The persistence, and now the widening, of the gap between men’s and women’s pay is one of the continuing scandals of Australian public life. Despite the fact that unequal pay for work of equal value has been illegal since the Whitlam era, what ought to be a major issue is typically surrounded by obfuscation, if not ignored entirely. In today’s Crikey, Eva Cox has published a useful corrective to many of the myths which serve to excuse, obscure and justify what is a continuing disgrace: Continue reading ‘Unequal pay for work of equal value’
Tag Archive for 'workplace relations'
Julia Gillard has criticised the decision of the Fair Pay Commission to award no increase in the federal minimum wage. She accurately notes that the decision will have an impact on other workers as well, because the safety net is the floor which underpins bargaining.
However, Gillard and Kevin Rudd might themselves bear some of the responsibility for this decision, which will – rightly – be a political problem for the Labor government. The Commission was heavily criticised by Labor in opposition, and next year it’s due to be abolished, its functions rolled into the AIRC’s replacement – Fair Work Australia. If the criticisms made of the process and of the narrow economic orthodoxy of its chair, Professor Ian Harper, have merit, it surely should have been open to the ALP to hand back the wage setting powers to the AIRC earlier. The ’softly, softly’ approach to IR reform is full of contradictions, one of which will unfortunately now impact on those least able to afford to shrug their shoulders at the political game. It isn’t a good look for a Labor government.
Elsewhere: Via Andos in comments on another thread, a link to a useful interview on ABC Radio with ACOSS. The point is made that research from the OECD (and from other sources, I might add) debunks the notion that there is a strong correlation between small rises in minimum wages and unemployment.
Update: Matt C notes in comments that the FPC’s own modelling of its previous decisions shows only a minimal effect on unemployment of a decision not to increase the rate.
Elsewhere: Rob Corr.
Update: New post.
I’ve noticed some wild leaps of logic, if that’s the right word, in the “analysis” of Julia Gillard’s Forward With Fairness IR bill. Apparently, everything that may have happened in the past that would scare employers (probably including a return to braces and steel capped docs among the well dressed unionists) will. In almost all cases, if you actually look at the detail of the legislation, the claims made are unsustainable. Ambit claims, presumably…
Andrew Crook had a good piece in Crikey yesterday tracing the origins of all this hoohah:
With business cosying up to Kevin, and Malcolm striving for popular relevance, a cadre of crack News Ltd hacks have been dispatched to wage an IR guerilla war by proxy. Union bashing has been the raison d’être of buttoned-up reporters like Brad Norington for years — when Norington refers to the dreaded return of the ‘IR club’ he could easily be talking about himself. But confronted with a watertight consensus after extensive consultation, the Oz has continued to push an adversarial line that attempts to revive the pitched battles of the 1890s.
…
On Saturday, Norington re-entered the fray, clearly miffed by the lack of love from the Australian Industry Group’s Heather Ridout. In an excruciating piece, Norington gets close to accusing the business lobby of false consciousness — a charge usually leveled at the Oz’s enemies on the Left. What looks like an off-hand comment about the “weird” direction the IR debate is taken as evidence of a looming stoush. Of course, Ridout’s overall backing of the bill remains strong, subject to qualifications.
Continue reading ‘What if you held an IR scare and no one came?’
…45% of Australians think so, according to this fortnight’s Essential Research poll. As a bit of an addendum to my earlier post about Julia Gillard’s speech last week to the National Press Club on the detail of the Forward with Fairness bills which will shortly be introduced into parliament, I should also note that many Labor MPs have been concerned by reports they’re receiving from constituents about continuing abuses of workplace power. This is more the everyday bastardry that WorkChoices encouraged, rather than the headline anti-union moves of big corporations like Telstra. A lot of voters assumed that WorkChoices had already been “torn up”, and there’s significant pressure on Gillard to bring forward some of the implementation dates for aspects of the new legislation.
The whole “keep business satisfied” implementation agenda might have seemed like a good idea last year. It’s not looking so flash now, particularly as the ACTU finally wakes up to the fact that they’ve effectively been locked out of the policy making process.
Elsewhere: More discussion of the poll at The Poll Bludger. Also interesting is the comparison with ratings of attributes between Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd (with the proviso that the data on Rudd dates from June). Turnbull will be worried at the 47% “out of touch” figure. How do you actually turn that around? Brendan Nelson didn’t do so by emoting and going trucking.
Propositions on the Liberal right week of FAIL
Let’s sum up a few things about the CPRS/leadership shenanigans:
(a) It’s been intriguing to see the focus of political discussion narrow to the Parliamentary dramatics. Journalists – and one suspects, many Liberal MPs – appear to have completely lost sight of the effect that Turnbull’s stand might be having on the public. I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a lot of sympathy for him and his position. Yet those normally obsessed with Newspoll now equate politics with a bunch of lunatics gathered in Nick Minchin’s office, rather than even stopping to think about how all this might be playing with voters. I wonder whether Newspoll will be asking questions about the Liberal leadership this weekend – its owners might not like the answers;
(b) The Liberal Right have shown themselves to be completely unelectable crazies. Liberals are not Republicans and Australia is not America. This appears to be news to some, and it’s hard to know why;
(c) Conversely, text messages and phone calls and emails from Liberal party members and Andrew Bolt’s followers do not equate to a shift in public opinion. The Libs’ only chance of being an effective opposition, and gathering votes in the centre, is to go with Turnbull’s position. The much vaunted ‘base’ will not vote Labor in a pink fit, and a stack of Liberal seats would be at risk if a Leader is elected who is a reactionary on Howard era issues such as climate change denialism and industrial relations. That was clear enough from Kevin Andrews’ press conference where most questions were about the past, and his right wing stance. This is John Howard’s poisonous legacy to his party;
(d) Talk of Turnbull’s ‘management style’ is merely code for the Liberal right refusing to be led by one not of their own. ‘Consultation’ means caving in to dinosaurs. Who’s really the arrogant one in this equation? More likely to be Nick Minchin and his mates;
(e) If Turnbull is toppled tomorrow or on Monday, and leaves Parliament, who really believes an Abbott led Liberal Party would retain Wentworth in a by-election? This is the craziness – Members like Michael Johnson in Ryan calling for Turnbull’s ousting while holding a ‘leafy’ and very marginal seat which has many moderate Liberal voters. It’s not the only one. Kelly O’Dwyer in Higgins, for instance, is going to face a lot of pressure to take a stand on climate change and the ETS in the lead up to the by-election for Peter Costello’s former seat. The Liberals’ actual base is multiple and plural, and they can’t hold it by playing only to the revanchists.
Update: Turnbull’s press conference is now on YouTube.
Elsewhere: Politically Homeless.
Elsewhere: Club Troppo, The Stump.
Update: Fresh post – Abbott will stand for the leadership on Monday.