally enforceable. Those powers include forcing workers to answer a question such as, "Are you a member of a union or a political party?" or "Why are you taking leave this week?" when a worker has already worked more than the standard 76 hours per fortnight and have produced an above standard quality of work. And if the worker doesn't answer something reasonable or choose not to answer, he/she could be retrenched or be subject to penalties under the Bill. Another change involves using a number of "workplace commissars" (ie. most will be former state and Federal police officers) conducting surveillance and reporting to the authorities on anti-government activity. And yet another change in the Bill sees the onus of proof for occupational health and safety concerns reversed. Now workers have to prove something is unsafe by being forced to climb say a highly suspect scaffolding even if the workers believe it is dangerous. Otherwise workers would be fined A$23,000 for refusing to climb the scaffolding. These changes are just the beginning. The Federal Government, on being made aware of the changes, are playing down the claims. The Government is describing them as inflammatory rhetoric. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 29 September 2005 Australian Prime Minister John Howard again defends his controversial industrial reforms claiming workers would welcome the ability for bosses to sack workers if it means getting rid of problematic, troublesome or annoying colleagues. As Mr Howard put it to the media: 'If you're living in a small business environment and you've got five or eight people in an office or workshop and one of them is a pain in the neck and making life difficult for everybody else, it's the workers, in many cases, more than the boss, that would like to see the back of him. That's a point that's overlooked by some of the union critics.' (The Canberra Times: Staff will back easier dismissal law, says PM. 1 October 2005, p.7.) As another example, as the Federal Government quietly tests its reforms with individual case examples (eg. the highly Christian-based Lifeline Australia, DEWR etc), a person who is quieter than other workers irrespective of how good a worker he/she is as far as achieving the goals for the organisation is concerned would still be considered enough of an excuse to sack the worker because "he is not fitting in with the rest of the workers" or "is not a team member" or "is just plain different". We call this R-brain discrimination. But fighting this in the courts would be lengthy and costly with at least a minimum of A$30,000 per individual. This is despite a recent admission earlier this week from Mr Howard that he would provide up to $4,000 worth of free legal assistance per individual for those who believe they were unlawfully dismissed. This comes after Mr Howard heard what the legal costs would be from a reputable source. Sacking someone because he/she is different (or difficult in the eyes of business professionals and the government) is no justification for accepting the unfair dismissal laws under the new reforms. Sacking someone for being different is not getting at the source of the problem or is not allowing the worker to do his work, especially if his work does not entail becoming a public affairs officer for the company. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 30 September 2005 Government-funded or run departments and organisations are blocking staff from accessing union web sites. Examples can be found at places such as Centrelink where a poster on the CPSU web site has annoyed Centrelink management to the point where its staff cannot visit the web site. Yet it doesn't stop staff from viewing it after or before work in the comforts of their own home, public library or other work locations. If you are going to be consistent, why not stop people from ridiculing or protesting against the views of Mr Howard, Mr Bush or other political, management or business figures? Even SUNRISE can put up with a bit of criticism ourselves. Try this for size, "SUNRISE: Sounds Utterly Nonsensical the Rubbishy Ideology that Surrounds this Enterprise". There you go. That wasn't hard. We can take a bit of flak. So now let's get on with the job and do something beneficial to society. So what's so hard about all this for Centrelink? Come to think of it, you might as well put an end to the internet altogether and put gaffa tape over people's mouths and eyes as an effective means of blocking people from talking and seeing things they shouldn't. Truly a pointless exercise in our opinion. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 1 October 2005 The Federal Government is slowly introducing the less controversial aspects of the new industrial relations reforms legislation to parliament for review. The full legislation won't be released until later this month. While all this is happening and the Federal Government is trying to find ways to justify its controversial reforms, Derek Whitney of Port Macquarie in NSW writes: 'Called in to buy my regular weekly magazine — the price has gone up 50 cents due to transport costs. Heard on the news milk prices to rise, rates have just risen, grocery bill up 8 per cent on last month, fuel, fruit and veg, meat all rising, school fees up and financial forecasters predicting interest rates to rise. 'What is the Federal Government's response to all this? Bring in sweeping new industrial relations reforms to reduce the take-home pay of almost all working-class Australians. Thanks, John.' (The Sydney Morning Herald: No time for a pay cut. 1-2 October 2005, p.30.) ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 8 October 2005 On the eve of the release of the draft legislation for industrial relations, Mr Howard tells working Australians the money they are earning will not be lost. What Mr Howard failed to say however is that the money Australians are earning today is not likely to get better when the reforms are passed through parliament. In fact, it will be much harder for workers to ask for better pay over the coming years. Mr Howard has a remarkable way of alleviating the fears of Australian workers on the eve of a major change. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 10 October 2005 Major church groups in Australia are screaming foul over the industrial relations reforms after seeing the devil in the detail in the proposed legislation. The greatest concern of all for church leaders is how easy it is for employers under the proposed legislation to effectively exploit vulnerable employees (eg. young people, the unemployed and people entering the workforce after a long spell away) with individual workplace agreements designed to force these people to accept lower than the standard award rates and with potentially no penalty rates, no sick days or annual leave and so on. While there would be a few employers out there who would do the right thing, in the business world, most managers and business operators couldn't give a stuff. They are there to save money. Some supporters of the reform say the changes are nothing new. It's been happening since 1996. But if you look closely at the people who say this, they are the ones working in Federal government departments. Here the Federal (Howard) Government has been using the public servants as guinea pigs to test the industrial relations reforms. Unfortunately it is not a good litmus test of what will happen in private industry. In the public service, individual workplace agreements for ASO1 to ASO6 are generally bargained collectively (as public service unions understand the difficulties some staff may have). More importantly, once you have a permanent position in the public service, it is a lot harder to be removed from it. If a supervisor doesn't want a particular permanent staff member, he/she would be transferred to another position or moved to another part of the office, not dismissed or fired (unless there has been a serious scandal). Despite this transfer or move the person would still continue to get paid. In essence, it wouldn't be in the interest of the Federal Government to be seen as providing an unfair deal within the agreements for public servants (perhaps it might delay signing an agreement if there is something it doesn't like). But if the government wants people to work in the departments, it doesn't have much choice. But in private business, business operators couldn't give a damn about this. You work on a day-by-day basis. And you must either accept the conditions chosen by the employer or go elsewhere as there would be plenty of people more desperate to have the job. This is the reality business people will place on the workforce. The only exception to this rule are the people whose position involves making decisions for business, namely the managers and executive officers. These are the ones who usually have well-developed negotiation skills, an understanding of technical legal jargon, and the ability to communicate what they expect from the positions. Of course the big bosses in the private industry must listen and do the right thing by these managers and executive officers in they want to make a profit. Under the new IR reforms, managers and executive officers will do well. For everyone else, everyone is basically on notice every day and must be prepared to accept lower conditions and wages. This is how much the current Federal (Howard) Government is currently out-of-touch with reality. It expects the reforms to work in the same way in private industry as it would appear in the public service without complaints or questions from anyone and, more seriously, to do nothing to fix the problem other than making statements of supposed guarantees from the Prime Minister that people's pay will not be eroded, you won't be sacked for not signing a workplace agreement (if your new to the job, you have no choice) and you can have choice in what you accept from employers. The truth is, you don't get choice. The only reason the government is persisting with these reforms is because it wants to introduce another level of reforms. These reforms would involve saving more money by forcing the unemployed people to accept any job no matter how bad the employer or conditions might be. Ultimately the government is obsessed with economics and is happy to follow the trend of the US Government. NOTE 1: Centrelink will no longer accept any good reason not to accept a job except accept the job! If you cannot accept the job and Centrelink finds out, you will lose your social security entitlements. NOTE 2: Despite the budget surplus expected to reach A$15 billion by the next budget in 2006, the Federal (Howard) Government has effectively blown the net national debt from A$194 billion in 1996 to a breathtaking A$539 billion in 2005. For a government that prides itself on good economic management, these figures are not good. Perhaps this is the reason why the Government is so determined to have its IR reforms, thinking such changes will improve productivity and export more products to the world market to help offset the net national debt. Somehow we feel there is a problem with this argument. For a start, under the new IR reforms, employees are more likely to be changing jobs regularly (whether they are unhappy with the existing job, get sacked for taking a sick day or no reason at all, or are focussed on getting higher paid jobs thanks to the cost of living and being a good consumer). Employers will then have to waste time and money getting new employees up to scratch in doing the work. As for productivity, it is not likely this will increase dramatically if at all unless new and original ideas are found. As for the social consequences of the new IR reforms, this is likely to create a bunch of unemotional robots designed to follow the orders of their business superiors of which many will not go beyond the duties they are required to do. People will do their jobs and nothing else. Businesses must later rely on the CSIRO and some inventors outside of the businesses to provide them with new and creative solutions to existing problems. Or else force employees to work longer hours to get the extra productivity. And research is now showing that longer hours at work is not conducive to making and supporting a family (the key to maintaining the economy through the availability of new future customers buying the products). Clearly there are fundamental flaws in the new IR reforms. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 17 October 2005 Industrial Relations Minister Kevin Andrews was asked by a journalist whether he would accept the taxpayers as his boss and work without leave entitlements, sick days, travel allowance and other perks as part of a negotiated workplace agreement. Mr Andrews avoided answering the question. One set of rules for the Australian people and another for the politicians. Talk about being out of touch with reality. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 22 October 2005 The Australian Federal Government admitted it will spend A$40 million in television advertising showing the alleged benefits of the IR reforms. One such benefit is the claim that it would be unlawful for employers to mistreat employees. But as M. Pietersen of Kambah said: 'The Government says that under the new IR laws, employees will be protected from possible mistreatment by employers because these will be unlawful. 'However, if you do not have the money and time to take an employer to court for any alleged unlawful action, the new laws do not mean a thing. 'In the US, it is unlawful not to pay an employee, yet when I lived there I was fired without notice and without being given the pay I was due. When I consulted the New York State Labor Department they said, yes it was unlawful, but I would have to take the employer to court myself. Do we want that kind of situations in Australia? The only thing the proposed IR laws will do is increase business profits at the expense of employees.' (The Canberra Times: Letters to the Editor. 22 October 2005, p.B6.) Another claimed benefit is that employees current awards will be protected by law under the new IR reforms. But in truth, employees will move from one job to another over time. As soon as one employee leaves a job, another employee arrives. And this new "young" employee will not be aware of the previous awards. Just as the employers want. Because the employers can easily undermine the current awards in favour of one that suits the employer. The Family First Party are not happy with the IR reforms. People will be working harder for less pay under the reforms. When translated to the family, it means less time and not enough money to bring children into the world. More people will choose a single life, purchasing the things they can afford and want. Changing the reforms to make them more family friendly will be the focus for the party. In a report titled The Shape of Things to Come by Chris Briggs of the University of Sydney's industrial relations research centre and commissioned by Unions NSW, the IR reforms of the Federal (Howard) Government leading to labour deregulation "has produced the same results everywhere it has been trialled: greater inequality, the loss of entitlements in low-skill and casualised work, low-wage jobs and fracturing working time arrangements." More concerning is the health of those people in a deregulated labour market. After studying those countries experiencing just such a system, such as New Zealand and the United States, he noticed a deterioration in the health of the people, especially for those in low pay positions and people with less control over their working life, such as those on contracts. It doesn't matter if the nation is rich. People will suffer in their health. For example, the US may be the richest nation on Earth, but life expectancy has now been ranked 26th in the world. Mr Briggs has looked at the workplace policy of Europe and the US and can now say it is "reasonable to infer the proposed industrial relations reforms are likely to worsen overall population health, especially for those on the lower side of the labour market and social gradient." This includes white collar workers having less autonomy at work and not just those low-paid workers exposed to dangerous substances or conditions. Among the health problems expected to be experienced by these people according to studies by the British epidemiologist Professor Sir Michael Marmot include stroke, heart disease, cancer, mental illness and gastrointestinal disease. Then there is the concern for the health of children facing a life where parents will have less time for family commitments. And now a second report compiled by Marian Baird of the University of Sydney's business school claims: 'Less regulation of working hours and removal of penalty rates means less chance of maintaining, even notionally, a "day of rest" for the community.' (O'Malley, Nick. Work changes tipped to make us sick: The Sydney Morning Herald. 29-30 October 2005, p.5.) Surely this would go against christian values in having Sunday as a day of rest. Not so for the Federal Government given its determination to have the IR reforms passed through Parliament. In fact, Mr Briggs believes the whole purpose of the IR reforms is not to improve pay, increase skills and enhance life expectancy of the people working in society. Rather it will create a great mass of low paid, low-skilled and increasingly unhealthy and/or short lifespan workers. And all this is not a side-effect of the reforms — it is actually inherent in a deregulated labour market system. As Mr Briggs said: 'It is implicit in [Government] statements, they don't want to come out and say it, but when you look at New Zealand, when you look at America that is what you are talking about, large proportions of low-paid jobs.' (O'Malley, Nick. Work changes tipped to make us sick: The Sydney Morning Herald. 29-30 October 2005, p.5.) Not that such work from academics and researchers would ever sway the Australian Federal Government. They are too corrupt in their focus on economics and money to see life in any other way. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 2 November 2005 The full official 2,557-page (so much for keeping it simple) workplace "reforms" has been released. Despite the Federal Government claiming it will introduce a simple new system, there is an unusually high degree of complexity evident in the legislation as Professor Andrew Stewart at Flinders University discovered on reading it: 'Instead of a radical new approach to introduce a simple new system, it has been hamstrung by a ludicrous degree of complexity and the sheer volume of regulation [burden on employers].' (Dodson, Louise. Done deals: The Sydney Morning Herald. 3-4 December 2005, p.28.) A rushed job? Or is the government trying to hide something? No matter how complex the legislation is, there is no hiding the ugly fact concerning the rights of employees and the power employers will have under the new laws. For employers, only one thing matters: the power to sack employees without reason. The Government can make the legislation is complicated as it likes and claim publicly that it is simplified. But all the employers want is greater power to sack people. For employees, the legislation in its current form already shows the worse case scenario. In other words, there is no guarantee of legally protecting the fundamental rights of the employees in the coming years as employers will take the simple option of pretending to be doing the right thing when in fact they will get rid of unwanted workers and then try to whittle away the standard conditions and wages provided to existing employees. It is as simple as that. The opposition parties know this. Yet the Government will only allow 1 day to debate the legislation in Parliament. How convenient. It clear shows the Government knows what it is doing, but refuses to learn and make improvements to protect employees from immoral and unjustified sackings. Mind you, the Government's extraordinary generosity to debate the merits and horrors of the legislation for one lousy day was purely a matter of courtesy. Having control of both Senate Houses means the Government can do virtually anything it likes. Yet to make it look like democracy in the eyes of the general public, the Government must allow some of its Liberal senators to pretend it doesn't like the legislation. But the truth to the matter is that the Government will get its way in the end. The only thing capable of stopping the changes becoming law is a High Court challenge by State Premiers, or wait for a change in government at the next Federal election where the laws can be torn down. On introducing the controversial legislation in Parliament, the Labor opposition party miraculously obtained two or three copies of the legislation at rather short notice from the Federal Government. Better than a kick in the pants one would imagine. The Federal Government, however, made a generous 60 copies for themselves with plenty of time to check it thoroughly, although no one in the Liberal Party is making possible amendments to the proposed legislation (no surprises here). Somehow we are led to believe the Federal Government is determined to have its own way. To make it harder for the opposition to tackle the IR reforms, ASIO prudently and conveniently timed its moment to introduce intelligence data obtained from the AFP suggesting a possible terrorist threat in Australia. It had better be good. The last time intelligence data was released by ASIO to the Federal Government it turned out to be a farce when the public discovered Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. ## SPECIAL UPDATE ## 12 November 2005 Mr Howard is sticking to his guns with his proposed IR reforms claiming he is not there to win a popularity contest. He wants the laws to become reality because he believes they will strengthen the Australian economy immeasurably — as if it isn't strong enough already. Apparently what Mr Howard really wants to do is erode the wages of average Australians over time so Australia can compete with the lower labour costs in China and Taiwan and so make it easier to sell Australian products to these nations at low prices. ACTU Secretary Greg Combet agrees with this view when he said: 'What is the Government doing to prepare Australia to effectively compete and prosper from a free trade agreement with China? The answer is the new IR laws — to allow business to drive down labour costs. Cutting the wages and conditions of Australian workers, however, will not protect people from competition with China and Asia as we could never go low enough.' (Combet, Greg. Fighting for our working lives — restoring fairness and justice in Australia: Independent Education. Volume 37, 1 March 2007, p.19 (pp.18-20.).) It doesn't matter if Australia is already doing extremely well on the world stage as far as its economic growth is concerned. Mr Howard wants to go for Gold by having Australia become the Number 1 world economy against the likes of China and the rest of Asia and not just with the US, hoping that world leaders will see Mr Howard as a great leader through his solid and unwavering focus on purely rational economics. He is not interested in looking at the way his IR laws will affect Australians on a social level. He is thinking in terms of the national interest and all he wants is a more productive economy to compete with all nations. As Mr Howard said: 'You can't really look at industrial relations laws in the context of whether it helps or hinders the workers or helps or hinders the employers. Because in the end it's not the laws of industrial relations that govern job security and govern high wages — it's the strength and productivity of the economy.' (Wright, Shane. IR laws for economy not votes: Howard: The Canberra Times. 12 November 2005, p.5.) It is also true there are communities able to guarantee job security without emphasising economics. In these communities, the social well-being of the individual is considered far more important than the nation as a whole because society knows a healthy and happy individual will contribute towards helping everyone to survive as well as contribute something of his/her own ideas he has learned to the betterment of society and the nation as a whole. Mr Howard is focussed on the big machine called the economy. He wants the Australian economy to be healthy for his justification in passing through the controversial legislation. And he does not believe focussing on new high-technology Australian exports in return for good export dollars to pay for highly skilled Australian workers is the answer. Keep workers wages low, emphasise primary industry and hospitality areas for work while keeping educations costs high and the cost of living high, and that is sufficient for a healthy economy. For he believes a healthy economy means healthy people and a healthy society. Forget about innovation, low cost