Earlier in the year, writing in On Line Opinion, I thought that Labor’s “Forward With Fairness” industrial relations policy was best interpreted as an attempt to entrench a new workplace settlement acceptable to all parties – and I still think that’s the Rudd government’s main game. However, it’s now becoming clearer that an element of union bashing is involved – the tired old Third Way game of establishing supposedly electorally popular distance from teh evil labour movement, and also that the “balance” being struck is tilted quite significantly in the direction of employers. Among other things, this explains the dissent in the ranks of unions toward the lacklustre public performance in holding Labor accountable from Sharan Burrow and Jeff Lawrence. It’s also becoming clearer – with the resurrection of demands for “statutory individual contracts” by Julie Bishop as a condition of Senate passage – that the model hasn’t succeeded in producing consensus.
Julia Gillard outlined the results of consultations and more of the shape of the policy which will be embodied in legislation soon to be introduced into Parliament in an address to the National Press Club yesterday. The transcript is here. Commentary is largely focused on the unfair dismissal changes for small business, and there’s a sample of the reaction in a good article summarising union and academic views in The Age. But equally important are the machinations going on in the Industrial Relations Commission over “modern awards”, where employers have been presenting what are basically award-stripping ambit claims, and some odd interventions from Gillard herself [the process was examined in a previous LP post by Senator Rachel Siewert of The Greens] and the rather weak protections for collective bargaining that have been outlined.
It’s all very well to say that Fair Work Australia will be able to make good faith bargaining orders, but if they’re only weakly enforceable, and if there’s no power to arbitrate in the face of, well, bad faith, then it seems somewhat of a fig leaf. The ongoing legal maneouvring Telstra have engaged in, which has just had a setback with employees rejecting a non-union collective agreement in a Commission ordered ballot, is a case in point. Differential pay offers (which have nothing to do with rewarding merit and performance and everything to do with de-unionisation), legal stalling, failure to recognise bargaining agents and “wait them out” negotiating are all weapons in the armoury of management strategy, and it’s far from clear from what Gillard had to say that these tactics couldn’t be employed by business under the new laws.
Many Labor MPs aren’t happy campers at the moment, among others. Kevin Rudd’s cosy meetings with Fairfax management have not gone down well, and MPs are concerned that their constituents have been let down. IR is going to be back on the political agenda in a big way in the very near future, and the sentiment in the community for employment rights and the union’s third party campaigning skills now represent as much of a political danger for Labor as they were a political plus in the 2007 federal election.
Your point about the inability of Fair Work Australia to arbitrate an outcome where the parties have failed to bargain in good faith is one glaring inadequacy in the proposed system. Gillard’s statement that “compulsory arbitration will not be a feature of good faith bargaining” sends a strong signal that the requirement to bargain in good faith will be a weak one, and that parties need only demonstrate a superficial willingness to engage on a basic level in order to satisfy the requirements.
WA’s good faith bargaining system includes the ability for the WAIRC to issue an ‘enterprise order’. This is essential. The provision is seldom used, but ensures that the parties are motivated to bargain in good faith lest they ultimately be subject to arbitration.
I think Bishop’s insistence on the preservation of statutory individual contracts is a gift for Gillard and the government, as it gives them something to continue to define themselves against.
Yep, I agree, Matt, because other than “Julie Bishop wants to bring back WorkChoices”, there’s not much in all this to mobilise the troops – quite the contrary, in fact.
I wonder where the union movement (and the ALP backbench) will draw the line. The ACTU has gone public with the “rights on site” anti-ABCC campaign, but other anti-Forward with Fairness grumbling has thus far been fairly muted.
Part of the problem is that much of the objectionable stuff in FwF is sort of buried in detail, so it’s less easy to mount a case against it. For example, it’s easy to demonise AWAs . You start losing people when you talk about the application of modern awards’ flexibility clauses with respect to individual flexibility agreements, but they essentially amount to the same thing as AWAs.
The whole issue of the States’ role (other than Victoria) and means of referral or integration (or lack thereof) into the system is yet to be definitively addressed, and I think it’s a fairly large elephant in the room.
Yes, it is. I’d be interested in seeing the Unions NSW discussion paper which addressed that issue – but it doesn’t appear to be publicly available.
Personally, I think it might be interesting if some of the unions suggested they might be contemplating a grass roots campaign for The Greens in Tanner, Albanese and Plibersek’s electorates. That might shake things up a bit!
An interesting possibility! Dean Mighell went that way with the ETU at last year’s election, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see more union leaders follow suit in 2010 (though I highly doubt the ACTU would be involved in such a campaign).
Interestingly, this will all be coming to a head in the election year, when the modern awards, NES, etc. all take effect!
I am a Telstra Employee & ALP member. In Telstra union strength has been gutted but employees are very angry at recent efforts to force an inferior agreement on all staff, to the point where a few are rejoining their union. I have E-mailed Julia Gilliard twice and have not received an answer. I realise that an underling would respond to E-mail instead of Julia so it makes me suspicious that they are deliberatley not responding.
I am one that believes that work choices was a significant factor in the ALP victory. They need to lift their game.
So this ‘ labor’ government wants small business to give one warning before dismissal. Then why don’t they ask for or get any before they are instantly dismissed by Monarchists?
Twice.
Small business would be totally justified in simply ignoring this sort of gross ALP hypocrisy and stupidity. This ‘ Do as I say – not as I do ‘ nonsense from an out-of-touch, mean-and-tricky, whatever-it-takes ‘King’ Rudd regime will get them all sacked again quick smart, and good riddance to bad rubbish.
Three strikes and yr out.
I think that the idea of the ‘fair dismissal code’ is a good one; the requirement to show “procedural fairness” is fairly ill-defined and generates confusion and uncertainty for both employees and employers. That said, I think the notion that one warning will be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the code is ludicrous.
I can’t imagine whose vote the ALP imagines it’s winning with this sort of thing. Fair enough, they don’t want to swing the pendulum back too far, lest they been seen as “economically irresponsible”. Nevertheless, I don’t imagine there are many people who wouldn’t vote for the ALP if they had a fair dismissal code that required 3 warnings, but would vote for them if they have a code with 1 warning.
If there was ANY mandate delivered from the recent federal election, it was to scrap workchoices.
But apart from introducing new terminology and some easily reversible detail changes, workchoices is intact (though dormant).
The government cannot do all the things it would like to, not enough people voted for ALP senate candidates.
Where is the anti-workchoices outrage of the election campaign? Where are the street mobs demanding its removal? Inertia reigns supreme!
Trade unions are hardly able to get ANYBODY interested in re-igniting the rage.
Why is this?
I think you know the answer, SATP. It’s the same reason why neoliberal reform was OK for Hawke and Keating, but not anyone else (not that we had too much of it from Howard).
Prior to the last election, I speculated that Howard would jettison WorkChoices in a last-ditch attempt to avoid defeat. In response, a certain person who shall remain nameless made this comment: “If you think Workchoices is going anywhere, I have a bridge to sell you. Labor will rebrand it, call it “Fairchoices” and that will be it.”
Annoyingly prescient, huh?
BBB
That’s entirely reasonable. I’ve seen heaps of people play with the three warning thing with precise intention of doing as little as possible. If ye dinnae gi’ a fuck about the small business owner spare a thought for the bludger’s co-workers. They have to pick up the slack.
.
Besides which that’s precisely why so many people are hired casually for so long. And then you don;t even get one warning.
Look mate just because someone says they’re gonna do something before they get elected I suppose you think that means they should do it. Even if it means not getting invited out fox-hunting with Rupert anymore. What are you? Communist?