Getting real about jobs
@box text intro = The federal government's decision to delay the gradual reduction of tariffs on cars was welcomed by the car companies with the claim that this would preserve jobs in the industry. But whether jobs will really be saved was the furthest thing from the minds of both John Howard and the corporate executives.
In regard to jobs, the various government schemes of tariff cuts, protectionism, industry plans and whatnot have one thing in common: they don't help. They don't save jobs, let alone increase them, because that's not their purpose. Their purpose is to protect profits, and most of the time profits and jobs tend to move in opposite directions.
Despite several years of steadily rising gross domestic product and profits, official unemployment is still 8.8%. May was the third month in a row that the Australian Bureau of Statistics' trend series showed a decline in total employment.
Prime Minister Howard and treasurer Peter Costello are talking about "favourable prospects" for the economy, but the latest national account figures show that manufacturing industry has officially entered recession (three successive quarters of declining output). Annual GDP growth to March was 2.4%, down from 3.1% in the year to last December.
In short, the economy is slowing, so unemployment can be expected to stagnate or increase. And that's before taking into account particular influences such as BHP's decision to close its Newcastle steelworks and the federal government's continued slashing of public service jobs.
If we want to bring down the unemployment rate, we can't rely on the market any more than on the government. For the last three decades, the normal operation of the market has steadily increased unemployment rates.
A major factor in the upset election victory of the Socialist Party in France was its campaign pledge to fight unemployment by legislating for a 35-hour week at no loss in pay. It remains to be seen whether the new government will keep this promise, but such a measure would be a big step in the right direction.
To wipe out the current level of unemployment in Australia would probably require a reduction in the work week to 30 hours, not 35. Reducing the hours of work at no loss in pay would also mean that at last workers received some benefit from the increase in their productivity over recent years.
Most union leaders, openly or silently, agree with business/government objections that a 30-hour week at no loss in pay is not "realistic". But as a method of creating jobs, it is infinitely more realistic than tariffs and industry plans. And the reason that a shorter work week is more "realistic" in France than in Australia is entirely due to the fact that French unions have been fighting for the demand.
Australian union leaders have been "realistic" about accepting unemployment for too long. It's time they got real.