Yesterday's U.S. elections

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-08 03:01:34

Byron writes:-
QUOTE: Shaun, one thing I'd like to ask you, if you don't mind...

What is the deal with the extremely restrictive immigration quotas Down Under? With all that room you have down there, surely the gracious people of Australia could easily allow much higher levels of immigration...imagine what kind of economic powerhouse Australia would be if it had a 100 million people. At the very least, can't the government at least allow open immigration from other English-speaking countries such as the U.S.?

Believe it or not, there are many Americans (like me ) who would *love* to live in a place where you don't have to worry about getting sick, you get 4+ weeks of minimum vacation, where labor unions reign supreme and bosses are a hated species (at least that's what I saw during my visit in the 80's...has things changed since then?), and the populace places a greater emphasis on spending time with family and having a good time rather than working all the time just to make that extra buck. Another thing that inspires me about Australia is their forward-looking stance towards the future...aussies must be some of the most optimistic people on the planet.. UNQUOTE.

I honestly don't know where to start! How do I summarise the nature of Australians, their attitude to work and leisure, and their immigration policy ... and in less than, say, 10,000 words!!

The immigration thing has been blown out of proportion, I think. Most Australians are comfortable with a controlled immigration policy, and fluency in English is not a requirement as far as I know. In fact, such a requirement would probably be viewed as a form of discrimination - hence the unlikelihood of allowing open immigration, selectively, from English-speaking countries.
What you've been seeing on T.V. is a crack-down on illegal immigrants jumping the queue and paying large sums of money to people smugglers in Indonesia to be transported in unseaworthy boats to Australia's shores. We don't even know what proportion of these people end up dead when their decrepit boats sink in the shark-infested waters north of here!
We also have the devil of a time working out where these people are from. They discard their passports and pretend to be asylum seekers and refugees. One guy claimed to be escaping political persecution in Iraq, but was found to be a relatively wealthy Pakistani merchant!
Aside from dissuading organised crime syndicates in Indonesia from continuing in the often extortionate and murderous people smuggling business, Australians want to send a clear message that regulated immigration is fine, but illegal queue-jumping isn't. Besides, in the present international climate, having hordes of unidentified people arriving indiscriminately and surreptitiously in your country is NOT something most of us want!
It worries me that sensationalist news media and politically motivated organisations like Amnesty International, and even the U.N.(! ), are evidently giving overseas readers and viewers an exaggerated and erroneous idea of Australia's motives in this. I believe my fellow countrymen and country women are still the same "give 'em a fair go" Aussies you know and love, Byron ... nothing's changed in that regard!

Australia is a very big place. Of that there is no doubt. We are 80% the size of the U.S.A., with less than 7% of the population. This sounds like we could easily accommodate many times our present population of 19 million ... so, why don't we just open the doors and let everybody in?!
The problem is water. Excluding Antarctica, Australia is easily the driest continent on Earth and has barren hot deserts covering the great majority of its land area. Her carrying capacity has been variously judged, by people who claim to know these things, as anywhere from 10 million to 50 million. (I haven't heard any serious suggestions that 100 million is even remotely sustainable.)
As you can see, some scientists are of the opinion that we're already approaching twice our sustainable population level! And when you look at our forests - 2/3rds cleared since 1788, our massive salinity problem on vast tracts of our farmland, and the current threat to the fish populations at some of our reefs, it becomes hard to argue with them. You have to bear in mind that Australia is also a very ancient land mass. Some of the oldest rocks on Earth have been found here. As a result, most of the soils are old and much of the nutrient has been leached out by erosion over literally billions of years. In some areas, the topsoil is only 20cms thick!
Despite our size and our small population, we currently have twice the drinkable water per capita that the U.S.A. has. If we increased our numbers to the 100 million people suggested, we'd have only 40% of the drinking water available to each U.S. citizen. As it is, we often have water restrictions in the drier summers. I dread to think how we'd manage with so many more thirsty people to cope with!! (Sheesh! We might even have to close down the breweries!! .... ^Shudder!^ )

The trade unionism you mentioned has been rolled back somewhat in recent years. When you were here, Bob Hawke was probably the Prime Minister. He was the former leader of the A.C.T.U. (the Australian Council of Trade Unions) and was the leader of the left-wing Australian Labor Party. Many of the A.L.P. members were, and to a lesser extent still are, former members of the Australian Communist Party.
The vast social security 'safety net' implemented at enormous cost by the Hawke government, rapidly became a 'feather bed' for many Australians, many of whom became permanent welfare cases. Eventually, in fact, in some families with grown-up children, nobody had worked for a living for many many years ... life was just too easy!!
This was all very fine, except if you were one of the taxpayers bankrolling the whole thing through one of the most onerous income tax systems in the developed world at the time. In the end, the electorate got sick of the situation and gave the present conservative government a mandate to dismantle some of the 'safety net', which they have achieved mixed success with.
There is still an "Unfair Dismissal" law which has effectively eliminated the right of an employer to fire an employee. I fell foul of this law myself. .... Yes, Byron, I was one of the 'hated species' of bosses you referred to!! At one stage, I employed 7 people - three full-time and four part-time. I had a marvellous relationship with all but one of these employees, who made my life extremely difficult. In any six week period, she was supposed to work a total of 15 days (2.5 days per week). In one particular six-week period, she showed up randomly for a total of only 4 days, claiming to be sick most of the time. We established that, in fact, she was attending beauty school in another town on the days she was supposed to be working for me.
After 6 written warnings explaining how she was playing havoc with our small-business work roster, and disrupting the lives of the other employees whom we were forced to ask to cover for her, I had to dismiss her. She sued for unfair dismissal! The court decided I owed her $242 for pay I had withheld and that I had dismissed her unfairly(!! ), though she was found accountable for most of the blame. Nobody really won except the lawyers because we both had legal costs to bear. But the point is it cost me $9,000 to dismiss an employee who richly deserved to be dismissed. All of my other employees were disgusted at what I'd been put through and expressed quite touching sympathy.
A T.V. program some years ago showed how other employees were taking their employers to the cleaners using the same legislation. Some of the employers were being forced to pay over $20,000 in compensation and required by law to offer the 'wronged' employee their job back!! One employee was video taped stealing cash from the register. She was shown the tape and dismissed. She sued for wrongful dismissal ... AND WON!! Why? The boss hadn't given her at least three written warnings not to steal from the till!
Everything I have told you here is the truth, though I hardly believe it myself.

I could tell you many such stories about the wonders of left-wing politics as applied to the real world, but I suspect you've had more than enough of me for now!
I've seen socialism in action in Britain and Australia. It's a fine concept, as I've said elsewhere, but the truth is it just doesn't work in practice.
I understand your disillusionment with the excesses of capitalism, Byron, but if you're looking for a cheer-leader for the great, egalitarian, socialist state, you picked the wrong man for the job. ??? Sorry!

P.S. Thankyou for the compliment about Australian people. As
a whole, we're certainly an enthusiastic and forward
looking bunch. And although many of our left-leaning
citizens give America one helluva time in the newspaper
letters pages, the majority of us feel a great affinity for
our Yankee cousins ... God bless 'em all!!

Byron · 2002-11-08 07:42:01

Thanks Shaun, for such an enlightening post!

The things you've just said is a perfect example of how important it is to hear from all sides...and I do appreciate taking the time to explain how things *really* are in your fair land.

To tell you the truth, we here in the U.S. are often shocked at some of the abuses of the court system as well...people will sue for anything if they think they have the slightest chance of winning...and some of them actually manage to pull it off, like the famous 'spilt coffee' case at the McDonald's drive-thru, not to mention the multi-billion dollar individual lawsuits against the cigerette companies. Kinda makes me wish I had taken up smoking as a kid (!)

You see, when I went to Australia and New Zealand in the first half of 1986, I was a very impressionable 19-year old. I saw both countries as a paradise...the workers had rights unheard of in the States, one didn't really have to worry about being unemployed or not, as the 'dole' was so generous...I didn't see any of the proverty and squalor like we had back home, I felt safe walking the streets at night, even felt safe hitchhiking, etc. There seemed to be little of the unabashed greed and endess pursuits of wealth like we had back home in the 80's (and 90's)...and it seemed everywhere I went, the people were all just so happy. Little wonder I wanted to come back to live...LOL...

I must say there have some events in my personal life that has colored my perception of the current employer-employee system that is so prevalent in the Western world today. For nearly five years, I worked for a local government agency as an urban planner...a fine, well paying job that I enjoyed..until Ms. B came along. In the final 18 months of me working there, I went from a contented, productive employee to extreme dissatisfaction near the end. The simple fact of the matter was, Ms. B and I just didn't get along. Maybe she had a thing about my intelligence..after all, I was always coming up with new ideas, seeking new challenges in my job, etc..so I guess she felt "threatened" or whatever. Anyhow, to make a long story short, Ms. B simply made my life hell. She couldn't fire me (civil service protection), but she did slap duties on me that were an insult to my skills and intelligence, and she constantly chewed me out for the most trivial of things. In the final days, it was war, pure and simple, and I simply rebelled. I called in sick all the time, refused to do her bidding, etc.

Of course, when I finally bailed, and started looking for other jobs in my field, I soon found out I was effectively blacklisted in my local community, and all my job-hunting efforts were for naught. At one point, I just threw up my hands and promised myself I would never work for another person again...bosses were, after all, mean, cruel people who used people only to further their own personal objectives. I know this is an irrational way of thinking...but who ever said that people were completely rational beings?

Yes, it's been a long, hard road in the past 4 years...I've managed to sustain myself by doing odd jobs for people, etc, and these days I currently do a bit of website and graphic design freelancing. I'm also currently working on a couple of projects with a dear friend of mine in L.A. (thank god for those cheap coast-to-coast flights!) that have to do with the entertainment industry, but only time will tell if that will pan out...you know how that sort of thing goes...lol. But I've survived also through the generosity of my family and others, as well as just not spending any money if I don't have to..lol..I guess I'd rather be poor and free, rather than be a rich slave...lol. I must say that I'm quite satisfied at not having to go to a regular job everyday, and I'm free to take advantage of extremely low airfares in the U.S. to visit my widely scattered friends around the country...something else I wouldn't be able to do if I had a job.

So the lack of security...not knowing where my next paycheck is going to come from, etc...it does makes me pine for places such as Australia from time to time, where there's more 'security' to be had. Everyone likes to be secure, it seems, which is why I don't think a 100% 'free-market' solution would ever really work, here on Earth or anywhere else. Also, the stock market crash and the multitude of corporate scandals in the past couple of years in the U.S. has shaken my belief in the capitalistic system..after all, during the go-go '90's, the days of economic malaise were supposed to be over, the market was supposed to climb forever, paychecks would always get fatter...yeah, right. To see all these wonderful things crumble before my very eyes has been a tough break...I just feel like our leaders just don't care about the individual at all anymore, only about corporate profits and oil and war, etc.

To sum things up, the combination of my personal experiences and the current state of affairs do color my thinking about things...and I constanly flip-flop back and forth about what kind of socio-economic system works best...and to tell you the truth..nothing really ever 'works'...people just have to make the best of whatever situation is at hand, and somehow we manage to muddle through and make the best of things in the end...

B

TJohn · 2002-11-08 09:45:05

Please dont notice the lack of hard evidence that Iraq has a neucular capability. No we have no evidence of any kind, but that never stopped us before.
What do you expect when we can't get inspectors into the country?

Please do not recall that the US was finantially supporting Iraq while it used those chemical weapons. It might not have mattered then but it does now. Then it was much more convienient to suppress this information, but now that we are after Iraq we will let it surface.

The only reason we were at the time was because of the "fine" Carter administration that let Iran slip into the state that is now.

George Bush is all about homeland secuity. We feel safe now that he's kicking 3rd world country ass!

Well, most countries above the 3rd world status are not as extreme against the Western Hemisphere.

Palomar · 2002-11-08 10:38:58

*Well, regarding the Saddam Hussein thing: I didn't vote for Dubya, and YES, I suspect his motives in going after Hussein as well [as in OIL WELL]. Dubya and all his cronies are very wealthy oil men. Did anyone read Gore Vidal's criticism of Bush a few days ago? I agree with it.

However, Hussein doesn't want to comply with -United Nations- rules, though he wants to keep Iraq as a member of the United Nations. I say if he isn't willing to comply with the policies, rules, and regulations of a political entity he willingly joined his nation to, then Iraq should get booted OUT of the UN. The same goes for any other nation -- America included of course! -- who won't comply with United Nations resolutions and etc.; if Hussein wants to play games, give his word only to break it again, and essentially give "the finger" to the United Nations council, then I don't know why they have to keep putting up with him -- or anyone else like him -- and if he can't or won't retract his membership, it should be handed back to him. He's proven repeatedly that he is NOT a man of his word, and that his word is useless, and that's his own fault.

He reminds me of the one a-hole in every office who gets by with loafing off, dinking around, and playing games while everyone else is busting their butts to get the job done [and no, I don't work in offices any longer, but I know that gig all to well]. Toe the line or get the hell out.

However, this certainly doesn't justify a U.S. invasion; I'm against it. The UN simply needs to kick Iraq out of its membership.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-11-08 12:24:03

*If you're interested in viewing political cartoons, check this web site out [includes cartoons from foreign papers, even Iraqi papers!]. Really good stuff:

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/

--Cindy

AltToWar · 2002-11-08 12:36:02

*Well, regarding the Saddam Hussein thing: I didn't vote for Dubya, and YES, I suspect his motives in going after Hussein as well [as in OIL WELL]. Dubya and all his cronies are very wealthy oil men. Did anyone read Gore Vidal's criticism of Bush a few days ago? I agree with it.
However, Hussein doesn't want to comply with -United Nations- rules, though he wants to keep Iraq as a member of the United Nations. I say if he isn't willing to comply with the policies, rules, and regulations of a political entity he willingly joined his nation to, then Iraq should get booted OUT of the UN. The same goes for any other nation -- America included of course! -- who won't comply with United Nations resolutions and etc.; if Hussein wants to play games, give his word only to break it again, and essentially give "the finger" to the United Nations council, then I don't know why they have to keep putting up with him -- or anyone else like him -- and if he can't or won't retract his membership, it should be handed back to him. He's proven repeatedly that he is NOT a man of his word, and that his word is useless, and that's his own fault.
He reminds me of the one a-hole in every office who gets by with loafing off, dinking around, and playing games while everyone else is busting their butts to get the job done [and no, I don't work in offices any longer, but I know that gig all to well]. Toe the line or get the hell out.
However, this certainly doesn't justify a U.S. invasion; I'm against it. The UN simply needs to kick Iraq out of its membership.
--Cindy

It's not hard for the international community to not take us seriously when we condemn Iraq for being in violation of UN resolutions, yet we support Israel.

Iraq:
UN Resolutions violated, ignored: 16
Countries attacked, invaded, violated: Iran, Kuwait
Countries occupied for years: NONE
Countries currently occupying: NONE
Territory illegally annexed: NONE
Wars started: 1980, 1990
Possesses weapons of mass destruction: To be determined
Possesses nuclear weapons: No
Most notable atrocity against civilians: 5,000 Kurdish civilians were
killed in the village of Halabja, March 1988
Currently under a regime of UN sanctions: Yes

Israel:
UN Resolutions violated, ignored: 68
Countries attacked, invaded, violated: Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon,
Syria, Tunisia
Countries occupied for years: Egypt, Lebanon, Syria
Countries currently occupying: Syria
Territory illegally annexed: Golan Heights, Jerusalem, Palestinian
Territories
Wars started: 1956, 1967, 1982
Possesses weapons of mass destruction: Yes
Possesses nuclear weapons: Yes
Most notable atrocity against civilians: 17,500 Lebanese civilians
killed in 1982 invasion of Lebanon
Currently under a regime of UN sanctions: No

*disclaimer: Just as being in opposition of US policy does not meake me Anti-America, being in opposition to Israeli policy does not make me an anti-semite.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-08 12:58:58

Hehe, that was great Cindy, made my day.

Also, I think Shaun Barrett just described a system without checks or balences. I don't think we can fairly generalize leftist pholosophy into this horribly unjust system.

Personally, I pick America over any other country. The main reason is that our resources are astounding, we can practically do anything here given the opportunity. Of course, America is full of many stupid people, but that's not my fault.

Palomar · 2002-11-08 13:11:11

It's not hard for the international community to not take us seriously when we condemn Iraq for being in violation of UN resolutions, yet we support Israel...
*disclaimer: Just as being in opposition of US policy does not meake me Anti-America, being in opposition to Israeli policy does not make me an anti-semite.

*I see your point, AltToWar. I don't support it either, though I'm also not anti-semitic. What a mess THAT issue [Israelis/Palestinians] is! ???

--Cindy

P.S.: Just heard on the news that the UN Security Council has unanimously approved the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, thus completely backing the US and UK on this particular resolution.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-08 15:01:46

We can thank ?unAmerican? people like Scott Ritter for the return of these weapons inspectors. I believe, though I am not certain, that they will have full reign, too. Let's just hope the US doesn't see this as a stupid opportunity to put CIA people in there under the guise of UN weapons inspectors. I suspect Isreal may want to put their own inspectors in (smoething Iraq would obviously be against), so war isn't exactly averted.

Adrian · 2002-11-08 19:41:52

AltToWar: I don't care to get into an argument about Israel, but I think you have misrepresented their case here. Israel's neighbouring countries have tried to wipe it off that map several times in the past century, and it's arguable about who started which wars. Of course Israel aren't blameless, but no country is, and at least they have a democratically elected government, which is more than can be said for Iraq.

AltToWar · 2002-11-08 23:08:24

AltToWar: I don't care to get into an argument about Israel, but I think you have misrepresented their case here. Israel's neighbouring countries have tried to wipe it off that map several times in the past century, and it's arguable about who started which wars. Of course Israel aren't blameless, but no country is, and at least they have a democratically elected government, which is more than can be said for Iraq.

My only point is that while the US is using the 'UN Resolutions Violations' card to justify an attack on Iraq, it suppoerts Israel dispite it's denial to comply with anything the UN tells it to do.

I hope to illistrate that america likes to think of it'self as the goodguys, but the truth is we only follow the rules when tey are convienient for us, and break rules when they are not.

We in america like to think we are world leaders issuing in a new age of global harmony, yet the rest of the world maintains a strongly different world view.

America engages in extortion towards 3rd world countries. Is intolerant to different political views than our own. America has rarely engaged in any humanitarian act that did not involved gaining a stronger political or economic stake in the area. America convieniently ignores humanitarian problems across the world that have not political or economic gain to be had within them. America was kicked off the Human Rights comission.

In any given conflict where americans take sides, we will back any political leader whom we think will bring us to a more lucrative position, often creating monsters in the process.

America, being the worlds lagest producers of greenhouse gasses, refuses to believe in global warming as permafrost and glaciers Melt, floods and droughts plague the world, a statistical rise in worldwide tempature can be seen across the board. America refused to join the Kyoto treaty.

America has only allowed the world war crimes court to pass because a clause in it's charter provides that all american citizes are given blanket immunity.

America, the first nation to constitutionally guarantee a free press, was just ranked 14th in press freedom.

America continually does whatever it wants within the world community. It's hypocracy is evident to everyone who is not hidden behind the blanket of corporate media. America believes that being the only superpower means never having to say your sorry, and it shows.

RobertDyck · 2002-11-09 00:16:07

if he isn't willing to comply with the policies, rules, and regulations of a political entity he willingly joined his nation to, then Iraq should get booted OUT of the UN. The same goes for any other nation -- America included of course! -- who won't comply with United Nations resolutions and etc.

May I make a comment without appearing to be un-American?

The United States has not paid its U.N. dues in full for decades. The federal government does this because they don't like a couple programs of the U.N. and deduct that proportion of their U.N. dues. Now tell me, how many Americans can honestly say there isn't at least one federal program they disagree with? How many Americans could get away with simply not paying their income taxes in full as a protest against the program they don't like? I must pay my Canadian taxes in full, and had to pay taxes to the IRS when I worked in Florida. If we disagree with a program we can lobby our elected officials, we cannot simply fail to pay taxes. If the United States continues to fail to pay its U.N. dues in full and on time it should be kicked off the U.N. Security Council. It could get its Security Council seat back by paying its dues in full.

The other criticism is the No Fly Zones. America requested the U.N. establish No Fly Zones after the Gulf War. The U.N. said No. America and Brittan have been enforcing the No Fly Zones anyway. Iraq could argue this is an act of aggression against Iraq; in fact, Iraq could try to claim its attempts to shoot at American war planes patrolling Iraqi air space are simply self-defence. No one could possibly defend the actions of Iraq, but two wrongs do not make a right. Could we at least see the current action against Iraq put a permanent end to the No Fly Zones?

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-09 00:19:19

Shaun, I just wanted to point out, with regards to the post you made earlier, that America has a checks and balence system that makes Australia look like hell; your country really ought to clean up their system. You can't sue an employer without first going through a certain commission (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) and only 98% of them actually get through, and of the ones that the EEOC find legitimate, many of those are actually arbitrated out of court, without lawyers. The person you fired could have got in deep crap for trying to sue you here. Her lawsuit was what ammounts to fraud (if you were able to prove that she was taking sick days and using them for a beauty school), and she could have went to jail, or at least got probation for trying to sue under those circumstances.

Shame on her, truely.

Palomar · 2002-11-09 09:24:09

RobertDyck: May I make a comment without appearing to be un-American?

The United States has not paid its U.N. dues in full for decades. The federal government does this because they don't like a couple programs of the U.N. and deduct that proportion of their U.N. dues.

*How embarrassing to know this. This isn't right. Dues are dues, they should be paid in full regardless.

Now tell me, how many Americans can honestly say there isn't at least one federal program they disagree with? How many Americans could get away with simply not paying their income taxes in full as a protest against the program they don't like? I must pay my Canadian taxes in full, and had to pay taxes to the IRS when I worked in Florida. If we disagree with a program we can lobby our elected officials, we cannot simply fail to pay taxes. If the United States continues to fail to pay its U.N. dues in full and on time it should be kicked off the U.N. Security Council. It could get its Security Council seat back by paying its dues in full.

*I agree.

The other criticism is the No Fly Zones. America requested the U.N. establish No Fly Zones after the Gulf War. The U.N. said No. America and Brittan have been enforcing the No Fly Zones anyway. Iraq could argue this is an act of aggression against Iraq; in fact, Iraq could try to claim its attempts to shoot at American war planes patrolling Iraqi air space are simply self-defence.

*I agree with this, too. Based on what I hear/read in the news, I believe the U.S. military planes in the area [I'll refrain from including the U.K. in this as well, as I'm not sure they're ever involved or not] are deliberately trying to provoke/antagonize the Iraqis, i.e. picking a fight with them and trying to elicit a hostile response [which we do get]. This is certainly not right, either.

--Cindy

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-10 03:27:41

Or we could just get out of the UN altogether.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-10 05:17:36

Josh writes:-

... your country really ought to clean up their system.

You're quite right, of course, Josh. The system we have, as regards unfair dismissal, was introduced by the ALP (Australian Labor Party) in order to protect workers from unreasonable bosses. And there ARE some unreasonable bosses out there, for sure! In particular, it was designed to give employees a good measure of job security and therefore cut down on stress levels for key bread-winners whose families depend on them. It sounds like a noble idea on paper ... as so many socialist ideas do.
As it stands, though, it isn't working. The number of permanent full-time jobs in Australia is falling each year and I actually heard an ALP speaker on TV, addressing a meeting of ALP hierarchy, bemoaning this fact and asking why it should be so. It really seemed that he didn't know the reason for it!! Employers, faced with the prospect of taking on people they can effectively never fire, no matter how lazy or dishonest they may turn out to be, have changed their mode of employment. They now tend to hire people on very tightly worded legal contracts for periods of maybe 6 or 12 months at a time. At the end of the contract, the employment is technically terminated, but a new contract can be negotiated at the discretion of both parties. It's the only way the employer can be sure of getting rid of unsuitable people.
What has this done for job security? Naturally and obviously, it's made things much worse for the employees in many cases. For instance, what bank or lending agency wants to give you a 20 year mortgage on a house if you only have guaranteed work for 6 months? The levels of uncertainty have risen, not declined, and the relationship between boss and worker has been reduced to cold distrust - with the spectre of lawyers floating in the background. Lawyers for unfair dismissal cases and lawyers for contracts to avoid the law cases!!
It seems to me the lawyers, as always, are the only ones who manage to win every time! And they're gradually weaseling their way into every move we make and every word we speak, and, in the long run, it always ends up detrimental to the smooth running of society.

As well as the ALP, we have minor political parties called the Australian Democrats and the Greens, both of which have a marked leaning to the left. If they all vote as one, the incumbent Liberal/National coalition hasn't the numbers to get any legislation passed in parliament.
The Lib/Nats can see the enormous problems being created by this unfair dismissal thing and have made several attempts to repeal it. Unfortunately, the ALP, Greens, and Democrats see this legislation as one of their 'sacred cows' and have blocked all the Lib/Nats' efforts.

The horror stories about employers being fleeced by unscrupulous employees and lawyers has made many small business owners think twice about taking on staff. I've spoken to a few who've had opportunities to expand their enterprises and employ more people, but they've decided against it - preferring not to take the risk. Many small businesses will only expand until no more family members are available to employ. Beyond that, forget it ... it's not worth the aggravation.

My personal belief is that an employer should have the right to hire and fire at will. Sure, you'll get bosses who stink! But they won't retain their best employees.
And if workers want job security, the best way is to make themselves indispensable to the boss.
I was fortunate to have (mostly! ) very fine people working for me and I just loved 'em!! I paid them more than I had to and used to take them all out for cocktails and Italian 5 or 6 times a year. (One of them could really put away those cocktails when she let her hair down, too!! ). In my opinion, if you can't run your workplace as a kind of extended family, with mutual respect and a little give-and-take, maybe you should consider doing something else! ???
The great majority of people, me included, respond infinitely better to a carrot than a stick!

Byron · 2002-11-11 18:29:13

Employers, faced with the prospect of taking on people they can effectively never fire, no matter how lazy or dishonest they may turn out to be, have changed their mode of employment. They now tend to hire people on very tightly worded legal contracts for periods of maybe 6 or 12 months at a time. At the end of the contract, the employment is technically terminated, but a new contract can be negotiated at the discretion of both parties. It's the only way the employer can be sure of getting rid of unsuitable people.
---
The great majority of people, me included, respond infinitely better to a carrot than a stick!

Actually, the idea of contract-based employment sounds very appealing to me...and I don't see how that could create more distrust between employer/employee..imo, I think it would actually increase the level of trust between bosses and their employees. After all, a contract can spell out everything from the number of hours that person is expected to work, to the specific type of working conditions that person can expect, what kinds of tasks they will do, and the amount of time that person has to complete those tasks.

What I have trouble with America's modern system of employment is that the average worker never knows what to expect when he or she accepts a job. In America, if someone is listed as "salaried" (i.e., paid by the year instead of the hour)..the boss can work you as many hours as they please...indeed, in the restaurant business, the wait staff typically make more per hour than the managers do! There is no guarantee of what kind of working conditions to expect (except for what is mandated by OSHA), and certainly, there is no protection from verbal/psychological abuse...which is something I would insist that be written in a contract for my job!...LOL...for those of you who never experienced something like that...believe me, you don't want to go down that route... ???

So Shaun, I still think Australia rocks...at least from my standpoint. If only would America adopt just some of the more *positive* and people-friendly ideas you guys practice Down Under, I'd be a happy camper, for sure..

B

Aetius · 2002-11-11 20:47:31

Shaun, I have to agree with you. For technically-oriented people who live with the confidence that they can take their skills anywhere, I can see advantages of a contract-based system. But as a blue-collar factory worker, I would MUCH rather have a great boss like Shaun offer me a permanent position than be offered a yearly contract. Too many stomach aches for me. What if the managers decide to err on the side of caution, knowing that they won't be able to get rid of anyone for the next 6 or 12 months? There may be concrete arguments in favor of such a system, but sounds like Hell to me.

Preston · 2002-11-11 21:20:23

I wouldn't call the pig amendment 'silly.' It's no less than a small dent in the worldwide animal holocaust.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-14 02:58:22

Thanks again, Byron, for your unwavering support of the great Australian way of life! You're right in saying we have a lot going for us in very many ways ... in fact, we call ourselves 'the lucky country' (and actually believe it, too! )

Most of us regard a full-time job (if you can track one of 'em down these days, working for a boss who hasn't been stung by the Unfair Dismissal legislation yet! ) as a 37.5 hour week. We have automatic annual paid leave entitlement of 4 weeks. Unsocial hours usually attract a time-and-a-half rate of pay, unless the job is obviously just one of those jobs which are, of necessity, carried out when everyone else is partying or sleeping. (But then the rates of pay tend to take that into account when you sign up.) Major public holidays such as Christmas and Easter Sunday attract double-time or even double-time-and-a-half pay rates, and I have heard of triple-time being paid but can't remember the circumstances of that.
Every employer is required by law to pay 9% of whatever s/he is paying an employee into the retirement superannuation scheme of the employee's choice. This is above, beyond, and separate from the wage itself. And every employer must, by law, pay a Workcover premium for each employee as insurance in case the employee is injured at work. Though this in no way excuses an employer for not providing a safe workplace - they can be, and are, sued for failing to do 'what any reasonable person in the same circumstances might be expected to do to ensure the safety of employees'.
If feasible, no worker is expected to work more than 4 hours without a 15 minute rest break.
After 10 years of service to the same organisation (15 years in some States), an employee is entitled to 3 months long-service leave on full pay. In some cases this can be negotiated and taken as, say, 6 months leave on half pay.
In some States, they have leave-loading. too. This means that your vacation pay (which is paid to you before you go on leave) is boosted 15% to help with your vacation expenses. In other words, if your gross pay before tax is normally $500 a week and you're going away on vacation for two weeks, your gross pay for the period of that vacation will be $1150 instead of $1000.
Also, there are various sick-leave entitlements which guarantee full pay for certain periods, depending on the industry and how long you've worked for your employer. (The problem with this being that some Australians regard the sick-leave as 'beach-leave' and tend to take the full number of days as a kind of extra vacation right for when the weather's good! )

In many ways, the above work conditions are a good thing. But there's a price for everything and, in Australia's case, it's national productivity. If making money is the point of the game, and I appreciate that for many people it isn't, then Australia is probably less efficient than America.
Many small business owners are hardly any better off than the people they employ, yet they have risked their own money to set up a business and find themselves in a nightmare of legislation - all designed to protect the employee. The myth still persists, though, that: "Oh, you own your own business ... you must be doing really well!" In Australia, that is very often not the case. And many who would otherwise start a business and employ a few people, end up backing away and saying: "It's really not worth it."

Compared to the U.S.A., it may be a sustainable argument that Australia is pretty much a socialist country. There are many laws to shield citizens from the worst excesses of capitalism and there really is an atmosphere of egalitarianism in much of our social structure ... something we express as "A fair go for everybody, mate!"
We're an irreverent mob at heart and too many 'airs and graces' will earn you the reputation of being "a bit up yourself". I confess I don't know exactly how the expression came about, but it means you have an exaggerated sense of your own worth or importance! The typical Aussie has something I think I've mentioned here before: An inbuilt, well-developed bullsh** detector!!
Some people say the Canadian outlook is about the closest you'll find to the Australian way of looking at life, but I don't know enough Canadians to be sure about that. Although I've certainly liked all the ones I've met so far!!

One of the drawbacks of this egalitarianism is a tendency toward quite spiteful treatment of 'the wealthy' and the development of what is known as 'the politics-of-envy' ... an 'us-and-them' attitude which I think is probably counter-productive. It leads to the 'tall poppy syndrome', which basically means that, if you do too well, you should be cut down to size - a philosophy which tends to encourage mediocrity in my opinion.
Such thinking has led to people on quite modest incomes being regarded as 'wealthy' and taxed accordingly. Anyone earning $50,000 p.a or more falls into this category. If your taxable income exceeds this figure, you lose 42 cents of every dollar over that amount. Until you get to $60,000, when you start losing 47 cents in every dollar. (Plus the universal 1.5% Medicare Levy, which, if you don't have private health insurance, and you earn $50,000+, goes up to 2.5%).
What income do you have to reach in America before you incur a marginal tax rate of 48.5%?

Our work conditions are pretty good and our social security system is generous, but the price is high taxation and low incentive to achieve.
There's always a catch, isn't there?!

Thanks for the compliment about being a great boss, Aetius. But the fact is, I could never really be a boss, as such.
I just end up being friends with everybody! Most people seem to like such a working environment and respond well to it (lucky for me ... because I don't think I could be any different if I tried anyhow! ) ... but at least one person took advantage of the situation. I guess you can't help bad luck!
???

Byron · 2002-11-14 10:04:30

Thanks Shaun, for such an informative reply!

In case if you're interested, I'll give you a rundown of how the employment system works in the U.S. First of all, taxes: The U.S. Federal tax system works on a graduated scale, ranging from 10% for <$15,000 p.a., up to 38% for anything above $70-80k p.a. (not sure of the actual figure). While that's lower than the Australian rate of $48.5%, there are the state income taxes to consider, which can range up to 10%. So, yes, in some of the high-tax states, high-income earners do pay close to half their income in taxes, although this figure is usually lower in actuality, due to the deduction system we have here for things such as children, mortgage interest, etc.

As for the Social Security pension system, the rate is set at 13.5%, half of which is paid by the employee and half paid by the employer. If you're self-employed, you're required to pay the full amount, on top of all the other taxes you're required to pay. And then there's all the other taxes, such as property taxes, sales taxes, car taxes, ad infintum... People from other countries have a habit of insisting that U.S. citizens have it easy when it comes to taxes, but when you take into account of certain benefits that we don't get (such as health care) that is 'included' in other countries...I would have to say the U.S. tax rate is on par with most other Western countries. The one exception to this is gasoline (petrol) taxes...taxes on that is far lower than you typically find in other countries...even Canada and Mexico, our next-door neighbors, have much higher gas taxes than the U.S. So yes, in this respect, we do have it easy in the U.S. Cheap transportation is almost a god-given right these days, it seems, and I don't see this changing anytime soon. Why do you think the U.S. is so hard-up about Iraq?...

As for workplace regulations...yes, we have plenty. OHSA, the agency that regulates such things as workplace safety, has become quite strict in the past few years, and inspections are more vigilant and frequent than most employers care to see...lol. But workplace accidents have continued to fall over the years, so this is not such a bad thing, really.

Also, each state manages a Workman's Comp system (for workplace injuries), and for such high-risk occupations, such as construction work, the cost of this is very high (and continues to soar, despite the decreasing accident rates)...which is why it's now so costly to hire a electrician or someone to re-roof your house. (Do-it-yourself home repair has become all the rage these days due to this fact.) The high cost of Workman's Comp is one of the main reasons why employment in the traditional 'trades'...such things as plumbing, electric, carpentry, etc, has been dropping over the years...the type of high-paying jobs that a single bread-earner without a college degree could support his family on in the past. (This has also been true for other, blue-collar, union type of jobs.)

The U.S. has now what is called a "service economy," in which most of our economic output comes from the services people perform for each other, ranging from food service workers, store cashiers to software engineers and accountants. We import just about everything that is made in a factory..lol..how the U.S. economy manages to run monster trade deficits for decades on end without difficulty is beyond me...as that seems to fly in the face of common sense.

Since only a tiny fraction of 'service' jobs are unionized, memberships in unions has been on a steady decline for decades, and is quite low at the current time (<20% I believe). Whether this has been a good or bad thing or not, I'll leave it up to others to debate that point.

As for employee benefits, the law really doesn't require the employer to provide anything other than the minimum wage, which is currently set at $5.15 per hour. But most companies who provide steady, full-time jobs offer what is called the 'standard package.' This includes such things as two weeks vacation (to start, this increases for length of service), a few 'sick' days, comprehensive health insurance and a 401k pension system (matching contributions up to a certain percentage of one's salary.) The standard work week is 40 hours, with an unpaid hour for lunch, although it's common to see people on a 37.5 hour week. 15-minute breaks in the morning and afternoon aren't required by law, but employers usually include them as part of the standard workday.

The 'standard' benefits package the vast majority of employers offer in the U.S. today is the primary reason the government hasn't gotten involved in mandating workplace benefits like they have in Australia and other countries...but there are signs that this system may be buckling, mainly due to the soaring cost of medical insurance. Many companies are struggling to pay the costly insurance premiums (remember that Workman's Comp is an added cost on top of that), and if current trends continue, the majority of employers will no longer be able to offer health insurance as part of their standard benefits package in 10-15 year's time.

As for productivity and the level of employment...The U.S. actually has a huge "black" market (sometimes called the gray market), in which people are hired to work under the table, so to speak, to avoid the burdensome taxes and Workman's Comp payments. This is especially true for immigrant, 'migrant' workers...these are often hired to work in the fields on a seasonal basis, and paid in cash with no benefits (and no taxes, either!) It is this sort of thing that often said to 'lubricate' the U.S. economy...if in fact, the Feds initiated a huge crackdown on illegal immigrants and the black market in general, the U.S. would probably experience a full-fledged depression as the source of cheap, willing labor dried up. Food would rot in the fields and supermarket shelves would go empty, even as inner-city ghetto 'home boys' continue to loaf around all day, smoking their 'blunts.' (Laugh if you like...but that is so very true! ) Like it or not, the black or gray market is here to stay...we're become too dependent on it to attempt to get rid of it.

This is why I favor the most lenient immigration policy feasible. If third-worlders are willing to work in the fields under the blazing sun for endless hours for minimal pay (work that no American citizen would even think of doing, at any wage), in order to put food on our tables, than we should let them. As far as the immigrants go, they are still making several times what they would earn in their homeland, and indeed, the economies of many a 3rd world country is supported by the funds that are sent home to family members from the migrant workers in the U.S.

I often hear my friends argue that America has already reached its carrying compacity and that immigration should be greatly reduced, if not cut off completely. I say balony...there is so much empty space in this country that we could double our population and still have room to spare...just look at the dense population of Europe, for example. Indeed, America's vaunted productivity, which is the envy of the world, is primarily the result of all these hard-working immigrants seeking a better life than what they had in their native country. Also, high levels of immigration could very well be the saving grace in the decades ahead for the U.S. as the Baby Boomers retire en masse. If enough young workers are brought in (legally of course, so they can pay the taxes!), the labor pool could be kept high enough to balance out the ever-increasing payments to retirees. If immigration were to be drastically reduced in the near future...we're headed for a whole lotta trouble. ???

In closing, I must admit there is nothing like the extremely diverse U.S. economy that allows people to do almost anything they wish, including not working for a traditional employer (like me..lol) Freelancing is becoming more common than ever, and small business are often set up as partnerships, to avoid the whole "employer / employee" thing. The dream of achieving wealth is an ingrained philosphy here in America, which is continually reinforced by newcomers seeking the "American Dream." The Australian "tall poppy sydrome" is not a very popular philosophy at all...indeed, achievement is very much a way of life here. My feeling is that while all this is well and good, there are some things that need to be addressed, such as the rising cost of health care and workplace abuse by unscrupulous bosses. The trick is not using a sledgehammer when a nail finisher is all really what is needed..LOL..which is what has apparently happened in Australia.

B

Cobra Commander · 2002-11-14 13:15:05

America continually does whatever it wants within the world community. It's hypocracy is evident to everyone who is not hidden behind the blanket of corporate media. America believes that being the only superpower means never having to say your sorry, and it shows.

Granted, America does push its considerable weight around, but looking at history in general, the United States has been incredibly benign. Most of history's great powers were not nearly so concerend with the well-being of their neighbors. Have you ever heard of the Roman Empire, Napoleon's France, or Nazi Germany undertaking humanitarian missions?

Next time we smack some third world dictatorship around for blustering a bit too defiantly, perhaps America's critics would do well to remember how restrained and concerned over their opinion we are. If it were the Soviet Union that was the only remaining superpower I am certain that opposition would be much less vocal and much shorter lived.

(That came off a bit harsh. Ah well, Service to the Empire.)

Palomar · 2002-11-14 13:37:08

America continually does whatever it wants within the world community. It's hypocracy is evident to everyone who is not hidden behind the blanket of corporate media. America believes that being the only superpower means never having to say your sorry, and it shows.
Granted, America does push its considerable weight around, but looking at history in general, the United States has been incredibly benign. Most of history's great powers were not nearly so concerend with the well-being of their neighbors. Have you ever heard of the Roman Empire, Napoleon's France, or Nazi Germany undertaking humanitarian missions?
Next time we smack some third world dictatorship around for blustering a bit too defiantly, perhaps America's critics would do well to remember how restrained and concerned over their opinion we are. If it were the Soviet Union that was the only remaining superpower I am certain that opposition would be much less vocal and much shorter lived.
(That came off a bit harsh. Ah well, Service to the Empire.)

*Indeed. Other nations may ::appear:: more benign and nice than the USA -- by default. You can't throw weight around and abuse power that you don't have.

I for one would dread to see North Korea, Libya, Iraq or Iran with the same level of power, resources, and money the USA has got. I'm sure they would very swiftly prove they are no better than the wrongs the USA has committed.

And yes, the USA has been generous and humanitarian as well [usually that is conveniently forgotten somehow]. Did the Soviet Union offer to help Germany back up on its feet after WWII? Did they pour in loads of money to rebuild Berlin and feed its masses of starving people? Nope. Who did? I rest my case.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-14 19:44:57

Thanks, Byron! But maybe we should get back to the proper thread now we've educated each other on our respective countries' social structure.

C.C. and Cindy are right, in my view. They've both hit the nail right on the head.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And the Roman and Nazi systems are a testimony to that - both were brutal.
But nobody has ever had the kind of military power now wielded by America. And yet U.S. policies, though often self-serving, are still remarkably benign.
I still marvel at how the U.S., between 1945 and 1949, was the only country on Earth with a nuclear capability and never used it. You can be quite certain that the U.S.S.R. under Stalin, had it been given the same advantage, would have wasted no time in annexing all of Europe and God knows what else!

It's hard to imagine who else you might trust with the kind of power America has today. Sure the U.S. has its faults, but anyone who gives the world hamburgers, jazz, rock 'n' roll, the Chevy Bel-Air, and manned moon-landings, can't be all bad!!

AltToWar · 2002-11-14 20:22:32

So what your saying is, As far as Imperialist Expantionists States go, America aint that bad?

Compared to Hitler, we are a-ok?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-11-08 03:01:34

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#27 2002-11-08 07:42:01

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#28 2002-11-08 09:45:05

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#29 2002-11-08 10:38:58

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#30 2002-11-08 12:24:03

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#31 2002-11-08 12:36:02

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#32 2002-11-08 12:58:58

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#33 2002-11-08 13:11:11

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#34 2002-11-08 15:01:46

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#35 2002-11-08 19:41:52

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#36 2002-11-08 23:08:24

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#37 2002-11-09 00:16:07

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#38 2002-11-09 00:19:19

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#39 2002-11-09 09:24:09

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#40 2002-11-10 03:27:41

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#41 2002-11-10 05:17:36

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#42 2002-11-11 18:29:13

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#43 2002-11-11 20:47:31

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#44 2002-11-11 21:20:23

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#45 2002-11-14 02:58:22

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#46 2002-11-14 10:04:30

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#47 2002-11-14 13:15:05

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#48 2002-11-14 13:37:08

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#49 2002-11-14 19:44:57

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#50 2002-11-14 20:22:32

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

Board footer