Australian Made vs Off-Shore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigbjorn

In spite of the learned statements made in this thread by all and sundry, I will stick to my firm belief that Australia needs manufacturing/processing jobs. There are in round figures 1,000,000 Australians who don't have jobs and should have one. Unless you have spent your working life with your head up your bum in the dreaming spires of academe or the ivory towers of government you should be aware that the only way these jobs can be found is to promote and increase manufacturing. Only manufacturing will provide these large numbers of low skill jobs needed by the great majority of unemployed. For at least four decades now Australia has been exporting jobs. We should have been exporting unemployment by import replacement. Impose import quotas. We do stupid things like importing workers on 457 visas, harvest labour from the third world and Pacific Islands (Kanakas!), using backpackers as cheap labour.

---

I agree we should be manufacturing more than we do. With regard to the 457 visas, it wasn't that long ago that governments encouraged and I think gave tax breaks and incentives to train personnel, including but not exclusively appreticeships. As there is no incentive any longer it is easier for big corporations to say "we can't find the trained people", so import them instead. An example is mines, easier for Rio Tinto or whoever to get a FIFO from overseas once a month than train a local.

As for the harvest and backpacker employment. I think this comes down to the generation of the entitled that are just not interested in anything that might be hard yakka. I've seen younge people with only max HSC education, no life skills and only half a clue, apply for jobs and expect to be in management or at least middle management, don't want to start from the bottom.

What can we do about it? I really don't know. I do think we should go back to some sort of incentive for employers to train people, that would be a start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigbjorn

We do stupid things like importing workers on 457 visas, harvest labour from the third world and Pacific Islands (Kanakas!), using backpackers as cheap labour.

---

Because Aussies are too lazy to do these sort of jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101RRS

Because Aussies are too lazy to do these sort of jobs.

---

altho i only partly agree (any companies use 457 to cut costs), what would be your solution?

I work in agriculture, specifically the pig industry

We have plenty of work that needs doing and a need for intelligent, motivated people. In other words we (collectively) have jobs

It should be noted that the Roman Empire and many other historical entities lost their way when they themselves stopped doing their own dirty work and outsourced it to the ‘barbarians’. I see parallels as the western world outsourced its foundational enterprises to cheap labour.
Tthat “cheap labour” will one day decide to run the show. I would if I was them.

So the work attitudes are not just isolated in manufacturing.

I think we collectively have lost the balance between work (often hard and dirty work) and leisure. We can’t all be ‘innovative’; whatever that means. Someone still has to do the heavy lifting day in and day out.

Perhaps if we had more manufacturing/processing etc it would give someone the experience and insight to be truly inventive and then we could be the ‘clever country’

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigbjorn

In spite of the learned statements made in this thread by all and sundry, I will stick to my firm belief that Australia needs manufacturing/processing jobs. There are in round figures 1,000,000 Australians who don't have jobs and should have one. Unless you have spent your working life with your head up your bum in the dreaming spires of academe or the ivory towers of government you should be aware that the only way these jobs can be found is to promote and increase manufacturing. Only manufacturing will provide these large numbers of low skill jobs needed by the great majority of unemployed. For at least four decades now Australia has been exporting jobs. We should have been exporting unemployment by import replacement. Impose import quotas. We do stupid things like importing workers on 457 visas, harvest labour from the third world and Pacific Islands (Kanakas!), using backpackers as cheap labour.

---

I'm afraid I can't agree with some of that. While manufacturing used to provide a lot of low skilled jobs this is no longer the case, and in fact never was really the case - it provided lots of highly visible low skill jobs because they were in large factories. There were always far more low skilled jobs not in manufacturing. Today, and increasingly in the future, manufacturing requires a relatively small number of high skill jobs.

Today and increasingly in the future, low skill jobs will be found in the areas of construction, agriculture, service, hospitality, tourism, and even in these areas as well as everywhere else the number of jobs are decreasing, with every advance in technology - as they have been for at least two hundred years.

I agree however that we need to have more manufacturing than we do, but for security of supply rather than providing jobs. To actually do this is a lot easier to propose than to carry out in practice, and however you look at it, it is going to mean someone is going to be paying a lot more, be it for what you buy or the taxes paid.

A different question is the one of importing workers. The main driver of this is that over the last fifty years we have created a system where there is no good reason for any business to make long term plans. If you train an apprentice for years, for example, they are under no obligation to work for you when trained - all the tools that used to be available to keep good staff, such as superannuation and long service leave have been taken away by making them available to everyone. And at the back of everything is the quarterly bottom line, and ridiculously high pay for senior management that is dependent on this.

John ,
When my brother & I had our business ( we averaged around 40 people working for us depending on work load) we took on two apprentices a year but part of there the agreement when they started was that then would find new employment at the end of there training. This may seam harsh but it gave them better opportunities , plus our apprentices were sort after & they had no trouble finding a new job , we found that our foreman knew there ability & was reluctant to give them more difficult tasks & when he did & they didn't want to think for them selves & still wanted to be treated as an apprentice were if they worked for some one else they needed to put some effort into improving them self. After leaving they were quite welcome after a period of time to apply if we had a position going. We found this system worked well & some of out apprentices have come back have advanced from the shop floor into management positions . We sold & retired 10 years ago but 50% of the staff working for the new owners started with us as apprentices & he has a very good crew.

When I finished my time as an apprentice Motor Mechanic for a BMC dealer believe the best thing I did was to leave because all they had me doing was servicing . I went to work for a smaller BMC dealership , the first job I had to do was to gearbox on a Mini , this was a job I had assisted with but had never had to do one by my self. I leant so much in the 1st 6months & with in 2years I became leading hand & 3 years after that Service manager . I stayed with that company through BMC. Leyland & JRA before leaving to join our family steel & alum fabrication business servicing the fleet of vehicles as well as all the machines & equipment, latter taking on transport side as well as doing site work in Powerlink Sub Stations all over Qld. I don't think I would have archived so much had not left my 1st employer then put in the effort to better my self.

I remember talking with the manager of a very large nation wide fab shop & he told me he was not going to take on more apprentices they were too much trouble , I told him I thought it was a big mistake in 10 - 20 years time were are you going to get trades men . With in 2years they had O/S workers & now 15 years that company is no more.

In saying that things have changed today & company's have stopped taking on apprentices & I am not sure if the new owner has any apprentices , there is not the jobs out there . The whole industry has changed & I am glad that we sold & retired when we did this last 10years has been hard in the industry were we were were dealing with the final receiver these days they let the contract to a principal contractor who then sub lets the different jobs to different suppliers . When quoting for a job you do your 1st quote to different company's who are tendering for a contract , if they win the contract they come back asking for a 2nd quote trying to screw down the price & they can also come back a 3rd time trying to get it down even more. Just before we sold our clients were starting to supply all the material for jobs leaving the only profit was in labour .

Well that is my rant , don't know if you agree or disagree that is my belief .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

I'm afraid I can't agree with some of that. While manufacturing used to provide a lot of low skilled jobs this is no longer the case, and in fact never was really the case - it provided lots of highly visible low skill jobs because they were in large factories. There were always far more low skilled jobs not in manufacturing. Today, and increasingly in the future, manufacturing requires a relatively small number of high skill jobs.

Today and increasingly in the future, low skill jobs will be found in the areas of construction, agriculture, service, hospitality, tourism, and even in these areas as well as everywhere else the number of jobs are decreasing, with every advance in technology - as they have been for at least two hundred years.

I agree however that we need to have more manufacturing than we do, but for security of supply rather than providing jobs. To actually do this is a lot easier to propose than to carry out in practice, and however you look at it, it is going to mean someone is going to be paying a lot more, be it for what you buy or the taxes paid.

A different question is the one of importing workers. The main driver of this is that over the last fifty years we have created a system where there is no good reason for any business to make long term plans. If you train an apprentice for years, for example, they are under no obligation to work for you when trained - all the tools that used to be available to keep good staff, such as superannuation and long service leave have been taken away by making them available to everyone. And at the back of everything is the quarterly bottom line, and ridiculously high pay for senior management that is dependent on this.

---

Many employers would sack an apprentice when the appy completed indentures. Not to replace with another low cost employee but because they didn't have a trade vacancy. Some places this was policy. The worker could apply again after 12 months and becoming a journeyman. I once worked for a heavy equipment company who were taken over by a multi-national. Brisbane branch was around 70-80 staff and started 3 or 4 new apprentices every year. Boilie-welders, fitter-machinists, diesel HEE fitters. New owners ordered "no new apprentices". We tried to make a case for apprentices to turn their ideas around. Not a good idea as it turned out. We went back 20 years and traced as many as we could. We tracked down 22. Two were still working for the company in their trade, plus one was a sales rep and one in spare parts. Many of them were no longer in their trade, becoming teachers, insurance agent, farmer, truck owners and drivers, sales reps, public servants, and one in gaol. This at a time when very well paid trade jobs were for the asking in the CQ coalfields.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

altho i only partly agree (any companies use 457 to cut costs), what would be your solution?

---

Close all the 'Latte & Look at Me' outdoor lounges and the oh, so trendy 'Hipster Craft Beer' hangouts' for a start. [biggrin]

Cutting TAFE funding has greatly reduced the number of people being trained in a wide range of trades, not just manufacturing but also a lot of other trades and occupations.
Reality is about half of senior school students are not suited or ready for professions requiring a university education, so they are much better to go into trades training, but there are not enough places.
Rather than going on to year 12 at school they would be better to go into trade training. Once they have trade skills they can also go on to higher training later. For example, a lot of students do basic nursing courses, work in aged care homes for a while and later study to become nurses. One of our nieces is doing that now.
In Thailand there was a system where some employers funded people to study and the graduate then worked one or two years for the employer for each year of funded study, depending on the cost. That seemed to work well.

currently , the majority of apprenticeship aged peoples aren't very interested in tying down to 4/5yr low paid training programs.

In my time apprentices started at 15/16 yrs old and learned while they were growing into adulthood.

Why this has changed I have no idea. The defence force did the same.

There are no defence force apprenticeships now. I'm not sure how they train them these days.

There were adult trade training courses in the forces eg RAAFSTT, where most of our current aircraft tradesmen trained.....after they had already spent time in the service in some other post.

The millenials are very fickle and I don't blame them. They tend to do short term jobs and move on regularly.

The dilemma of an employer choosing a new employee for technical training is a real one with all the rights and regulations being in favour of the new employee and not the employer.

My two sons both work for the same company in very technical roles and it is necessary to increase the workforce occasionally and they are both involved at interview stage. To hear their stories on the applicants is astounding. By law the boss has to finish the interviews once started and has to give an unsuccessful applicant full disclosure on why they weren't successful.

I can fully understand why employers are reluctant to train new people these days.