PM: Business just can’t be trusted
Industrial relations - - Posted on April, 30 at 8:38 am by Gianna
The other day business groups were outraged and finally motivated to chip into the Liberal election campaign funding because of perceived criticism of company directors. Now, John Howard claims business can’t be trusted to hire parents and do the right thing by Australian families. Are business groups now outraged at Howard? Are they going to vow to spend some coin on Labor’s campaign now? All ears…
I don’t understand John Howard’s logic. So if bound by legislation, business can’t be trusted and will discriminate against working parents. But if left to their own devices, employers can be trusted. Howard reckons this is because employers don’t like authority:
“[Businesses] will be frightened that some bureaucrat will come in and try and tell them how to run their business,” he told the Nine Network.
“(It) will simply result, I promise you, in a lot of employers saying ‘Well, look, I don’t want to be told how to run my business’. “‘I simply won’t employ people with young children’ and that will end up discriminating against parents with young children, particularly against women.”
Why doesn’t Howard actually condemn that thinking? Why doesn’t he acknowledge that if that is the perception–too much hassle, won’t bother to hire women–then perhaps employers are the ones who need to be lectured about mutual obligation, their responsibilities to working parents, their debt to society etc. Maybe instead of wasting money telling workers that unions are evil, the Liberals should spend money educating employers on the long-term benefits of hiring working parents (of either gender). The point of legislating is that rather than hoping employers will do the right thing for families, employers will be obliged to do so.
Howard makes a show of caring about women, claiming women will be disadvantaged because it’s clearly still women who sacrifice jobs to stay home with small children. Is that biologically determined, because we have the womb? Or maybe a consequence of a situation where men earn more and remain the principal breadwinner because couples elect to sacrifice the job that pays the least? Until we see pay parity it is hard to see there’ll be much change there. At least Labor’s proposal affords men equal status as a parent and gives them more of a choice to take on the role of primary caregiver. But as if Grand Daddy Howard wants to see more stay-at-home fathers…
Posted in Industrial relations |
April 30th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Just one more example of the numerous contradiction present in John Howard’s approach to business. Workchoices will lead to higher wages, but its constraint on wage growth will keep inflation low. It will lead to more jobs, but give employers the ability to sack people freely. Workers will be able to negotiate with their employers, as long as they aren’t pregnant or inarticulate or unskilled or, y’know, actually in desperate need of a job. And employers will always do the right thing by their employees, except if somebody tells them they have to.
The cognitive dissonance is astounding. We need someone on TV clearly pointing out the multitude of illogical assumptions and contradictory talking points in a way that everybody out in Punterland can relate to. Surely it’s not that hard to explain that Howard is saying two different things, frequently?
April 30th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Of course, business also doesn’t like paying the current minimum wage, which leads them to simply not employ people, full stop.
Or have I missed something here?
April 30th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
And another thing, I thought that discrimination in employment on the grounds of gender (among other things) was still illegal? If Howard is such a great supporter of the ‘the Rule of Law’ then I would expect him to be critical of anyone, even a battling little business owner, seeking to subvert the will of Parliament, in order to avoid having to manage on the terms determined by the Parliament. Or is the ‘Rule of Law’, simply something of a convenient veil, to be ripped aside when it comes to the rights of working people, but converted to a hammer when it comes to protecting the rights of property?
Perhaps one of our ‘fearless and without favour’ jounralists might like to ask the Prime Minister when next they interview him. or perhaps not. Anyway just wondering.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Henderson sang from the same song sheet on Insiders. He was bemoaning the hardships of running a small business & stated quite clearly that he would have to think twice about hiring young women.
Putting the blatant ageism and sexism of this comment to one side….
Isn’t it this mob that is always telling us that you do not need any laws protecting workers because they always pick the best person for the job?
April 30th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
“Isn’t it this mob that is always telling us that you do not need any laws protecting workers because they always pick the best person for the job?”
Yeah, but according to Hendo it’s clear that men and post-menopausal women ARE the best people for ‘the job’, simply because they’re not encumbered by pregnancy.
God knows who’ll they be left with though if men start requesting flexible work to look after their children in the first couple of years after childbirth.
The ‘best person for the job’ is obviously anyone unencumbered by any ties and responsbilities beyond the workplace. To paraphrase Henry Ford’s complaint, ‘Why is it that anytime I want a pair of hands I also have to get a brain/heart/mother/father?’
April 30th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Howard is essentially still the little, boring, non-curious, ill-read, lower middle class, sixteen year old boy/31 year old suburban solicitor, living with his mum.
He holds the same attitudes and values that were held by my neighbours when I came to Australia in 1969. Good women were married women, who stayed home once they got pregnant and brought up the children, washed hubby’s shirts and cooked him tea for when he came home, and, if absolutely necessary, did that ‘other thing’, in the missionary position, in bed, preferably on Sunday afternoon - ooh yukey! They well knew the piper had to be paid, and, in a relaxed and comfortable patriachal society, who he is/they are.
Then came Whitlam, and nothing has ever been the same since. Our Man of Steel just trying to get it back to the ‘way it was’, and if he can get back at those ‘others’, who saw their lives transformed in the seventies, and shouldn’t have, all the better.
With Kirribilli, the pay off that keeps on giving, it’s even better than Sunlight Soap.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Thanks Gianna for posting on this. Howard’s argument is utterly outrageous for all the reasons you and others have advanced. That sort of argument was already out of date in the 1970’s, and you don’t even have to be a feminist to know it.
So businesses won’t hire mothers. Really? Even young women (who are supposed to be “disconnected” from politics) just won’t cop that kind of patriarchal, sexist guff any more, and will say so at the polling booth.
How about another $5,000 in the Budget to have one for the country? Howard must think women are stupid. What women really want is decent access to childcare and maternity leave.
Howard’s tin ear is really ringing the changes.
I heard him the other night selling (again) his plan for a nuclear Australia by saying “If you are serious about doing something about climate change, then…”.
In saying “you”, not “we”, Howard is making it clear it is not his problem, and that he does not really believe “you” have one. But if “you” insist, then he will pick the winners. Hello Ron Walker.
The desiccated coconut just does not get it.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
It isn’t just small business- I know of law firms who already refuse to employ women of child bearing age because they don’t want the inconvenience. The letter of the law is so far from what is actually standard practice. How many successful cases for discrimination at the hiring stage do we know of?
April 30th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
I don’t know of any cases of pre employment discrimination, (although there are plenty on promotion to another job in the same business) but clearly there will be plenty if business decides to take up Howard’s nasty little meme. What a grub.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Howard’s logic is simply the logic of market fundamentalism, it’s just incautious of him to be so frank about it. Or perhaps he doesn’t know that discrimination on the grounds of age, gender or carer responsibilities is prohibited. It’s certainly a clear indication of what we can expect in WorkChoices ver 2 should he get re-elected: wholesale federal takeover of EEO and OH&S laws with a minimal safety net on the grounds that employers are all rational people and the last thing they would do is act on prejudice or see a good worker get hurt.
April 30th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
You gotta luv this:
(Source: SMH: Andrew Clennell
April 30, 2007)
So…let me get this right…as far as John Howard & the Libs are concerned, Labor shouldn’t be accepting anyone into the Party who has worked for a Union…but it’s ok to run for Liberal pre-selection if you’re a BIG TIME business exec, CEO or owner?…is that RIGHT?
So…those who protect the Workers are a ‘no no’ for politics…but those who sign them up to AWAs are ‘A Ok!’…
says alot about the distorted & manipulative thinking of those in charge of our Country these days…& who is pulling the strings…& why they wan’t to keep Union reps out of politics.
April 30th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Krugman nails it in todays NYT…..
next time someone tells you that any action that might reduce corporate profits a bit — like actually enforcing health and safety regulations or making it easier for workers to organize — will reduce business investment, bear in mind that today’s record profits aren’t being invested. Instead, they’re being used to enrich executives and a few lucky stock owners.
Next Article in Opinion (5 of 14) »
April 30th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
“those who protect the Workers are a ‘no no’ for politics…but those who sign them up to AWAs are ‘A Ok!’”
nasking,
It’s quite simple really.
In the howard-hugger world the first are nasty thuggish union ‘bosses’ (think mafia) and the second are fine upstanding business leaders (aka John’s mates).
In my world the first group look out for the interests of others and the second group look out for themsevles.
Nice quote Lloyd!
April 30th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
AS says: “I don’t know of any cases of pre employment discrimination…”
That was su’s point. Pre-employment discrimination is the hardest to prove, but could well be the most common.
Howard doesn’t propose to do anything about it, of course, which is why his statements on the topic are just so much wanking.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:33 am
So I’ve read through the comments and do not detect anyone that has run their own business and is talking from empirical experience though I could have missed it. Having run my own small business with a staff of 30 for 15 years and having many friends that run their own show I can put to rest a couple of myths. 1) no employer with any sense would not hire the best candidate regardless of age, sex, race, height, weight or political stance. this pre employment discrimination stuff is unbelievable nonsense. 2) the threat of law suits by staff claiming wrongful dismissal (even for theft, gross negligence or incompetence etc) is so great as to mean companies expand more slowly than they could. 3) in management meetings inordinate amounts of time are spent on staff retention programs, analysing what people need from a work-life balance point of view, salary expectations, bonus opportunities etc etc. The cost to replace good staff members is huge. It’s not that hard.
If anyone believes that things work like the current ad on telly where they talk about saving 10% of staff costs and then go on to management bonuses don’t know how things work.
Still, truth is not one of the left’s strong points when it comes to matters industrial. If you want to have strong social programs then reduce tax rates and free up the labour market so that tax intake is maximised through increased consumption.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:08 am
Jack reckons that “no employer with any sense would not hire the best candidate regardless of age, sex, race, height, weight or political stance.”
True.
However, you left out the one crucial determinative factor in this post-industrial service economy of ours: The best = The cheapest.
I’m sure you and your mates would bring-in indentured female Kanakas if you could just get ‘em into the country.
I mean, we gotta compete with Bangaldesh. Right?
Never mind mate, no action required.
With most of the Pacific’s islands slated to go-under with Global warming in the next generation or so, I’m sure mobs of Kanakas will be coming to you real soon.
And you can bet they’ll be happy to flip your burgers or work your thong-making machine or asbestos mixer or whatever for a few bucks a day.
A lot cheaper than those damn lazy pinko Unionists eh?
May 1st, 2007 at 2:26 am
and therefore solar rays shine out of my derriere, so remain rooted in place everyone whilst I pontificate.
reduce which tax rates? from what i remember company & income tax rates have been reduced? increased consumption of which goods & services? how much more personal debt do you want consumers to have?
seems to me that Govt revenue is skyrocketing & yet i don’t see a strengthening of social programs.
Yes. And now management can spend some time discussing Labor’s policies. Time to get out the coffee & donuts. Or is it a lunch at taxpayer’s expense?…do you drive yerself to the meetings in that partially taxpayer owned car? or have you left that at your investment home so those who pay rent…or should we say, most of your mortgage…can gaze at it w/ envy whilst you take an overseas trip, partially at taxpayer’s expense, in order to check out other business opportunities?
This of course coming from someone who has run a film & tv department…& co-ordinated various other departments that took up only a measly 60-90hrs per week of my time…& who was quite happy teaching kids like yours for 20 - 30 grand a year during the 90s & receiving bugger all tax deductions…but that’s cool, ’cause some actually work to assist others & not just themselves. I had no problem w/ paying back 12 grand for the privilege of a Uni education…i wonder how much you paid for your education Jack?
But hey, who am i to question you…you guys make the world go round, right Jack?
Yea, I know, those of us who support protection for Workers are just hacks…those dreadfully unambitious types who were stupid because we decided we didn’t want to earn big bucks off the labor of others. Silly us eh?…:)
I have no probs w/ small business…but if you need so much assistance to stay afloat perhaps you should take it up w/ the multi-nationals eh? Or your local Liberal member?
May 1st, 2007 at 9:13 am
Jack you find time to do all this in a firm with 30 employees? How in Christ’s name do you stay solvent? Maybe you run a pharmamcy or some other business with a guaranteed government monopoly.
Having been part of the senior management team in companies that employed thousands of employees for many years, I don’t actually recall many meetings like that. In fact we didn’t have many meetings of any description, we were too busy. And the frontline managers who actually did the hiring and firing would do whatever they could get away with to keep their costs down and their short-term production up, because that’s how their performance was evaluated.
Maybe Jack thinks all those complaints to the EEO tribunals are the creations of evil leftie conspiracies out to do … well whatever it is the wingnuts think lefties are conspiring to do.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:51 am
Jack - I encourage you to go and have a look online at what Gerard Henderson said.
Your assumptions about all previous commentators not having experience of being employers is also wrong.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:27 am
in management meetings inordinate amounts of time are spent on staff retention programs
Exactly my point- and in the cases I was talking about the seniors decided that it was better for them to hire a man who would remain continuously employed than a woman who might conceivably take time off for family responsibilities, requiring a replacement and otherwise causing disruption. The implicit assumption that it will be the woman who takes parental leave is what Rudd’s policy is trying to address. If both partners had the right to parental leave and if father’s embraced this right, perhaps we could make a dent in pre-employment discrimination.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Ok Yabahut won’t do that. (This is not posted by the way, why waste time on Ackerman right)
Pier’s, Rudd’s a fresh face, with a back to basics policy. People relate to this and find it understandable without undue complexity. What appears to be lack of depth could also be described as a keen understanding of what people need in there lives and a tribute to the Labor movement’s emotional intelligence. Plain talk and strait answers, with a focus on the family unit. I think Rudd makes a good point in recognising family responsibility, producing policy oriented around family life, and ordinary concerns within our communities.
Rudd has now spelled out his IR policy no mistake. His plain talk was also refreshing and appealing, his persona radiates trust. Even you must concede Mr Howard’s does not, he’ like a stale piece of bread. Fresh thinking is apt, given ten years of Howard leadership “back to the future” is quite right; looking back on the past to understand and reconstruct a better future/present is hardly a derogatory attack. Your mates must do better than this. Labor is about “a fair go” Mr Howard can say such until he’s blue in the face, however people don’t believe it.
Rudd and Labor have given us a moral direction, a positive social alternative which places money into its rightful position, secondary to the human experience. Pursuit of the dollars must fall behind the posture of moral ideals. John Howard to Liberals detriment went to fare with IR. A very radical policy, applied in a time of majority, and defiantly not voted on by the Australian Public.
Can you imagine Pier’s; at the last election if Mr Howard had told us he intended to introduce sweeping changes to IR? He would not be leading this country now.
It was deceptive hidden agenda, secretive and just plain wrong; a fascist ideology.
In my opinion, IR will certainly become more restrictive to peoples lifestyles given his past antics and its underutilised scope to date. Big Business has not begun to take advantage of the situation and neither has this government. Another term will seal workers fates and introduce us to their/there real consequence and hidden agenda’s. Joe Hockey still has not produced any figures that would be damaging to the governments position. What? The public are not supposed to know the true fate of working people? Trust, what trust…? Mr Howard’s economics gains are not enough to stifle public outrage, or win him another term. I see this election as the most important in our country’s history. A Liberal victory will change more than simply the colour of national identity; it has the potential to unravel the stitching of Australian society. The Howard government’s implementation of some policy, in particularly IR, was conceited and chesty, a false condiment of winning another term, the gravy of his rotten feast and personal hate of unionism. I find it hard to trust what Mr Howard says and question his economically money orientated vision.
A class system has already emerged from 10 years of Howard’s government, yet the right would call this advancement, more like a fracturing of social equity. Right wingers seem to believe governments should never change and find offence in a democratic system with stout opposition. This election is about Democratic rule as opposed to Fascism. Severe repression of unionism can only be viewed as such.
Another thing Piers, personality is the essence of a leader, why the derision? I guess if Labor had Mr Costello in opposition you would feel safe right? Well I would if I were going to vote liberal, for he’s as charismatic as a store manikin. You fellow’s must control your paranoia and the consequential derision, grasping at any angle to discredit, being so cheap as to play generational games. However, Mr Howard truly is outdated; his judgment has faltered, early sighs of dementias are setting in, a bit like Regan, in his latter years. It’s a cheap shot by Howard attempting to cause a generational division amongst the electorate, what total nonsense it’s plainly transparent. Rudd did not question Mr Howard’s age, only his length of term, quite correct.
I heard Mr Howard say today on radio words to the effect “what would happen if Rudd got run over by a bus”, Indeed Mr Howard, the question should be, what would happen if you got run over by a Bus? Quite unbelievable, did he really say that? Mr Howard engulfs portfolios, his minister’s are mere servants with little public exposure themselves, and even less comment.
I’m not completely on the left Pier’s. Good policy is good policy, bad is bad. The present government grasp of the Metal health problem is a good example. But Pier’s, mental health is a growth industry in this country, and a product of ones society, this right wing doctrine, the creation of want, above and beyond social morality and harmony is a Major contributor. The advancement of community division, a world of haves and have nots, the emergence of lock out suburb’s, extreme wealth in the hands of the few, unaffordable housing and rentals, failing mortgages restricted educational opportunity, these thing worry people. So grow up you twit, and start reporting the real news not you extreme right wing bias.