The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

This is so silly, it is in countries with lower industrial relations standards that birth rates increase.

 

[Generator]

This is so silly, it is in countries with lower industrial relations standards that birth rates increase.

Huh, NTB? From what you just post, I cannot help but think that a simple rephrasing of that comment would be "in countries with fewer rights for women in the workplace, birthrates tend to be higher".

Also, lower standards? I thought that the government was 'cutting back on regulation', not lowering standards? I am of the opinion that they are lowering the bar, but such a display of honesty from one generally supportive of the Government's agenda in this field is a bit of a surprise.

No matter what the Minister may say, Pru Goward's comments cannot be dismissed at a whim.

 

[leetom]

Workplace stoush a test of attention span
Wednesday November 16, 2005
COMMENT
By Laurie Oakes
National Nine News political correspondent


Kim Beazley is very clear about what will happen to John Howard's new industrial laws if Labor wins the next federal election. During the union-organised national day of protest, he told workers attending the Brisbane rally: "My first act as prime minister of this nation will be to stand on the steps of parliament and rip these laws up — gone. These extreme laws are headed straight for the bin — which is where they belong. And then what I'm going to do is to sit down and write a law and put it through that protects the rights of every Australian in the workplace. That's what's going to happen then."

Sounds good. Kimbo showing some ticker. Making a stand on behalf of Labor's traditional base — the workers. Establishing some product differentiation between Labor and the Coalition. The only problem is that it's almost certainly a hollow promise.

When it became clear after last year's election that the Coalition had gained a surprise majority in the senate, Labor's then Upper House leader, John Faulkner, studied the figures — and then, grim-faced, told clerk of the senate, Harry Evans, "This is a six-year sentence".

Even if Labor returns to government at the 2007 poll, the overwhelming likelihood is that the coalition will keep control of the senate for at least three years after that. And without a senate majority, Prime Minister Beazley would not be able to repeal or amend Howard's IR legislation. Nor would he be able to put through a new law protecting workers' rights.

But at the moment, Beazley is not looking further ahead than the election itself. His focus is getting into office, and he believes Howard's radical reshaping of the IR system is a potential winner for Labor. Certainly, the current community concern about the new laws that the government is ramming through parliament give him reason for optimism. The key question is whether voters will still be fearful when the laws are actually in place and have been operating for more than a year.

Howard thinks not. He expects a repeat of what happened with the GST. Once the new tax was in place, Australians adjusted quickly and Labor's scare campaign collapsed. When the new IR laws are in place, the Prime Minister says, the sky will not fall in and, after a while, people will wonder what the fuss was all about. If he's right, the issue will not change votes come the election.

Beazley agrees that the sky will not fall in. He says the government's IR takeover is a "slow burn" issue. In other words, he believes there'll be a gradual accumulation of evidence that the new laws hurt workers. He's relying on voters becoming more and more aware of problems as the election approaches.

Union leaders understand that, somehow, the issue has to be kept alive up to the election, and they are working on ways to ensure that happens. Both ACTU secretary Greg Combet and president Sharan Burrow have said they expect unions will refuse to pay fines under the new laws, for example. Such defiance will be punishable by a jail sentence. The theory is that the sight of union officials being thrown into the clink for representing the workers will serve to keep voter concern on the boil.

The last paragraph is particularly interesting. Will dedicated unionists really be prepared to risk time in the slammer in order to advance their cause? It seems as though that will be their only course of action as the social fallout resulting from the reform implementation will most probably be of a ''slow burning'' quality, as Beazley describes it and will not be fully felt until it has been in place for a number of years.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Huh, NTB? From what you just said, I cannot help but think that another way of saying that is "in countries with fewer rights for women in the workplace, birthrates tend to be higher".

Also, lower standards? I thought that the government was 'cutting back on regulation', not lowering standards? That aside, I'm thankful for the display of honesty.

No matter what the Minister may say, Pru Goward's comments cannot be dismissed at a whim.

Well the argument is based around the fact that under Howards changes there will be lower working standards... the claim is that then women will not be able to give birth. However if we look at the case studies of countries which actually do have completely de-regulated industrial relations systems then we do not see that problem.

The last paragraph is particularly interesting. Will dedicated unionists really be prepared to risk time in the slammer in order to advance their cause? It seems as though that will be their only course of action as the social fallout resulting from the reform implementation will most probably be of a ''slow burning'' quality, as Beazley describes it and will not be fully felt until it has been in place for a number of years.

If people still have equal / greater workplace standards by the time of the election... then I doubt these laws will count for much at all.

 

[Generator]

Protecting outworkers

Govt promises IR amendments to protect outworkers

Given their marching orders

Post-pregnancy, it's all power to the professionals

PM to liberate the shop floor

Howard still has a winning hand, as long as he plays the IR card right

WA industrial relations advisor says Govt's new bill flawed

 

[Sarah]

Out of curiosity, has anyone here had experience in bargaining for certain working conditions or any above the award entitlements?

 

[loquasagacious]

I've worked under an AWA, however that was simply the way it was take it (and the job) or leave it (and the job). That said overall it was quite fair, there were no penalty rates but the hourly rate was higher and it addressed more specifically the issues of the industry than the relevant award.

In general workers preferred it to the award they had been on previously and there were no qualms about holding the employer to conditions set in the AWA.

 

[Generator]

But without the current no-disadvantage test... However, I guess that given the attention span of today's society, in time nobody will even remember the relevant award.

Undue haste

 

[Generator]

John Howard's industrial revolution

KEVIN ANDREWS: I think it is the beginning of the power being returned to the hands of ordinary workers in Australia, rather than people saying "We're just going to go along with whatever the union bosses tell us to do."

"I agree, let us listen to the bosses alone for a change!"

SARAH FERGUSON: Steve Archer's wages and conditions were set not by the union but by a private contractor supplying workers to Sydney Water. Here there are two classes of workers - those on the union award and contract workers like Steve. As the union men leave, they are replaced by contract men. And the reason is simple - those on the union award get better conditions and better pay.

STEVE ARCHER: I've spoken with Sydney Water people that do do this job and there's something in the order of around about $170 a week difference, for the same job.

SARAH FERGUSON: How do you feel about the fact that you're paid so much less to do the same difficult work?

STEVE ARCHER: I think it's pretty self-explanatory, isn't it? Yeah, why can't we be paid the same? This is the question.

SARAH FERGUSON: Critics call it "the race to the bottom". So will the workplace end up with millions of Steves?

JOHN HOWARD: I'm not going to even try and answer the Steve example because I don't know all the details.

SARAH FERGUSON: What is to stop, though, people in those industries that are governed only by price, where people bid against one another to provide services at the cheapest cost, what is to stop them bringing the wages down and down and down? JOHN HOWARD: They can't go down and down. I mean, that is the language of an industrial relations system that has no statutory minima. That is not our system. It's a quite inaccurate depiction of our system.

SARAH FERGUSON: They can go down, can they not?

JOHN HOWARD: It is an inaccurate depiction of our system to say it's about going down and down. We have a minimum. You can't go below that.

SARAH FERGUSON: But you accept that people can be driven down below the point at which they're at now?

JOHN HOWARD: Well, the question of whether somebody can be driven down from the point at which they are at now, that is an observation that can be made of any industrial relations system. The worst situation to be in, of course, is to lose your job.

It all comes back to the idea that a job is better than no job. Though that may well be true, is a job with working conditions akin to those of the 1800 (an over exaggeration, I know) something that we as a society should be considering today? Aren't we beyond that? Why must the rights gained through years of struggle be dismissed so easily under the guise of increasing productivity?

SARAH FERGUSON: For all the noise in Parliament, the real opposition to the Government's changes is here, in the low-key persona of ACTU Secretary Greg Combet.

That cannot be disputed.

BRENDAN: Basically it is a term of getting the job - "If you want this job, sign this paper." It's a term of employment. If you don't sign this, you don't get the job, basically. So if you need the job...

GREG COMBET: The Government says that you must have been happy, though, to sign that. So why are you unhappy about it?

BRENDAN: Not happy with the conditions, but happy that I got a job.

BOB HAWKE: What opportunity has a young kid, boy or girl, going for employment, being presented with a fait accompli contract? What opportunity have they got? And what can happen now is that all these things that have become part of the Australian way of life - the concept of public holidays, paid public holidays, the concept that if you work over normal hours you will get penalties for overtime - all those rights are going to be taken away.

JOHN HOWARD: The problem for Australia now is not that we've got too many workers, but that we have too few. And the market conditions are going to remain, in my opinion, very strongly in favour of employees, very strongly.

BOB HAWKE: And you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden too?

Hahaha

---

Call for IR amendments likely: Murray

 

[Generator]

Final post for a time.

WorkChoices' class war

---

Gregory Melleuish: Fascist label a cheap shot against liberalism

...

An interesting twist.

 

[loquasagacious]

It was good to see somebody finally address the 'facist liberal howard lover' socialist alliance argument...

Gittens piece was also quite interesting and importantly - even handed.

 

[Sarah]

It was good to see somebody finally address the 'facist liberal howard lover' socialist alliance argument...

Gittens piece was also quite interesting and importantly - even handed.

Read the Gittens article. Do u really think it's even handed? Seemed to be more critical of the reforms if anything. I know it's difficult to find evidence to support the govt's view but surely there are some benefits to the reforms.

 

[leetom]

Read the Gittens article. Do u really think it's even handed? Seemed to be more critical of the reforms if anything. I know it's difficult to find evidence to support the govt's view but surely there are some benefits to the reforms.

Can you cite any? Calling them fascist is extreme, but any apparent benefits are are ambiguous at best. The Government has nothing more than its unsubstantiated 'fairer, higher wages and greater productivity' mantra. All Andrews can refer too when being grilled is the Government's record, which while impressive, does not automatically mean Howard's workplace reform can be trusted to do as is promised. Reliance purely on 'the record' actually exposes the Government and its total lack of justification for the reforms.

In other words, there's no overall gain to the economy, just a transfer of income from one part of the economy (workers) to another part (employers).

That made me stop and think for a moment. Forgive my simple non-economist interpretation, but indeed, it makes sense that existing wealth would merely be transferred from workers back to bosses. If workers are left with less money, they then have less to spend with, and when people stop spending that is usually bad for the economy, isn't it?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Can you cite any? Calling them fascist is extreme, but any apparent benefits are are ambiguous at best.

I dont understand how you can call them fascist at all.

 

[loquasagacious]

Read the Gittens article. Do u really think it's even handed? Seemed to be more critical of the reforms if anything. I know it's difficult to find evidence to support the govt's view but surely there are some benefits to the reforms.

I was merely indicating that Gittens was far more even-handed than the majority of those who oppose the laws.

Oh and NTB I agree.

 

[Henry_Kissinger]

These reforms are an ideological push, which I agree totally with.

The Government's huge failure with this issue is not pushing a massive reform to social welfare in line with liberal values.

Most economists support social welfare to clean up the market's mess.

Our industrial relations system was designed to take part of the social welfare burden. Stripping that away, without modernising our social welfare system to accomodate the changes is just plain silly.

 

[Sarah]

Can you cite any? Calling them fascist is extreme, but any apparent benefits are are ambiguous at best. The Government has nothing more than its unsubstantiated 'fairer, higher wages and greater productivity' mantra. All Andrews can refer too when being grilled is the Government's record, which while impressive, does not automatically mean Howard's workplace reform can be trusted to do as is promised. Reliance purely on 'the record' actually exposes the Government and its total lack of justification for the reforms.

That made me stop and think for a moment. Forgive my simple non-economist interpretation, but indeed, it makes sense that existing wealth would merely be transferred from workers back to bosses. If workers are left with less money, they then have less to spend with, and when people stop spending that is usually bad for the economy, isn't it?

Oh i misunderstood Losquasagious. His later post cleared things up

 

[Generator]

A few days too late, but anyway...

WORK IN PROGRESS

Weak, PM, weak

The five-day week is dead, says the Prime Minister, and our industrial relations system has to change with it.

That will come as news to his own office, which is only contactable by the public - you guessed it - five days a week, from Monday to Friday. Radar contacted the PM (on a weekday) to find out whether the hours would be extended or changed after the new IR laws are passed. Johnnie's staffer promised to call back and let us know, but never did.

Richard Cooke

Source: http://radar.smh.com.au/archives/2005/11/post_29.html

 

[Generator]

Lib MPs fight for workers

An interesting title, but one that's to be expected given the paper's editorial line.

Edit:
Beazley flags 'family fair' plan

 

[Generator]

Provisions of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005

Will employees be worse off?

Myths and legends that workers will be worse off under Work Choices abound. Government party senators believe it is worth reiterating the falsity of many of the allegations that arose in the course of the inquiry process.

3.72 The inquiry was conducted in an environment in which highly hysterical and implausible claims were continually being made by opponents of the bill. There would be insufficient space in this report to do justice to the fully range of extreme claims being made by bill’s opponents, however, the following were some of the more absurd that have been made:

3.73 The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley MP, argued that the enactment of the bill would increase the divorce rate:

It is not good for the economy for workers to be unable to afford their holidays, their relaxation or a decent family life. Divorce is not good for the economy. Divorce is patently bad for the economy.[61]

3.74 A Victorian state Labor MP argued that the bill would provoke circumstances in which women and children could be murdered on picket lines:

The history books show what happened in America. People on picket lines were murdered. Women and children were killed, and that is the road this Prime Minister wants to take us down. It is a disgrace. [62]

3.75 The Transport Workers Union claimed in a radio interview that the bill would increase the road toll:

Truckies have staged a mock crash at the front of Federal Parliament to highlight their concerns about the IR changes. They fear drivers will be forced to work longer hours to make ends meet. Truck driver Tony Upton is worried the added pressures could see lives lost on the roads.[63]

3.76 The News South Wales Industrial Relations Minister, Mr Della Bosca, claimed in evidence to the committee that the bill contained elements of fascism:

while the rhetoric of the Commonwealth—both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—has been around the issue of taking third parties out of industrial relations and out of the workplace, they have in fact inserted a third party with almost fascistic powers, and that will be the way in which a Commonwealth, as a state, will operate within the system...

Senator Joyce – Mr Della Bosca, you just said fascistic powers. You honestly believe that there is a comparison between this and fascism. I think that is an emotive statement and ridiculous.

Mr Della Bosca – I think this is emotional territory, Senator, and I hope you apply your emotions and sense of decency to the way you consider this in the immediate future. I am saying that the Commonwealth is attempting to insert itself into the employment relationship in a way which has not been seen in this country before. We have always taken the approach that there is free bargaining between employers and employees, either collectively or individually, and we have always taken the approach that the state, whether it be at a state level or at a Commonwealth level, provides a judicial or arbitral umpire. The Commonwealth is now completely rejecting that approach. It is one that has stood us in very good stead for 105 years, and yes, Senator, it is very close to fascism.[64]

3.77 These claims have formed part of a highly political campaign being run by opponents of the bill, in which factual information has been discarded in favour of political scaremongering designed to frighten voters into voting against the Government. The Secretary of the ACTU admitted as much in the week he announced its campaign when questioned about its objectives:

Interviewer: To bring down the Government?

Greg Combet: Well, the longer term position for working people to have decent rights in this country, means that we need a change of Government. And we need to change these laws. Now, we've confronted that position in the past in our history. We're confronting it again now, and we'll work very hard to bring that change about.[65]

3.78 Witnesses have falsely submitted that sick and carer's leave is threatened by the legislation. In fact, a minimum of ten days paid personal or carer's leave is provided under the Fair Pay and Conditions Standard, and unlike now, cannot be cashed out or traded off in an agreement. It was also alleged that employees would be required to submit medical certificates every time they are away from work, even for a short-term illness. The Department has responded that, as is the case currently, there is no universal standard, and that the new provisions were modelled on what currently exists in many federal awards and under Schedule 1A of the WR Act. These came under no criticism from witnesses.[66]

3.79 Witnesses repeatedly alleged that employees would be put under duress by employers wanting them to sign an AWA. Officers from the Department reminded the committee that section 104(5) specifically prohibits duress being applied in connection with an AWA[67]

3.80 It was also alleged that employees will be forced to 'cash out' their annual leave, or at least part of it, and that work-life balance will suffer as a result. In fact, this bill allows for 2 weeks annual leave to be cashed out, but only when the employee instigates the request, and the employer agrees. Currently, the WR Act places no restrictions on leave being cashed out, and parties are free to cash out annual leave in its entirety. This bill actually requires the preservation of at least half of an employee’s annual leave entitlements.

3.81 It was alleged that those seeking to include disallowable matters in their agreements would be sent to jail. The Department was able to clarify this point, too:

No, it is not correct. The bill provides a prohibition on anyone seeking to include prohibited content in an agreement. That is at section 101M. That section provides that it is a civil remedy provision. If you turn to section 105D, it provides penalties for breach of a civil penalty provision. The breach of that particular provision attracts a civil penalty of 60 penalty units for a natural person or five times that amount for a body corporate. There is nothing in this bill that provides for the jailing of a person for breaching that section.[68]

3.82 The evidence presented to the committee by the ACTU was instructive of the highly misleading arguments being advanced by unions in relation to this issue:

Senator Nash – Being a working mother, I am very well aware of needing to spend time with family. I want to revisit the annual leave part of this. Currently we can cash out four weeks annual leave and under the Work Choices bill we can only cash out two. Isn’t that an improvement?

Ms Bowtell – The union movement has never supported the cashing out of leave. It is true that there is no limit under the current provisions on the cashing out of leave, but if you look at the collective agreements compared to AWAs, the cashing out of annual leave is not common in collective agreements. The only arrangements in relation to cashing out that are common in collective agreements are cashing out of excess accrual. In fact, the union movement was involved in a significant case back in the nineties involving a company called Arrowcrest, where we opposed the capacity to cash out annual leave, and we opposed it on public interest grounds. That has always been our view. We were rolled in that case. That has continued to be available, but for additional compensation. But it is not something that unions go out and negotiate. You see it in AWAs but you do not see it in collective agreements.[69]

3.83 The evidence advanced by the ACTU omits any reference to numerous collective agreements currently in force which have been negotiated by unions and contain specific provisions to allow annual leave to be cashed out. For example, the Wespine Industries Pty Ltd CEPU (Dardanup Site) Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2004 (AG934958) contains the following provision:

17. CASHING OUT OF ANNUAL LEAVE

17.1 It is the intent of the parties that all employees should be encouraged to take their normal annual leave entitlement on an annual basis.

17.2 Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-clause 17.1, where it is agreed by both parties and where an employee has an accrued annual leave entitlement of four (4) weeks or greater, the employee may apply to take up to two (2) weeks of the accrued annual leave as a cash payment per year in lieu of taking the equivalent time off.

17.3 An application for cashing out of annual leave must be made and agreed to in writing.

17.4 Where an employee has 'cashed out" a portion of his/her accrued annual leave he/she is not then entitled to have the cashed out portion as time off at a later date.

3.84 The ACTU’s evidence also overlooks the Western Australian industrial relations system, as amended by the Gallop Labor Government, which allows for the ‘cashing out’ of a portion of annual leave. Section 8 of the WA Minimum Conditions of Employment Act states:

8. Limited contracting out of annual leave conditions

An employer and employee may agree that the employee may forgo up to 50% of his or her entitlement to annual leave under Division 3 of Part 4 if –

the employee is given an equivalent benefit in lieu of the entitlement; and

the agreement is in writing.

An agreement referred to in subsection (1) is of no effect6 if the employer’s offer of employment was made on the condition that the employee would be required to enter into an the agreement.

3.85 Parental leave was another area prone to misinformation. The bill preserves parental leave, and adds extra protections. Up to fifty two weeks parental leave, shared between the parents, the right to return to a job with the same terms and conditions, and the extension of benefits to casual workers, are all included in the bill.

3.86 There is a general tendency amongst critics to see employers as inherently untrustworthy and employees as inherently vulnerable. Yet demand for labour is strong, real wages continue to grow, and the changes in the Work Choices Bill will enable productivity increases that will continue to raise the standard of living of employees. Employees are currently in a strong position to negotiate the wages and conditions that best suit them. This position arises from labour shortages at nearly all levels, including unskilled workers. For instance, the National Farmers Federation gave evidence to the committee that due to the shortage of workers in rural areas, many farmers negotiate employment packages with their workers that are well above award rates and provide many extra conditions not accommodated under the award system.

3.87 This situation is common through many industries in many parts of the country. Work Choices will allow more flexibility to incorporate those benefits that the employee wants and the employer wants to provide.

3.88 The interaction between agreements, award rates and the Australian Fair Pay Commission will also ensure that an effective safety net is in place. No employee will have a rate of pay that is lower than a rate they currently enjoy under an award. The large number of workers not covered by awards will also be protected by the provision that ensures the minimum classification wages will never fall below the level set by the Safety Net Review 2005. There is every reason to conclude that workers will enjoy the ability to negotiate improvements to their pay and conditions.

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/wr_workchoices05/report/c03.htm

Long live the parliamentary process and may we, the public, always be served by inquiries of substance!