Don't be a labour law fashion victim

Accepting the below comments as true: "Indeed, net employment growth outside publicly funded community services and health has been anaemic". (Don't be a labour law fashion victim, February 28)
And "the growth that has occurred has generated more jobs of poor quality, in terms of labour standards, than in the past."
The conclusion is that: "This experience highlights that the GFC was not an accident. Rather, it was the culmination of an unsustainable policy regime."
This appears to me to be wrong. The GFC arose not from "an unsustainable policy regime" but a fundamental shift in manufacturing (and other) jobs from developed to developing countries (i.e. globalisation), an event that took place over many years and continues to take place. The GFC was simply the inevitable outcome of 20 to 30 years of unsustainable consumption by developed countries (via increased borrowings).
The solution is not "policymakers need to give greater attention to job quality and fairer distributions of income", because developed world policymakers cannot control globalisation and its affects (other than by putting up tariff walls).

There are some valuable points often missed by other commentaries (Don't be a labour law fashion victim, February 28). Fairness contributes to efficiencies that can be difficult to quantify and measure. It induces a cleaner corporate culture and more careful planning before a worker is taken on. Unfair dismissal safeguards are a key component to reinforcing good corporate governance, protecting the culture from becoming dysfunctional.

The US and the UK are very far from today's economic basket cases. Wait and see.
How can you believe any official statistics out of Greece? (Don't be a labour law fashion victim, February 28.)

When you live in the US, UK or Australia, the majority of your workforce is employed in the service sector.
So quantifying a nurse's ouput is much harder that quantifying the output of a fruit picker. Flexible working hours, and flexible annual leave, can also cloud average output.
The bottom line – work output is as you say an evolving measure of an economies success (Don't be a labour law fashion victim, February 28).

Is productivity about employment growth? I don't think so (Don't be a labour law fashion victim, February 28). In essence, is it not about achieving more output for the same, or less, input? If the discussion is about the effect of labour laws on productivity then clouding the discussion with the "quality" of employment growth is anything but productive.