Labor and its views on IR (1 Viewer)

[Sparcod]

Labor to abolish IR commission

"The Australian Industrial Relations Commission served Australia for more than 100 years, but it is a 20th century institution that is too remote from the needs of modern Australian workplaces," they said.

Labor proposes to replace the commission with a new body called Fair Work Australia.

Australians 'like Labor's IR policies'

LABOR'S latest win in the opinion polls shows Australians have been examining closely the Opposition's policies, particularly on industrial relations, said deputy leader Julia Gillard.

So do you all think that the biggest election issue is workplace relations?

 

[frog12986]

Of course it will be a pivotal issue. Labor is attempting to distance itself from the unions, and at this point, it is working.

However, the issue will revolve around which constituents, in which electorates, perceive it to be a substantial issue. If it increases Labor support in safe Labor seats, the inner-west, south-west and inner-city, its effect will be diminished. The key issue will be how the ALP IR policy is perceived in the ALP and Coalition marginal seats.

For instance, there was an article in the SMH last week which conveyed a Coalition plan to target the WA ALP marginal seats of Brand, Cowan and to a lesser extent, Perth, each of which contain a substantial number of electors who are benefiting from the AWA arrangement. I can't remember the precise details, however from memory, more than 30,000 people in each of those seats currently operate under AWA's. If the ALP cannot gain support in seats such as these, then the result will be quite interesting.

 

[frog12986]

Industry Group hits out at IR Plan

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1906952.htm

"So it is a very decentralised body now and it's very strange that the ACTU and the ALP, which opposed that body with every drop of their blood, are now wanting to make a bigger and better Fair Pay Commission."

Fair Work Australia on 'Shaky Ground'

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21624369-31037,00.html

"They're going to give this agency tribunal powers, they're going to give it policing powers and they're going to give it court powers, and you can't actually do that under the federal constitution"

Labor's proposed IR system would erode the economic benefits of enterprise bargaining and return the nation to centralised wage-fixing.... it's actually bad policy. It's actually giving more powers to a centralised super agency and in that respect it's doing the exact opposite of the trend we've had in the last 13 years of moving to enterprise-based bargaining,"

 

[Sparcod]

Of course it will be a pivotal issue. Labor is attempting to distance itself from the unions, and at this point, it is working.

Besides, the biggest election issue could've been the economy or climate change or maybe even the War in Iraq depending how things go in the next few months.

Well...most of the good I hear is from the bosses.

Bosses honour Anzac Day by cutting pay rate

 

[Rafy]

Rudd's industrial relations superbody breaches separation of powers

Rudd's IR plan 'illegal': experts

KEVIN Rudd is battling accusations that he is formulating policy on the run, after declaring that Labor would appoint judges to enforce the decisions of a new workplace umpire that was meant to serve as an informal mediator.

A day after declaring that he would scrap the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and replace it with a new "one-stop shop" without lawyers, the Labor leader yesterday proposed adding judges to his new tribunal.
Mr Rudd's proposed tribunal, to be called Fair Work Australia, was immediately criticised by legal experts as being potentially invalid under the Constitution.

Lawyers also backed leading employer groups in arguing that a serious conflict of interest lay ahead if the administration and enforcement of Australia's industrial relations system was handled by the same authority. [...]

 

[withoutaface]

Labor's crocodile tears
1. Andrew Bolt
May 09, 2007 12:00am
I KNOW the ACTU is short of sob stories for its TV ads against the Howard Government's workplace reforms and I'd like to help.
Even better, unlike so many of the cases presented by the ACTU so far, the story I'm offering is genuine.
The victim - let's call her "Kelly" - is a single mum with two kids.
She's had a government-paid job for eight years and, all right, she's no star, but no one has really sat her down and helped her to improve.
Anyway, one day she hears rumours that she's about to be sacked, which is a brutal way to learn you're through. She tries to get a straight answer from the bloke she hears is coming to replace her, but he shrugs and leaves her dangling. For weeks this goes on, until bang, she's sacked. No real reason given. And never mind any written warnings. She thinks of appealing, but you know how it is in John Howard's cruel world. There's no one to appeal to.
It gets worse. When Kelly dares to complain to the media, someone - not saying who - puts out stuff accusing her of begging men for sex. She's shattered.
Surely all that's worth another ACTU ad about Howard letting bastard bosses run amok?
Surely ACTU secretary Greg Combet can let Kelly star in a commercial demanding Labor's new unfair dismissal laws?
She even has a line to seal the deal: "I've got a daughter at university and a son on first-year apprenticeship wages, and if we lose this income, we lose our house."
So how about it, Greg?
Oh, yes, I see now why an ACTU ad starring Kelly Hoare, Labor backbencher for the safe seat of Charlton, isn't a goer. Not when it's Labor that sacked her, and the man taking her job is Combet himself.
Fair enough, I guess. He's the better candidate and it's Labor's seat, in a way, to bestow on whomever it thinks will help it most.
But if Combet and Labor think they deserve this freedom to hire and fire - however brutally - for the good of their business, why do they demand new laws that will again deny other bosses the right to make that same unfettered call?

 

[frog12986]

I'm not even sure that Labor knows its IR Policy anymore. It has been changed numerous times in two weeks..

This begs the question, if Labor can't coherently develop a solid IR policy how is business and the broader electorate supposed to view it as a viable alternative?

 

[frog12986]

Oh please. All politicians are constantly changing their policies. Look at Howards altering of his initial Work Choices legislation now that he is facing a credible opposition and public support has shifted against Work Choices. I'm not having a go at Howard for doing this. It is a good thing that he is responding to the demands of the electorate. Labor is doing the same thing. There are still months before the election and even if Labor were elected they probably would not be able to implement significant IR reforms until after a second term (giving them a majority in the senate with the greens and other minor parties). This leaves plenty of scope for refinement of their IR policy and they are to be commended for doing so.

Making adjustments to an implemented policy over an 18 month period is hardly the same as over five adjstments within two weeks of the announcement of policy detail. You are right, the former indicates that the government is listening to the concerns and likely political ramifications, however the latter merely indicates pooly drafted or poorly defined policy stance.

 

[frog12986]

If they release an ammended IR policy will you dismiss it merely because it was changed X amount of times within a given timeframe? Do you believe this is reasonable grounds for dismissing the validity of a policy?

Not necessarily, however I would completely dismiss any IR Policy that did not unequivocally ban or illegalise bargaining fees.

 

[Sparcod]

I'm not even sure that Labor knows its IR Policy anymore. It has been changed numerous times in two weeks..

So what if Rudd changes his mind. Everyone does.

Even Peter Debnam does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x08GEmOlm5Y

 

[frog12986]

I don't agree with bargaining fees either. But we are talking about a $500 a year levy. Its pretty low on this list of important issues with regard to IR. Frog you seem to have a habit of finding minor flaws in Labor policies and using that to dismiss them totally. Would you "completely dismiss" all of Howards IR legislation if he were to allow the fees? (purely a hypothetical) Of course not, because in your opinion there are so many benefits to Work Choices, they would greatly outweigh the imposition of a $500 fee on a minority of the workforce. The same logic applies to the labor policy.

The fees are not my concern, but rather the way in which the fees are aimed to increase union membership, and revive unions in the workplace. Whilst I believe they have a place, choice is essential, and the re-unionisation/re-regulation of the workplace is not something I support.

I have family member on AWA's (in small business) who have benefited enormously from the capacity to develop agreements individually, and tie performance to these agreements. Flaws exist, and hopefully the fairness test or similar amendments in the future will minimise these as much as possible.

 

[ZabZu]

The fees are not my concern, but rather the way in which the fees are aimed to increase union membership, and revive unions in the workplace. Whilst I believe they have a place, choice is essential, and the re-unionisation/re-regulation of the workplace is not something I support.

Howard also says he believes the unions have a place in society but what would this place be? You support legislation that significantly increases the regulation of unions. Its extremely difficult for them to enter workplaces and they face huge fines for minor infringments. Also, if all people earning modest incomes are on AWAs none of them have any financial benefit of joining a union and hence they wont join one.

 

[volition]

I don't think unions are intentionally evil, I just think they're very detrimental to the running of efficient markets. At least the business council generally argues for more deregulation and less tax. Unions typically argue for the right to other people's stuff, taking short term gains over greater long term ones.

Like arguing to make penalty rates that high that employers are more inclined to just get a new worker rather than get an existing one to do overtime. This stuff generally only makes markets narrower (firms are less inclined to take new orders on, less production, less consumption, less choice of goods, more expensive goods, flow on effects to more costly inputs elsewhere, yada yada yada), which is a bad thing in the long run.

I don't blame anybody for wanting to have less of the government in their lives when it comes to labour regulation/taxation.

 

[ari89]

Obviously I was just joking around. But as you would be aware there is no such thing as a total free market economy in the world. I'm sure you would agree this is simply unworkable. Thats why I support a mixed market capitalist economy with a moderate degree of government intervention.

Firstly, your argument against high penalty rates gives a very narrow assessment of the situation. It ignores the hidden costs of people being coerced to work long hours ie. child care, lost productivity due to stress and overtiredness. If high penalty rates make employers more inclined to get new workers, isn't this a good thing? Isn't it better to have more people employed working 38 hour weeks than a few of people working 60 hour weeks?

Secondly, why would you assume that taxation is bad? Obviously it is necessary. How can business and the economy survive in the long term if taxation revenue is not being invested in infrastructure?

Finally, since when do unions "demand other people's stuff?" They demand more money and better conditions in exchange for supplying labor. Employers may reject these demands. This is like saying employers "demand people to work for them." It is utterly ridiculous.

yeah thats what she said

 

[volition]

Obviously I was just joking around. But as you would be aware there is no such thing as a total free market economy in the world. I'm sure you would agree this is simply unworkable. Thats why I support a mixed market capitalist economy with a moderate degree of government intervention.

It was just a comment about how unions aren't as good as heaps of people think they are.

Firstly, your argument against high penalty rates gives a very narrow assessment of the situation. It ignores the hidden costs of people being coerced to work long hours ie. child care, lost productivity due to stress and overtiredness. If high penalty rates make employers more inclined to get new workers, isn't this a good thing? Isn't it better to have more people employed working 38 hour weeks than a few of people working 60 hour weeks?

You only work long hours if you WANT to, you might have a good reason for working long hours (you have kids to support, whatever). The existence of high penalty hour rates might also make it harder for you to get as many hours as you want.

Secondly, why would you assume that taxation is bad? Obviously it is necessary. How can business and the economy survive in the long term if taxation revenue is not being invested in infrastructure?

Yes, taxation is necessary, but there are ways of simplifying the taxation structure, and reducing the regulation burden. Australia have a pretty high tax rate compared to other countries, I wouldn't mind seeing it dropped more and having less "services" that we could just pay for ourselves anyway lol.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21702027-7583,00.html

Finally, since when do unions "demand other people's stuff?" They demand more money and better conditions in exchange for supplying labor. Employers may reject these demands. This is like saying employers "demand people to work for them." It is utterly ridiculous.

Well look at the way certain conditions get enshrined in the law! Making it impossible for employers to reject some demands.

I also think striking and so on is a rather silly way to try to improve conditions, the benefits to some, come at the cost of a job or other benefits to people at the bottom of the chain. Thing is, these effects aren't so easy to see.

 

[ZabZu]

I also think striking and so on is a rather silly way to try to improve conditions, the benefits to some, come at the cost of a job or other benefits to people at the bottom of the chain. Thing is, these effects aren't so easy to see.

Strikes by employees basically tells the employer that they arent happy with conditions. A strike is an overt action and the employees might have already been doing covert industrial action such as absenteeism, sabotage, resigning, etc.

I think strikes should be done as a last resort like if the employer is unwilling the negotiate.

Its good to alert managers/employers to issues that the employees have. If the problem is solved, covert action will decrease and it'll be beneficial for both the employee and employer.

 

[banco55]

Strikes by employees basically tells the employer that they arent happy with conditions. A strike is an overt action and the employees might have already been doing covert industrial action such as absenteeism, sabotage, resigning, etc.

I think strikes should be done as a last resort like if the employer is unwilling the negotiate.

Its good to alert managers/employers to issues that the employees have. If the problem is solved, covert action will decrease and it'll be beneficial for both the employee and employer.

..or you could have huge wage claims from militant unions which results in spiralling inflation, plumetting productivity and low growth (see britain in the '70's). It was only after Thatcher smashed the unions that britain's economy started to turn around.

 

[Sparcod]

The biggest workers' rights rally ever in Australian history took place in 2005, to oppose WorkChoices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_industrial_relations_legislation_national_day_of_protest%2C_2005

 

[volition]

And what expendable services would they be? If we do cut them and have to pay for them ourselves what is the benefit? We would get taxed less but then we would have to pay more for other things.

Did you read the article that I posted the link to?
“First, government spending crowds out voluntary initiatives. If the Government makes huge gifts to universities, other people won't.”
“The more "intermediate institutions" such as the universities come to depend on government money, the more they will forfeit their autonomy.”
“Good governments establish a predictable environment so people can plan their lives and make rational economic decisions. But in this and previous budgets, money gets withheld or handed out capriciously, arbitrarily, unpredictably.”

And for an article about how our country’s business tax is too restrictive: http://www.bca.com.au/Content.aspx?ContentID=101014

“Governments impose 56 different taxes on business including 21 federal taxes, 33 state and territory taxes and 2 local government taxes.”
“This compares to the United Kingdom, where a similar study found that in an economy three times the size of Australia’s, business paid only 22 different types of taxes – less than half the number of taxes facing Australian businesses.”
“One-third of respondents spent more than $2 million per year on tax compliance, with some spending as much as $10 million.” –we’re losing future economic growth with such high tax compliance costs

Demanding conditions is totally different to demanding "stuff" which basically implies Unions attempt to take other people's property.

How is demanding conditions any different to demanding “stuff” when they KNOW that if it gets put into law, employers will be forced to pay it to them?

Oh yeah, and another thing, I often hear unions telling us that “they are responsible for bringing us the 40 hour working week”, I highly doubt that this was what the unions did for us, it was just technological progress and capitalism that brought us more goods for less working hours. If anything, the unions were holding us back!

 

[marthastuart]

It's simply a pre-election desperate grab. If they get in then they will calm down and (hopefully) formulate a real policy, right now everything done by both sides is just an attempt to get votes.