<html>
<body>
This article seems relevant enough to be worth posting in full.
Thanks to Tony Troughton-Smith for the tipoff<br><br>
Dion Giles<br><br>
-----------------------------------------------<br><br>
<b>Rob Durbridge </b>is Executive Director of the Australian Institute of
Employment Rights and is the former Federal Secretary of the Australian
Education Union. The
<a href="http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/mgt/research/aier/">Australian
Institute of Employment Rights</a> is promoting the development of a
Charter of Employment Rights based on international conventions and
standards.<br>
<br>
By: Rob Durbridge<br>
21 July 2006<br>
<a href="http://www.newmatilda.com/policytoolkit/policydetail.asp?PolicyID=454">
http://www.newmatilda.com/policytoolkit/policydetail.asp?PolicyID=454</a>
<br>
<br>
As we enter the new financial year, what is the forecast for the Federal
Government’s WorkChoices package? Polls continue to show that the law is
highly unpopular. Most employers are not taking advantage of it. The 4%
coverage of legislated individual contracts (AWAs) is concentrated in
different areas of the labour market for different reasons; there is no
rapid shift away from union collective bargaining yet. <br><br>
The States’ challenge to WorkChoices in the High Court has created doubt
about the validity of the radical new laws. It may mean employers are
reluctant to jump in before the laws are found to be enforceable. The
High Court transcript would suggest some judges are not convinced the
Commonwealth has the power to legislate in the way it has. But most legal
experts agree that a majority are likely to find that it can. <br><br>
Nevertheless, the majority on the bench may baulk when it comes to the
most significant centralist shift since the acquisition of income tax
powers by the Curtin Government in 1941 - a voluntary shift impelled by
wartime exigencies. <br><br>
Conservatives tend to abhor big central government, if only because of
the potential gift it hands future Labor administrations. Nobody argues
that the Constitution was designed to override the powers of the states
in the way WorkChoices does. There is also a respectable statutory
interpretation argument about reading the powers concurrently; what is
the labour power there for, after all? <br><br>
Alternatively the Court may find that the law should survive, but with
limitations. This could create the need for a new Bill, with attendant
risks in a now-skittish Senate. If the challenge is rejected, some
reformists forsee the constitutional basis being laid for more
comprehensive regulation of corporations and all aspects of their
employment decisions by future Federal governments. It could prove a
Pyrrhic victory for conservatives. <br><br>
<b>Neo-liberalism out of steam? <br><br>
</b>Legal doubt aside, attitudes to WorkChoices may represent something
far more significant to the Australian body politic. It may be that the
neo-liberal economic philosophy, of which WorkChoices is an expression,
is running out of steam. Not many Victorians or South Australians of any
political hue think electricity or transport privatisation has worked.
Few in NSW think public-private partnerships are a great idea when it
comes to roads. <br><br>
A big majority of Australians think increases in tax and public spending
are justified if priority is given to public education and health.
Privatisation and deregulation are on the nose, which has major
implications for economic and industrial relations policy, providing the
opposition parties have the wit to respond with positive policies.
<br><br>
Neo-liberal industrial relations policy peaked in the mid-90s when the
OECD championed deregulation. The reaction against them helped oust the
radical rightwing Victorian and WA Governments, much to the surprise of
the commentariat and even the ALP. <br><br>
A decade on the OECD says high productivity and low unemployment can be
achieved through regulated labour markets integrated with welfare and
training arrangements. In the 90s the major countries of South America
under the impetus of the World Bank adopted the deregulatory model. This
caused crises and massive unemployment. Now there is a continental shift
towards systems which recognise labour rights and achieve high economic
growth. Global firms know this, leaving the Howard government looking
somewhat anachronistic in its zealous pursuit of 90s policies. <br><br>
What of the ALP’s response? Labor’s opposition to legislated individual
contracts (AWAs) comes after ten years of prevarication. Opposing AWAs
was a poll-driven decision and a means of shoring up the political base
of ALP leader Kim Beazley. <br>
<br>
But despite the usual chorus of “union-domination” coming from the usual
suspects, his unequivocal stand appears to have worked. The jury is back
in the public mind; it heard the evidence given to the recent Senate
Estimates Committee that most AWAs removed “protected” entitlements from
workers who had “chosen” to sign them. Despite Federal Government claims
that its new system would not disadvantage workers it is evident that its
reform package is being used to cut wages and conditions. <br><br>
Labour market deregulation was an article of faith for former ALP Prime
Minister Paul Keating. The shift to enterprise bargaining, underpinned by
the award safety net engineered by the ALP and the ACTU, provided both
flexibility and protection against inequity. It allowed minimum industry
standards to be maintained. WorkChoices is not a simple extension of that
process. It clearly promotes employers’ power at the expense of employees
and throws them back to the master and servant era. We are now adherents
to some of the world’s worst practice, and this could well be a bridge
too far for many ordinary Australians. <br><br>
Some employers are privately uneasy about the radical changes embodied in
WorkChoices which endanger good industrial relations in productive and
successful enterprises. Many are dismayed that WorkChoices, which was
promoted as a law to increase freedom and flexibility, has increased
complexity and government interference in industrial relations. We hear
about phone calls to CEOs from Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews
asking why companies have concluded new collective agreements with
unions. With a whiff of the star chamber, we read of employees being
subjected to long interviews by government bureaucrats demanding evidence
of industrial misdemeanors. <br><br>
<b>Shocking union campaign <br><br>
</b>The success of the unions’ campaign against WorkChoices has shocked
the Federal Government, which expected a boneheaded industrial
confrontation. Instead the union movement has adopted a professional
media strategy which promotes unions as Australia’s biggest membership
organisations that look after millions of families. Local organisation
and events involving unionists and the community in key marginal seats is
bringing US-style organising strategies to “middle Australia.” <br><br>
Never before has ‘Advance Australia Fair’ introduced a union rally,
particularly one of half a million gathered by SkyChannel in all states
and territories. The theme of the campaign is clearly ‘defend the family,
look after our kids’ - not the pursuit of union power. Its success has
energised unions, restored the faith of many in their role and even
raised membership in some sectors. <br><br>
<b>A new front for…democracy? <br><br>
</b>How should a future Federal government legislate to restore
employment rights? The unions have toured a number of countries and are
developing policy for the ACTU Congress later this year which will feed
into ALP policy for its 2007 National Conference. The Australian
Institute of Employment Rights (AIER) prepared a research report for the
union delegation comparing union recognition and collective bargaining
systems. <br><br>
Abolishing AWAs does not an industrial relations policy make; Australia
which was once a world leader in the field needs to now look to the rest
of the world for ideas. Industrial relations arrangements are located in
national cultures and legal structures; they can’t be transplanted. A new
industrial relations package should attempt to integrate the best
features of other systems with our own unique experience, but also look
to the future. <br><br>
Most countries are way ahead of Australia in integrating policy on
training and investment in skills, and this is starting to show up in
skills shortages and the importation of guest workers. Instead of master
and servant, we should adopt successful European experience where
workplace rights include consultation about company decisions,
information about future plans and protection against retrenchments.
<br><br>
As well as restoring the role of the independent umpire, we should focus
on the contribution that the workforce can make rather than on
intimidating and marginalising it. New policy should examine the role of
industry councils with worker representatives contributing to plans for
investment and management; why should democracy end at the factory or
office door? <br><br>
Councils can also provide research and strategy for industry planning,
government support and collective bargaining. Collective bargaining
systems have now been accepted as a productive and more equitable option
by the OECD; for unions they sustain membership and legitimacy in
contrast to systems common in the anglosphere. <br>
<br>
This is the ‘high road’ to productivity. The ‘low road’ of competing with
developing countries – one embraced by WorkChoices - is one we cannot
win. <br>
<br>
</body>
<br>
</html>