8 May 2007
There can be no “fairness” in an industrial relations system if the employer has all the rights and employees can be forced to “negotiate” on an individual basis and the Federal Government’s tinkering does not address the underlying problems, writes IEUA Federal President Dick Shearman.
In releasing its Industrial Relations policy, the ALP stressed that WorkChoices was “unfair” to “working families”.
The Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd criticised the “extreme” IR policy of the Howard Government. He pledged to abolish Australian Workplace Agreements and introduce a modern flexible IR system that restored the balance and was “fair”.
The emphasis on “fairness” instead of workers’ “industrial rights” has created an opportunity for the Howard government to argue that any lack of fairness under WorkChoices was unintentional.
The Prime Minister now asserts that fairness can be guaranteed under WorkChoices by introducing a tougher safety net underpinning Australian Workplace Agreements.
As well as the five minimum conditions that must be contained within an AWA, the Federal government will legislate to ensure that salary-related conditions such as overtime, penalty rates or annual leave loading that are “traded off” by an employee must be compensated for in other ways, eg greater flexibility in taking time off so that no worker supposedly is worse off under an AWA.
The AWA is an unfair contract.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that an AWA under WorkChoices is inherently unfair.
At the heart of WorkChoices is the absolute power it givers to employers. Central to this power is the employer’s LEGAL RIGHT to offer an AWA to an employee on a “take it or leave it” basis at any time.
Any concept of “fairness” in an industrial relations system must be based on the LEGAL RIGHT of an employee to reject an AWA and instead ask for their union to negotiate a collective award or agreement on their behalf. It is this fundamental human right that is denied by WorkChoices. An employer may choose to offer a collective agreement, as has been the case in most of our schools, but there is no requirement to do so.
The Mining Industry
An AWA does not have to undercut salaries and conditions. AWA’s offered in the WA mining industry reflect the current mining boom and related skills shortages.
There is nothing to stop any employer offering individual contracts with salaries and conditions in excess of award rates. The mining industry however wants to retain the present system whereby they can legally refuse to negotiate an agreement with a union.
There can be no “fairness” in an IR system if the employer has all the RIGHTS and employees can be forced to “negotiate” on an individual basis.
The Howard government will not do any more than tinker with the current system – it is absolutely committed to removing collective bargaining rights.
The Labor alternative currently restores those rights although there are warning signs that the ALP leadership may seek to be overly accommodative to the concerns of business.
The current WorkChoices legislation, which gives primacy to individually “negotiated” AWA’s, must be repealed.
Political Parties and the IEU
The Independent Eduction Union is not affiliated to the ALP. We make no donations, in cash or kind, to the ALP. We are a non party political organisation.
The union is not however apolitical.
Our opposition to WorkChoices is based upon it being the most extreme IR legislation in the developed economies.
Australia is the only developed economy that has effectively abolished collective bargaining rights for employees.
Our campaign against the Howard government’s legislation is legitimate trade union activity.
In an election year, we must try and ensure that the threat posed to the job security and living standards of all Australian workers by WorkChoices remains a key election issue.
Contact details
Dick Shearman
Federal President
Ph: 02 9202 2600
Fax: 02 9261 8850
ieu@ieu.asn.au