Priceline has sacked a worker earning $100,000 a year plus perks, and replaced him with an employee doing the same job for $75,000. They have done so because under John Howard's WorkChoices, it's legal under a broadened interpretation of "operational reasons".

Companies can sack a worker and readvertise the same job at lower pay under a landmark ruling that opens the way for employers to make "difficult" staff redundant for financial reasons.

Business hailed the Australian Industrial Relations Commission decision last night, declaring it had significant ramifications for the rights of employers to fire workers.

It ruled that the grounds for sacking workers under Work Choices using "operational reasons" were much broader than the grounds that existed under the previous federal industrial legislation.

The question of a 'valid reason' need not be considered, when an argument is advanced regarding the termination being for operational reasons, or for reasons that included operational reasons," the commission said.

No one knows what really constitutes an "operational reason," but these kinds of weasel words are what getting away with murder -- or indiscriminate sackings -- is all about.

Sure, every employer wants to get rid of deadbeats; his employees want this too. But this is about as blatant an instance of the master-servant mentality as you'll ever see. Who is to say that in a couple of years the bloke on 75 grand isn't replaced by someone hired for $50,000?

Doesn't this go to the heart of the employer mindset? Hire for as little as possible. Because for most businessmen and women, employees are little more than necessary but expendable units to make sure their profits increase. The less paid the more profit.

This is one of the abiding scenarios in the history of mankind, that of the master shafting the servant. Unions stepped in during the 20th century to right the wrong of this born-to-rule mentality. Now, since the Mad Thatcher reinstated the feudal system in the 80s, the lords of business have cast off their hypocritical respect for worker-vassals, and the result is Priceline. And the reason John Howard's every other utterance is to denounce those interfering unions.

Here's a snippet from yesterday's PM radio program:

DANIEL HOARE: Pat McKendry is the Chief Executive of the National Retailers' Association. He says the Industrial Relations Commission has made the right decision.

PAT MCKENDRY: You have a company here that is suffering from some financial stress. They make a decision after looking at a range of options to shed staff so they can right the ship. Under the old laws, they could have been challenged and had that decision overturned, or if not overturned, at least spent money, much money and many months, tied up in legal shenanigans. I think this is the type of decision that when it's played out will actually save jobs, not cost jobs.

People like McKendry and Peter Hendy of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry are the Frankensteins of business, the soulless monsters who thrive on taking candy from children and crushing them if they resist.

If Priceline is indeed "suffering from some financial stress" they might want to check out the top of the pyramid, perhaps questioning cream-skimming execs first. The truth is, Priceline is merely taking advantage of the worst industrial relations legislation since businessmen strutted around in wigs.

-- Olney Garkle

Addendum: Here's another story hot off today's press: AWAs 'used to strip job security'.

The Howard Government's workplace watchdog is investigating claims a Melbourne company used Work Choices to shift employees on to individual contracts that removed award conditions and provided no guarantee of a pay rise for five years.
Continental Manufacturing last month acquired the assets of Manu Red, and has offered to employ about 90 per cent of the workforce on Australian Workplace Agreements.

ACTU secretary Greg Combet said the agreements removed annual leave loadings, overtime pay, weekend penalty rates and meal allowances.

"This is a simple message that John Howard is sending: you've got no rights, no job security, you can be forced to sign an AWA under some corporate manoeuvre that abolishes your penalty rates and further undermines your job security," Mr Combet said.

The same old story with the same old refrain, as sung here by John May, the company's group general manager. It seems Manu Red (makers of Sorbolene creams and other liquid soaps and hand-wash products … take note) has been under substantial financial strain. Here we are in boom times, according to John "The Econo-rat" Howard, and all sorts of companies are stampeding to exhibit financial problems so they can fire and rehire for less.

"[H]ad Continental not become involved, it was highly likely all employees would have lost their employment. The facts are we have followed the process of the legislation diligently and although we had the option of offering rates lower than people were previously being paid, we didn't," Mr May said.

Well, he just has a heart of gold, doesn't he? That's the problem. Instead of a living, pumping organism heretofore associated with life, love and compassion, the thing is a solid hunk of metal.

May went on to say that current employees are being paid 10 to 30 per cent over the required minimum. But does this compensate for the loss of award conditions?