L2R
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2001
- Messages
- 43,528
Wacky said:from being stripped of work conditions for nothing in return.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_KnVJ7siF6U&mode=related&search=
you know what they're sayin
Wacky said:from being stripped of work conditions for nothing in return.
Bent Mk2 said:Great, then we'd all be out of a job, but at least we'd be legally allowed to smoke bongs and shoot up.
MoeBro said:Yes! Excellent! Heaps of people have employment with no benefits that they should be entitled to, at a payrate that, if they complain about, will get them fired.
Beautiful move!
Bent Mk2 said:Nup!
Assuming you're right, would you prefer much higher unemployment levels? Lots more people without a job whatsoever? Is that a better scenario?
this is taken from an email i received from the ACTU your rights at work campaign team. so far i have not seen or read anything that makes me doubt this info.
Bent Mk2 said:Seasonally adjusted the figure in March 2006 was 5.0% - April 2007 was 4.4% (the lowest unemployment rate in 32 years).
And FYI in March 2005 it was 5.1%, and in March 2004 it was 5.6%.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...1174761374971.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1Australia is not remotely in full employment. The Reserve notes that the unemployment rate is at or around a 30-year low, at 4.6 per cent. But that is only one bit of information about the labour market, and not the most useful bit.
Look again at the figures I began with. Just over 10 per cent of job growth over the past three years came from reducing unemployment. Almost 90 per cent came from migrants, school leavers, and others defined as not in the labour force. And the same will be true in the next three years.
The unemployment rate does not tell us whether or not resources are fully employed. To do that, we need a better measure, so I have invented one: the full-time equivalent (FTE) employment rate.
The concept is not new. In the public service, schools and hospitals, governments already measure employment by converting the number of part-time jobs into full-time equivalent jobs (e.g. two part-timers each working 19 hours a week equals one full-time equivalent worker). It is time the Bureau of Statistics did the same for the whole workforce.
You'd need a computer to process its detailed data on how many hours part-timers work. But roughly speaking, part-timers average 19 hours of work a week, so two part-time jobs roughly equals one full-time equivalent. Using that rule of thumb, I calculate that in 2006, among people aged 15 to 64, the FTE employment rate averaged 62 per cent — that is, add together the full-time and part-time jobs, and there was enough work to provide full-time employment for 62 per cent of people of normal working age.
At first sight, the Reserve is right. That's the highest employment rate ever in the 30 years since the bureau began monthly employment surveys, topping the 61.6 per cent in 1989-90. But it's certainly not full employment.
It's nowhere near the employment rates in Scandinavia or Switzerland, which are close to 70 per cent, and well below New Zealand (63.8 per cent). We have a long way to go yet.
But wait, there's more. Among females, the FTE employment rate has surged from 38.6 per cent in 1978-79 to 50.8 per cent in 2006. It has fallen among teenage girls, who are now studying, has stayed flat among 35 to 44-year-olds, who now have small children, but has risen sharply among 25 to 34 year-olds and all age groups over 45.
And if employers could shed their bias against hiring older workers, the rise so far would be just the tip of the iceberg: far more women over 45 could be working in future.
But for men, it's quite the reverse. Employment rates are way lower than in the past.
In 1978-79, men aged 15 to 64 had an FTE employment rate of 80.2 per cent. But two recessions shattered that, and even in 10 years of the Howard Government, male employment has rebounded only marginally, to be 73.2 per cent in 2006.
Bent Mk2 said:You mean other than the fact that its from the ACTU? Even I take Howard's personal propaganda with a grain of salt!
Chronik Fatigue said:
find this most alarming as i believe that news media has a duty to tell us (the australian public) both sides of story.