Untrue. Social democrats are as committed to enhancing productivity as much as anyone else, on condition the benefits are fairly shared.

… and so do most employers who are only one step removed from their workers by being price takers for their outputs.

This confuses output with input markets, or product markets with labour markets, and the relationship between the two. It is true that many, although by no means all (and perhaps only the minority of the major employers), are price-takers in product markets. On the other hand, under WorkChoices, most, although by no means all, employers can now become price-setters in the labour market. That’s the very point of the law – to tilt the balance of bargaining power in labour markets in favour of employers, who can now unilaterally lay working conditions down on a take it or leave it basis. The dramatic boost in the power of employers via WorkChoices is underpinned by a real unemployment level of 9-10 per cent. In technical terms, we are talking about the power to determine the distribution of the value of production, not production’s value per se, as you have incorrectly suggested.

It is Hockey’s job to somehow make this inequity palatable. Without being able to trade-off evidence of improving productivity (and the rise in the capacity of Australian production that this implies), like many, I don’t think palatable is possible, and the Andrews strategy of making WorkChoices as invisible as possible was the most feasible political tack for the government to take. I may be proved wrong, but Hockey’s appointment looks a mistake on this basis, for his high level of visibility only draws attention to the fact that he’s playing on a shocking wicket – effectively playing into Labor’s (and Gillard’s deadly) hands.

“The lucidity of the fact that most workers bargain as price-takers…”
and so do most employers who are only one step removed from their workers by being price takers for their outputs. That’s the dishonesty of the unions and the left here, which is of course patently obvious in an increasingly globalised world. If it were not the case the ACTU could simply engage in economy wide leveraged buyouts of industry and release all that surplus value for its members. Don’t hold your breath though. They’re like the RAA, NRMA and politicians who don’t produce a drop of petrol themselves but are always such experts on its ‘true’ price.

Hockey on the other hand comes across as a dumb businessman who wants to be liked even while he rips people off. “Aw shucks, you know I wouldn’t do that to a friend.” He essentially tried to steer the conversation away from Workchoices, and instead to promote those economic indicators that are positive. In this respect, the Howard government has been incredibly lucky in having the resources booom to act as a cover for legislation that’s really an act of class warfare.

Gillard will need to be careful not to come across as too shrill or narrow in trying to force Hockey to engage with the issues, and it seems she is being careful.

As Gillard quietly pointed out, Workchoices denies choice to the netballers. She also mentioned the easy workplace transition to Labor in Victoria and some other states.

This will be an interesting battle, but I think Hockey’s “aw shucks” won’t cut it. Liberal polling in marginal electorates several months ago showed Workchoices to be harming them.

The pattern that doesn’t seem to have been noticed is the number of times Gillard answered difficult questions with “what Labour will do is to come up with a fair and effective balance …”. Hockey’s most telling question was “What does that mean?”

The small target, “reassure but don’t give details strategy” adopted by Gillard is tried and true, but when it comes undone it really comes undone. It will be interesting to watch the debate unfold.

Joe’s smiley-ness is probably his most useful quality, and the PM was clever to pick him, but smileyness only gets you people saying “ah, he seems like a nice guy, BUT…”

Seems to me that Julia has been coached on how to not appear too strident, as she can sometimes come across – I think she was better for it. And her comments re the QLD netballers something like “I don’t care if they negotiate with a union or not, but if they want to negotiate together they should have that CHOICE” was quite clever, and should be repeated as often as possible. Labor needs to make it clear that its not unions PER SE that they want to bring back, but options OTHER than just individual contracts. i.e., REAL choice.

http://celrl.law.unimelb.edu.au/assets/Working%20Papers/celrl-wp25.pdf

Further to Mark’s point about co-operative workplace relations, Fetter and Mitchell found that AWAs weren’t being used to promote a culture change towards co-operative or ‘high trust’ work systems, but were directed toward cost-cutting, annualisation of salaries, abolition of penalty rates, temporal flexibility and the overall enhancement of managerial prerogative.

However it was only a narrow victory. Hockey was clever with Awards using the same methodology – take it or go.

Thanks for clearing up the sweat but in the man’s defence. He’s a big man and would’ve been under studio lights. That said I couldn’t work out if it was sweat or his nose running at the time.

Julia Gillard is the sort of parliamentary performer – and forensic intellect – that Joe Hockey isn’t, but Howard’s assessment of him as “an avuncular sort of bloke” rings true in comparison to the prim, buttoned-up little Rotarian that Andrews evoked.

I agree Hockey failed on detail, but would contend that his position there in comparison with the impersonable and near-zealotry Andrews goes a long way to softening the blunt instrument of the policy, which, overall, is a positive for the current government, and a hat-tip to Howard for reading that.

The interesting thing, which no doubt will happen – and hopefully will happen in the ABC environment of issue ‘debate’ – is that Gillard can slowly turn the screws on Hockey, but Hockey must move away from congeniality and into substantive facts and/or debase Labor policy when it arrives. This brings up the points you mention in comments, and that it’s harder to sell a complex suite of facts than it is to attack them. Hence, Gillard is in the box seat, but it really is up to her and Rudd to get this right.

So my assessment of the contest is much closer to Chris’s take.

Hockey also very clearly isn’t across the detail of the legislation. Gillard will be able to hone in on this in time – it’s probably an advantage that she’s a lawyer (and her practice largely industrial law) both in the sense of getting across very complex legislation and also a forensic knack for the weak points in her opponent’s argument – which has always been one of her strong suits in Parliament.

However, and looking for the blitz, it didn’t read as much for me. A few thoughts:

* Hockey is congenial, and that is effective – so different it would have been had Andrews been there. Blunt policy instruments otherwise seemed to be rendered numb I would suggest on account of Hockey’s performance (on that performance basis only).

* Gillard seemed reserved. What a chance to ignore the other line and go for the kill; not taken. Instead, she gave in to her opponent’s ground too often and too much. Nothing like how she performs in Parliament.

* Gillard did not present with alternative policy.

* Hockey failed in addressing the looming crunch about power for employers, but won it back when speaking of small business needs: unfair dismissal: a reclamation in the ‘debate’ of his own initiative last night.

* Gillard called the employer “sign it or go” AWA problem well, but I believe failed to land the knockout on that, which was available.

Overall, one wonders what has been agreed upon for these debates. They are way too tame for the issues involved.

Perhaps it’s a case of dipping the toe in; perhaps it’s a case of “no mistake is better than risking the killer” (it’s early), perhaps it’s about an agreement in mishmash ABC ways as attempt to lead into following debates – but it’s bloody tame stuff.

Overall, the issue wasn’t aired well, Gillard underperformed [one wonders if she is timing the killer requirements for later, or is hamstrung by something else], and Hockey proved himself a far better proponent than Andrews. That also seemed to indicate: Gillard can improve considerably, and Hockey may have shown about as good as he gets, more or less, in comparison with where else to go.

However, if it’s more of the same in the next rounds, Labor is at a loss in that particular environment. Wny? Because the issue itself which propends elsewhere to be so crucial is rendered lame. If Howard has in fact softened the ABC, and laid out a pissant runway for landing into this year’s election, with Hockey there, he’s done well.

Early days; Hockey under pressure should that happen and debating on actual alternative policy may appear as lame as the debate did last night.

Gillard has the ball, then, in her court.

Alas, and this is the wall Hockey walked into last night, the government has refused to allow an independent analysis of the AWAs to date, or even a partial departmental analysis.

Sorry, Chris, this isn’t quite right. The OEA released a sample of 250 AWAs to a Senate Committee late last year.

In the past, they’ve called tenders for analyses of AWAs in particular sectors. I wrote a bid from QUT which got onto the preferred provider list. But most of the work went to centres like Judith Sloan’s NILS and Mark Wooden’s mob (I’ve forgotten the acronym).

Nevertheless, only small samples have been analysed. But the sample given to the Senate was pretty scary.

Still, the general point is spot on.

The fact that AWAs are secret (as opposed to enterprise agreements and awards, all of which are public documents anyone can look up on a number of websites) is an evil in two senses. First, because an accurate picture of their impact can’t be guaged, which if nothing else, is a severe failure of accountability and policy evaluation. Secondly, because employees don’t know if their fellow workers have been made a different offer. (The previous legislation required the starting point for bargaining to be equal for those on the same award or CA level, but that’s now gone). One particular concern is the effect on gender equity. There’s evidence that many employees in one particular telco are offered 10k a year more for the same duties just for being blokes.

Peetz is good on the negative gender equity impacts of AWAs. There’s some other good research around on this, and the unions are well aware of it. That’s another good reason to have Gilly as shadow. It would be very interesting to see polling on WorkChoices disaggregated by gender. I strongly suspect women would be more concerned with it than men.

Anyway, sorry to clog up your thread! I’ll stop now. :)

The comment about Ponting is ironic given that two Queensland netballers have been suspended from the team for not signing AWAs!

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1847970.htm