Unions pushing for economic reform outcome in their favour

ACTU secretary Sally McManus will probably blame business for poor productivity at the upcoming economic reform forum (“ACTU to knock some consensus into bosses”, 25/7).

As Geoff Chambers claims, this would likely lead to the forum being just another talkfest, with no realistic solutions to our low levels of productivity. It is never a good start, three weeks out from a forum, to start blaming one particular body.

No doubt mismanagement by some business executives has contributed to the problem as well as an ineffective federal opposition and its lack of policies.

One might just see McManus’s comments as a desire to fire the first shot in what will eventually prove to be a forum that will achieve what the Albanese government and the unions want to achieve, irrespective of what the rest of those attending the forum want.

Peter D. Surkitt, Sandringham, Vic

In the 1970s, the Federated Clerks Union provided an alternative to the left-wing unions’ push for a shorter week.

Rather than reduce the weekly hours to less than 37.5 weeks, it argued that workers would benefit more by keeping the hours but being allowed to spend longer years in retirement for a more fulfilling end-of-work life.

There are alternatives, by thinking outside the square, that should be considered in the economic reform roundtable.

Tim Abrams, Beecroft, NSW

Sally McManus is half right. Poor management is a drain on productivity. But a “harried workforce” (“Government spending and jobs are productivity killers”, 25/7)? I don’t think so.

The problem with management is in big business and the bureaucracy, where managers at many levels do not have the necessary skills to motivate and support their staff. On the other hand, workers nowadays are less productive because many of them spend much of their time working from home. That won’t change because the voters have spoken on that issue.

Jim Chalmers’ productivity roundtable will end up being just another talkfest where unions will be the big winners. Big business, as usual, will complain and continue on their merry way. The big losers, as always with these types of government initiatives, are small businesses.

Riley Brown, Bondi Beach, NSW

My father said once each child in our family of four kids meant he had to earn 12.5 per cent more per child. The Productivity Commission “points the finger at inept government and a bloated public sector for the malaise”, as your editorial states.

Anthony Albanese claims to have created more than 300,000 new jobs. But they are public sector jobs. That’s akin to my father’s statement, in that they have to be paid by the private sector. That’s a hell of a lot of 12.5 per cent, in Dad’s terminology. Herein lies a major part of the “malaise”.

John Partridge, Mosman, NSW

Despite Labor’s 94 seats, we have no idea what Labor’s vision for the country is, and if it exists beyond the immediate, reactive moment (“Packed government bench seeks an effective agenda”, 22/7).

No one, not even Labor, wants a second term of more decline and unprecedented outright failures of good governance. The roundtable, however, is already cast as a difficult birth for major reform. It already is leaning into more taxation as a stopgap for economic collapse. The unions’ demand for working fewer hours for the same pay launches a pre-emptive productivity-killer.

The outcomes of the roundtable warrant assessment as early predictors of future political pain. The Coalition has no more time to linger in its tabula rasa, policy-free “shell shock” election defeat.

Betty Cockman, Dongara, WA

Productivity isn’t a swear word. In order to produce things and grow food and fibre, the most important element required is energy.

Ironically, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen is working counter to productivity by continuing down the path of horrendously expensive renewable energy, which many nations of the developed and developing world are rejecting as a pipedream, possibly nightmare. It would be worthwhile redressing this imbalance in the mindset of the Labor government, in order that it can far more clearly and fairly adjust and implement taxes.

John Bicknell, Bargo, NSW