More WORK

The government of Australia is about to change the industrial relations laws (minimum terms and conditions of employment).

The main change is that everything becomes negotiable. There are effectively no minimum standards for hours of work, penalty rates, holidays and the like for new work contracts. In addition the unfair dismissal parts of our laws are waived for companies with less than 100 employees. Where an unemployed person refuses to accept conditions offered they will loose there unemployment benefits for a period of 8 weeks. So as a small employer you simply sack your workforce and re-hire them at a lower rate – no problem. What a nice way to improve labour productivity.

I am fairly much immune from these changes in the short term. I already negotiate my wages and condition with my employer. I get well paid and I am in a group of professionals that are in demand (given the decline in the eduction system this circumstance is unlikely to change). Like wise the well educated and skilled will do fine – we always do. People with few skills or new entries into the workforce are screwed.

In the longer term I am worried. You see we have had a bit of a housing boom and prices are high. Once again I am O.K. I have a nice house in a good suburb. It transpires that most of the baby boomers and a few of the X generation are also locked in and are riding the real-estate rise. The problem as I see it is with the Y and generation and below (the Clickaratzi?). Even with a decent minimum wage it would be near impossible for a large percentage them to enter the market.

In Australia it is seen as a birth right to be able to buy your own house and that 40 hours work is enough to keep you afloat. At the moment have relatively few poor (typically the long term unemployed: for whatever reason). Basically what is being proposed (and likely to get through the government dominated upper house) is the same deal that US workers get less a solid minimum wage.

A lot of the carefree hippy generation did not save enough to provide for their retirement. So we potentially end up with a situation where a pile of old, retired, people with huge assets are relying on a shrinking workforce of people whose real wage will be lower than previous generations have enjoyed. Maybe having to work very long hours just to meet their minimum needs and with very little chance of getting ahead.

Hmm… a pile of young people on lower wages having to pay more tax to a for group of people with lots of assets. One group of people with high wages and another struggling to survive and provide for their families. Might be a bit of a problem there.

Whacharecon?