Academics: WorkChoices ain't what they're cracked up to be
The Journal of Australian Political Economy today released a special edition, collating some of the latest research into the claims surrounding the WorkChoices package.
While the legislation has passed through the Parliament and received royal assent, it has not yet been gazetted as the regulations upon which the Act relies have not yet been released to the Parliament nor approved.
What better time then to look into the act itself, and in particular some independent analysis of the claims behind the politics.
Suffice to say, the academics don’t seem to be that keen on it. They find that some of the basic premises upon which the whole crusade was based are utter bunkum. The whole thing is a charade, a poorly conceived and badly executed assault on the industrial relations landscape with no empirical justification to back it up.
See articles like “Workchoices: Myth-making at work”, Hollow shells: The alleged link between individual contracting and productivity growth, or my favourite, The likely employment impact of removing unfair dismissal protection. What’s that? The gains will be less than 10% of the promised 70,000+ new jobs? The government’s claims are full of crap? Well I never…
Now papers like these have been floating around for some time, and organisations like the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training (ACIRRT) have been producing buckets of Actual Research rather than the Libertarians’ Bedtime Stories (LBS, which coincidentally can mean Load of BullShit) that groups as varied as the Government, ACCI, the BCA, Employers First etc. rely on. Oh, they’re not that varied are they…
The problem now is that being right doesn’t make things any better. The onus now is to do two things.
1) Get rid of the Government.
2) Work out a way to structure the IR system in this country so that it meets the goals of increasing productivity and real wages while also ensuring that workers’ rights are protected through enshrining the right to collectively organise and the right to strike in legislation.
That’s going to require unionists and the ALP to come together and deliver a progressive platform for the next election. It’s a big job, but everybody’s got to do it.
EvilPundit wrote:
Left-wing academics produce left-wing analysis.
I am surprised; nay, astonished!
Stuart Fenech (not verified) wrote:
Right wing commentator producing comment without considering the analysis.
I am surprised; nay, astonished!
EvilPundit wrote:
No need to read the “analysis” – as soon as I saw the words “Political Economy” I knew what it would be.
It’s entirely predictable that left-wing academics will oppose the IR changes, just as it is predictable that right-wing think tanks will support them. The details aren’t really worth bothering with as the conclusions presented by both sides are inevitable.
Christo (not verified) wrote:
Of course! Because there’s absolutely nothing political about the economy, it’s just people making money. As if money makers like Rupert Murdoch or Halliburton have any effect whatsoever on the politics of the world…
EP, your insistence on not reading anything vaguely left-wing is tiresome. If your mind is so closed then what the hell are you doing here??
David Heidelberg wrote:
EP,
Why bother reading anything if your view is that it has been tainted by the author(s) politics? Show me any writings that are totally apolitical.
By your logic you’ve proclaimed all opinion void, including your own.
EvilPundit wrote:
I read the vaguely left-wing posts on this blog because I can argue against them.
There’s no point in reading lengthy left-wing academic screeds, since they don’t have a “comments” section at the end.
Helen (not verified) wrote:
EP, the point is that these studies go into the facts and figures, so they give you something to look at in support of what you interpret as “left-wing” conclusions. In other words, as Gore Vidal says, they are arguments no just assertions.
(I object; I’m most certainly “verified”. At least, I was when I got up this morning…)
Post new comment