This is primarily directed at the Americans who post here, mainly because I know there are a few of you, particularly on the conservative side, who think that Federal politics should butt out and leave things to the states. For the past 100 years or so, our workplace laws regarding work conditions, pay rates, overtime etc. have been in the hands of the states and arbitrated through a commission in each state with state, union and employer representation. Our current conservative Federal government is now pushing to use its majority in both houses to scrap the individual State workplace laws and replace them with a single Federal one. Their claim is that it will make industrial relations easier, boost the economy and create jobs growth, although it's hard to see why when the current system has worked perfectly well for almost a century. I won't go into why unions, employee groups, the Australian Council of Churches and all kinds of humanitarian organisations, every other political party and charity groups think it's a bad idea, I'm just interested to read your thoughts on this level of Federal government intervention.

Do you have a link to the specifics?

Just off the top of my head, it makes sense to have a consistent standard for things like workplace safety standards (doesn't OSHA take care of that already?), on the other hand things like minimum wage standards -- in theory -- should really be determined by locality, as logistically nightmarish as that might be in practical reality.

This site sums up the Government's view. I could post links to the opposing views, but that would take forever.

https://www.workchoices.gov.au/

Unfortunately there's so much corporate influence peddling in our governments that giant corporations such as McDonald's or Wal-Mart get treated with kid gloves.  Whereas, OSHA has no trouble going into a mom & pop deli or a corner grocery and fining them a zillion dollars for minor code violations.

Just a little more on this, even though the laws haven't been passed yet, with the conservative majority it's likely they will be, and employers are trying them on already. Yesterday I was talking to a friend of mine who works for a major international restaurant chain. He is being pressured to re-negotiate his work contract. Another friend has just had three days' worth of annual leave sheared from her entitlements with no relieving benefit.

This site sums up the Government's view. I could post links to the opposing views, but that would take forever.

https://www.workchoices.gov.au/




Didn't realize you were talking about Australia -- missed that in your original post.  I'd have to defer to my SO the Aussie expatriate for her perspective on it.

We have several layer of labor law in the US.  At the Fed level there is the fair employment practices act, the national labor relations act, Taft - Hartly, Landrum - Griffin, Occupational Health and Safty act, and many more all of which combined address working conditions etc which serve as minimum standards.  States have their own laws, which can exceed those standards (Vermont's minimum wage is higher than the Fed minimum).  THe problem is that when you have an anti-labor, pro business admin and judges, the laws are either avoided (the pro labor ones) or inforced with a vengance.  For example, way back in the early 1800s the John Marschal Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of contract, yet backrupcy judges have allowed employers to break contracts that they negotiated with unions.  So I guess some contracts are more sanctified than others.

I think the federal government not only ought to, but I think it has the responsibity of regulating working conditions, and a lot more heavily than it already does. Not only are there safety concernes, but also welfare concerns. I'm talking about madatory two weeks, paid, pre-labour maternity leave, and mandatory eight weeks post-labour paid maternity leave after that. I'm talking about mandated 4-6 weeks of paid vacation per year for every worker. Progressive minimum wage laws (i.e. the higher minimum wage for a higher age group, like in Britain). The federal government must protect the market from itself. Companies cannot be given the upper hand over actual people. It is people who created the company, and if they step out of line or don't want to follow the rules, then it must be the people who say "hey, enough already" and revoke their charters. Enough is enough. It's people who matter, not just people with money.

I think the federal government not only ought to, but I think it has the responsibity of regulating working conditions, and a lot more heavily than it already does. Not only are there safety concernes, but also welfare concerns. I'm talking about madatory two weeks, paid, pre-labour maternity leave, and mandatory eight weeks post-labour paid maternity leave after that. I'm talking about mandated 4-6 weeks of paid vacation per year for every worker. Progressive minimum wage laws (i.e. the higher minimum wage for a higher age group, like in Britain). The federal government must protect the market from itself. Companies cannot be given the upper hand over actual people. It is people who created the company, and if they step out of line or don't want to follow the rules, then it must be the people who say "hey, enough already" and revoke their charters. Enough is enough. It's people who matter, not just people with money.


I support all of that and more.  Corporations should NOT be afforded the same legal protections as actual people.  Or if they are, they should be required to die after a set # of years.

I support all of that and more.  Corporations should NOT be afforded the same legal protections as actual people.  Or if they are, they should be required to die after a set # of years.


Hmmm, interesting idea.

I am curious though, what would happen to the assets after that happens?  Are they sold, and the profits distributed to the shareholders?

And what happens when a Ford Motors, a General Motors, or a Colt Firearms is forced to disolve because of "old age"?  And what becomes of the huge number of employees laid off?

And to play devils advocate, the same should then happen to most labor unions.  After they achieve their goals, they should be allowed to die, to be revived when they are needed again.  Personally, the only permanent unions I see a need for are those that deal with dangerous occupations, like mine workers, steel workers, oil workers, IBEW, construction workers, and the like.  In this case, they also work as a watchdog for safety, and take care of those injured in the line of duty, or the survivors of those killed.  I never questioned the need for a mine workers union, but I do question the need for a grocery clerks union.

I think that the Federal Government should set minimum standards.  But States should step in and make higher standards if needed.  I especially think this is the case for wages.  I believe that every state (county and city) should have a "Minimum Wage" that is high enough for people to make a "living wage" in their community.  This way, they can respond quicker to changing local conditions.  I know that in New Orleans area now, housing costs are through the roof because there is not much available.  It even affected us here in SE Alabama, because all of the "affordable housing" was sucked up by storm refugees.  But I know this is a short term thing in our area.  Prices will go down as more people return home.  But in an area like NO, it will be a long term issue.  And the current Federal minimums are not able to handle issues like this.

Hmmm, interesting idea.

I am curious though, what would happen to the assets after that happens?  Are they sold, and the profits distributed to the shareholders?

And what happens when a Ford Motors, a General Motors, or a Colt Firearms is forced to disolve because of "old age"?  And what becomes of the huge number of employees laid off?


I think you missed the point. I don't think he was actually suggesting that corporations "die" after said number of years. He said that rhetorically. I think he just believes that corporations ought not be placed on par with actual people, plain and simply, and that extra comment was just for the effect of the absurd.

I could be wrong.

I support all of that and more.  Corporations should NOT be afforded the same legal protections as actual people.  Or if they are, they should be required to die after a set # of years.

I concur.  As it now, corporations can get away with atrocious sh*t for which an individual would be locked up for decades!

I'm not crazy about federal power, but it sure beats corporate bullying.  It's a lot easier for The Very Big Megacorporation to threaten a state legislature than the feds.  They can say, "OK, Virginia, if you say we can't dump our poisons in the river, we'll just take our 3500 jobs to South Carolina where we can dump our poisons in the river!"
:o

I think that the Federal Government should set minimum standards.  But States should step in and make higher standards if needed.  I especially think this is the case for wages.  I believe that every state (county and city) should have a "Minimum Wage" that is high enough for people to make a "living wage" in their community.  This way, they can respond quicker to changing local conditions.  I know that in New Orleans area now, housing costs are through the roof because there is not much available.  It even affected us here in SE Alabama, because all of the "affordable housing" was sucked up by storm refugees.  But I know this is a short term thing in our area.  Prices will go down as more people return home.  But in an area like NO, it will be a long term issue.  And the current Federal minimums are not able to handle issues like this.


This is the sort of thing I was looking for. Currently the states here set their own standards within the minimum standards set by the Commonwealth. Now, the Commonwealth wants to take the states right out of the equation, and set one set of guidelines for the whole country. Two of the states are now threatening to take the new laws to the High Court on the grounds that they are anti-Constitutional. I think they have a pretty good case.

What's happening here in Australia at the moment is a bloody disgrace.  Somebody should kick John Howard's arse 'til  his nose bleeds (just my 2 cents worth)!!

Hmmm, interesting idea.

I am curious though, what would happen to the assets after that happens?  Are they sold, and the profits distributed to the shareholders?

And what happens when a Ford Motors, a General Motors, or a Colt Firearms is forced to disolve because of "old age"?  And what becomes of the huge number of employees laid off?





I think you missed the point. I don't think he was actually suggesting that corporations "die" after said number of years. He said that rhetorically. I think he just believes that corporations ought not be placed on par with actual people, plain and simply, and that extra comment was just for the effect of the absurd.

I could be wrong.


No, I'm not suggesting that GM, Ford etc, should "die" as in be liquidated.  I could envision a set of laws that gave corps continuance, but also entailed a set of responsibilities to both the employees and society at large which they would "pay" for their leagal immortality.  I could give you a history lesson based on the church in Latin America but I will refrain.  There are also a bunch of 19th Century US thinkers who addressed this issue, like Thomas Skidmore.  The whole quiestion revolves around vested power, and as we have seen in recent years, vested influence.  If we were to deny corporations the right to spend money on lobbiests, f/e, and contribute to political campaigns...

No, I'm not suggesting that GM, Ford etc, should "die" as in be liquidated.


One thing I have always enjoyed playing with is "what if" concepts.  And I approached this idea as a great "what if".  It really is an interesting idea, and it does have some merit to be considered.

Then what do you do with the oldest corporation in America, Harvard University?  Or the family farms, which have been Incorporated in order to protect family assets from "death taxes"?  (I know some here claim there is no such thing, but that is why a lot of family businesses are incorporated)

My fear is that this would lead to a "cartel" forming in companies like car companies.  After all, only a company with "deep pockets" could afford to buy something like this.  Over time, all of the "Big Three" would merge into one company, which would just die then rise again like a Phoenix.  But the interregnum would be hell for the employees.  And how can you ever have "long term contracts" with a company that will "die" in a few years?

As far as workplace conditions, such as safety, strict sexual harrassment and discrimination regulations, I think these issues are very equally important throughout the nation, so I would see no problem with them being federally regulated.  I wouldn't see a problem with the state having power to make even stricter regulations.

I have mixed feelings about minimum wage.  It would be nice if everyone could make a decent living wage, and we all live happily ever after.  But unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.  Living in Silicon Valley, I can tell you that from personal experience.

Back in the 1980's, San Jose was just a city, and was basically equivalent to any semi-major city in the country.  Then the dotcom era appeared, and everything changed.  Cost of living went up.  Minimum wage went up to match it.  Cost of living went up again.  Minimum wage went up again to match it.  This endless cycle went on and on... and where are we now??  Well, sure, we make alot of money compared to other places in the country...does that mean we are better off??  The average home price here is over $700,000.  Less than 12% of Bay Area families qualify to buy a home, according to the National Association of Realtors.

See, it works like this.

We raise the minimum wage.  Do you think McDonalds, Walmart, Chevron, and 7-11 are going to eat the additional costs??  Heck no!  They are going to raise their prices to cover this added expense.  So, now consumers are paying more for what they need.  So what good did the minimum wage do?  Now the prices are higher and the minimum wage earners are no better off than they were before.  The governments are happy though.  The IRS is getting more money because the income levels are higher... the state is getting more money because the sales tax is higher (due to prices being higher).  But where does this benefit the people??  It just creates an endless cycle which results in what Silicon Valley is today.

As far as workplace conditions, such as safety, strict sexual harrassment and discrimination regulations, I think these issues are very equally important throughout the nation, so I would see no problem with them being federally regulated.  I wouldn't see a problem with the state having power to make even stricter regulations.

I have mixed feelings about minimum wage.  It would be nice if everyone could make a decent living wage, and we all live happily ever after.  But unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.   Living in Silicon Valley, I can tell you that from personal experience.

Back in the 1980's, San Jose was just a city, and was basically equivalent to any semi-major city in the country.  Then the dotcom era appeared, and everything changed.  Cost of living went up.  Minimum wage went up to match it.  Cost of living went up again.   Minimum wage went up again to match it.  This endless cycle went on and on... and where are we now??  Well, sure, we make alot of money compared to other places in the country...does that mean we are better off??  The average home price here is over $700,000.  Less than 12% of Bay Area families qualify to buy a home, according to the National Association of Realtors.

See, it works like this.

We raise the minimum wage.  Do you think McDonalds, Walmart, Chevron, and 7-11 are going to eat the additional costs??   Heck no!  They are going to raise their prices to cover this added expense.   So, now consumers are paying more for what they need.  So what good did the minimum wage do?  Now the prices are higher and the minimum wage earners are no better off than they were before.  The governments are happy though.  The IRS is getting more money because the income levels are higher... the state is getting more money because the sales tax is higher (due to prices being higher).  But where does this benefit the people??  It just creates an endless cycle which results in what Silicon Valley is today.

Well, you're absolutely right about that.  I would rather see a raise in the minimum wage than not, but it is simply not enough to raise the minimum wage.  In order to make the minimum wage count, you have to do a lot of regulatory tweaking to business practices which big business will also fight tooth and nail.  Under the free market, the goal of the bosses is to reap as much profit as possible while squeezing as much productivity as possible from employees the bosses will pay as little as possible.  To interfere in this dynamic first gets you called a "communist," and then requires a hundred times more work than your average politician wants to do!
::)

Well, you're absolutely right about that.  I would rather see a raise in the minimum wage than not, but it is simply not enough to raise the minimum wage.  In order to make the minimum wage count, you have to do a lot of regulatory tweaking to business practices which big business will also fight tooth and nail.  Under the free market, the goal of the bosses is to reap as much profit as possible while squeezing as much productivity as possible from employees the bosses will pay as little as possible.  To interfere in this dynamic first gets you called a "communist," and then requires a hundred times more work than your average politician wants to do!
::)


You're spot on. It is political suicide in this country for a politician to speak out against the corporate structure in a way that hints to significant progress in worker's/consumer's rights. If a politician, Democrat or Republican, did that, they'd find themselves with no money come election time, and with the structure funding a more "acceptable" candidate. Washington and Business have been pursuing a you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours relationship for quite a long time now, and now I fear it may be too late. The corporate bosses can't get away with this sort of thing in Europe because they had a pandemic labour movement while the going was still good, back when a democratic government still meant something. In today's post-industrial America, the path to a healthier society is blocked by seemingly insurmountable obstacles. The country is too large, the bosses are too rich and powerful, and the population is too diluted from decades in a materialistic society of instant gratification. There are few true-believers left in anything, right or left. The fact that the number one "political issue" on most people's minds is the cost of gasoline should be an indicator that we have a serious problem here. But it's all instant-gratification. "I want cheap gas, I want it now, and I'll vote for whoever can convince me that they'll give it to me!"