The AIRC has handed down its final minimum wage decision – an award of an increase of $17 taking the Federal Minimum Wage to $484.40. Business reaction has been predictable:
Business groups say the rise will result in a wages blowout of more than $1.5 billion.
Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) spokesman Michael Potter says he is disappointed as the decision could squeeze profit margins for business.
“ACCI considers this increase is unfortunately large, will cause upwards pressure on wages and will lead to price pressures in the long run, which will cause upward pressure on the interest rate,” Mr Potter said.
It’ll be interesting to watch whether the government’s Low Pay Commission delivers on its stated aims – freed of the allegedly adversarial process of the AIRC. I, for one, will also be watching to see if the usual business claims that any pay rise will affect employment are borne out this year. They weren’t last year.
Incidentally, a little legal birdie tells me there’s no constitutional obstacle to the States’ continuing to set minimum wages for all workers in their jurisdictions, unless the Commonwealth legislates directly to strike down these powers for those employed in registered corporations. The ball is now well and truly in the Commonwealth’s court on a number of playing fields, level or otherwise. I’ll be watching.
Elsewhere: Tim Dunlop looks at the Howard Government’s form on wage submissions.
ACCI – All Cunty Cunt Idiots
ACCI – All Cunty Cunt Idiots
You say it, brother Flutey!
You say it, brother Flutey!
Cripes, and I thought we had a “jobs boom” already…. the Right trips over their own rhetoric, again.
Sadly, it was left to Dem. Senator Andrew Murray to really excoriate the Fair Wage Commission today. I was surprised, but he really tore it a new one. And where was Bomber? Too busy being pantsed on tax to defend 100 years of the Australian labour’s greatest social experiment.
well bugger him: if he doesnt start kicking heads about this in the next week, he should resign. There’s the door. Its that simple.
Cripes, and I thought we had a “jobs boom” already…. the Right trips over their own rhetoric, again.
Sadly, it was left to Dem. Senator Andrew Murray to really excoriate the Fair Wage Commission today. I was surprised, but he really tore it a new one. And where was Bomber? Too busy being pantsed on tax to defend 100 years of the Australian labour’s greatest social experiment.
well bugger him: if he doesnt start kicking heads about this in the next week, he should resign. There’s the door. Its that simple.
Now… back to snorting coke off my French Clock.
Now… back to snorting coke off my French Clock.
After the Nabakov relevation on the spectrum of sexuality I should say thank you sister Mark.
After the Nabakov relevation on the spectrum of sexuality I should say thank you sister Mark.
Sibling Mark, Flutey – we’re all androgynes now.
Sibling Mark, Flutey – we’re all androgynes now.
aarh, get orf yer big poof.
aarh, get orf yer big poof.
My understanding is that there are currently about 60% of employees covered by the federal system. If the states don?Äôt agree to hand over their systems with the use of the corporations power and a collection of other powers the Government would increase that to 85%. While the corporations power in relation to industrial realtions has not been tested it was first used by Keating to bring in enterprise bargaining in 1993.
Thus there would be a rump of 15% employees left for the states to cover.
The game plan would be it seems that the states would give in as the cost and complications of maintaining their own IR systems for the small numbers of employees would not make sense to them. Also Minter Ellison for one seems to see the 100 employees level for unfair dismissals as an ambit. It would seem that the Feds have given themselves room for negotaiting with the states to agree to a hand over.
At the same time they can use the corporations power to deal with unfair contracts, though this is facing repeal?
I also wonder in respect of that possibility how hard the unions would fight over matters such as unfair dismissals. That is they have very little penetration into small businesss so to ask their members to wear the cost of such arguments would seem unlikely.
It seems as though the feds have put a lot of long term planning into these changes. It seems unlikely that they are not fairly sure of themselves legally. It maybe that the states will have to go down arguing, while one suspects secretly pleased about the transfer of costs to the federal arena. Why would they move to set minimum wage for the rump.
My understanding is that there are currently about 60% of employees covered by the federal system. If the states don?Äôt agree to hand over their systems with the use of the corporations power and a collection of other powers the Government would increase that to 85%. While the corporations power in relation to industrial realtions has not been tested it was first used by Keating to bring in enterprise bargaining in 1993.
Thus there would be a rump of 15% employees left for the states to cover.
The game plan would be it seems that the states would give in as the cost and complications of maintaining their own IR systems for the small numbers of employees would not make sense to them. Also Minter Ellison for one seems to see the 100 employees level for unfair dismissals as an ambit. It would seem that the Feds have given themselves room for negotaiting with the states to agree to a hand over.
At the same time they can use the corporations power to deal with unfair contracts, though this is facing repeal?
I also wonder in respect of that possibility how hard the unions would fight over matters such as unfair dismissals. That is they have very little penetration into small businesss so to ask their members to wear the cost of such arguments would seem unlikely.
It seems as though the feds have put a lot of long term planning into these changes. It seems unlikely that they are not fairly sure of themselves legally. It maybe that the states will have to go down arguing, while one suspects secretly pleased about the transfer of costs to the federal arena. Why would they move to set minimum wage for the rump.
Ros, businesses with 70 employees really aren’t that small. And experience demonstrates that the fear of dismissal has been a very effective recruitment tool for unions.
The Beattie government in Queensland has announced it intends to legislate for a set of employment minima which will be more robust than the Federal mimimum conditions (not wages) and it’ll be up to Howard as to whether he wants specifically to legislate these away.
I also wouldn’t prejudge whether the High Court will accept this use of the Constitutions power as legitimate. The Keating era legislation didn’t seek to invade the jurisdiction of the states, but to set up enterprise bargaining without too much scrutiny from the AIRC. Thus the corporations power was used to cover the EBA provisions not the Conciliation & Arbitration power.
Ros, businesses with 70 employees really aren’t that small. And experience demonstrates that the fear of dismissal has been a very effective recruitment tool for unions.
The Beattie government in Queensland has announced it intends to legislate for a set of employment minima which will be more robust than the Federal mimimum conditions (not wages) and it’ll be up to Howard as to whether he wants specifically to legislate these away.
I also wouldn’t prejudge whether the High Court will accept this use of the Constitutions power as legitimate. The Keating era legislation didn’t seek to invade the jurisdiction of the states, but to set up enterprise bargaining without too much scrutiny from the AIRC. Thus the corporations power was used to cover the EBA provisions not the Conciliation & Arbitration power.
More on the commendable and timely Age campaign to redeem Keating. Its really gaining momentum – this one calls for his resurrection!
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-Paul-Keating-we-have-to-have-again/2005/06/07/1118123835541.html?oneclick=true
More on the commendable and timely Age campaign to redeem Keating. Its really gaining momentum – this one calls for his resurrection!
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-Paul-Keating-we-have-to-have-again/2005/06/07/1118123835541.html?oneclick=true