The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

Howard curb on bosses

Howard curb on bosses
Dennis Shanahan and Sid Marris
August 17, 2005


THE Howard Government is considering tougher laws to control bosses who use new workplace laws to bully or exploit workers, in an attempt to reassure nervous voters about the fairness of its industrial relations reforms.

The Australian has learned that a little-known government agency, the Office of Workplace Services, will be given a much enhanced role in protecting workers from having their wages or work conditions stripped.

Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews told parliament yesterday that "vulnerable workers" would continue to be protected against "inappropriate conduct by employers", but did not go into detail.

The expanded role and powers of the Office of Workplace Services will form part of a wider strategy to re-assure workers that employers will not be able to force them into pay and conditions they do not want.

As the Government works towards producing draft legislation for its industrial relations reforms, Coalition members are trying to counteract the union advertising campaign that depicts workers as being forced on to lower pay and conditions.

Government sources said yesterday that the wider role of the Office of Workplace Services would ensure workers had a free and easily accessible way to challenge bosses who were unfairly trying to use the new laws to break down working conditions.

Policymakers are hoping to boost the office's credibility by encouraging unions to use it to pursue cases of exploitation.

The Office of Workplace Services currently polices the application of federal awards and investigates workers' claims of being underpaid or denied entitlements.

Federal inspectors operate in Victoria, which ceded its powers to the commonwealth in 1998, the ACT and Northern Territory. In Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania, the federal inspectors work with state officers to force employers to pay outstanding wages or apply correct working conditions.

In extreme cases, the inspectors can prosecute employers for underpaying workers.

The Government is looking at an even stronger role for the Office of Workplace Services, known before the first Howard Government reforms as the Industrial Inspectorate, but no final decisions on the detail have been made.

The expansion of the office would complete the process of the Government's plan to have direct agreements at the workplace -- approved by the Employment Advocate and complying with minimum standards set by the new Fair Pay Commission -- to be the mainstay of workplace law. The IRC would still provide voluntary dispute resolution, maintain awards by agreement of employers and unions, and handle unfair dismissal claims.

In parliament yesterday, Mr Andrews said "it will continue to be unlawful to dismiss or to victimise an employee for refusing to agree to a new workplace agreement". He praised the work of the Office of the Employment Advocate and the Office of Workplace Services, attempting to deflect Labor claims that the Coalition's new laws would mean workers were worse off and would face pay cuts.

Mr Andrews said that in 2003-04 there were more than 4700 investigations into breaches of federal industrial laws by the Office of Workplace Services. "Under our proposals it will continue to be unlawful for employees to be dismissed, for example, for refusing to sign an AWA. This won't change," he said.

"It will continue to be unlawful, Mr Speaker, to dismiss a person taking a temporary absence from work due to illness or disability. It will continue to be unlawful to dismiss a worker because of an absence from work because of their family responsibilities. And it will continue to be unlawful, Mr Speaker, in relation to the filing of a complaint or participating in proceedings against an employer involved in alleged violation of laws or regulations.

"None of these things will change under these proposals."

Labor industrial relations spokesman Stephen Smith said Mr Andrews had been "slapped down" over suggestions the new legislation would go to a Senate committee as part of a process to ensure it was right and fair.

"The Prime Minister refused to back his minister and confirm that there would be a Senate inquiry," he said.

A looming clash over IR culture

An interesting piece.

 

[Generator]

No icing for doughnut employees

Bank warns of labour pains before economic gains

 

[Generator]

Ban urged on youth contracts

Senate Clerk criticises IR ad spending, Evans questions Govt advertising spending

I'll be updating this post with a transcript from tonight's Lateline programme some time tomorrow, and then I might just trundle off into the BOS sunset.

Edit: Turnbull, Gillard discuss IR advertising funding

 

[Generator]

IR reforms being announced prior to the imminent release of the legislaton, whether public funds should be used to support what is essentially (at this stage) a party's policy adverstisement campaign, the nature of advice from the 'independent' public service and issues of governmental transparency... What a mess. But, does anyone care?

Labor demands answers on IR ad claims

States 'playing politics' on IR leave claims

 

[walrusbear]

the reforms are going to be passed anyway

so i guess australians can just kick back and get what they voted for

 

[withoutaface]

Well if the ACTU is going to spread gross misinformation about legislation that hasn't even been drafted yet, they can't exactly complain when the Government launches a campaign of their own to counteract it.

 

[Generator]

Well if the ACTU is going to spread gross misinformation about legislation that hasn't even been drafted yet, they can't exactly complain when the Government launches a campaign of their own to counteract it.

But given that the legislation is yet to be tabled, shouldn't the Coalition parties be making use of their own resources rather than rely on public funds? As it is, the Government isn't exactly contesting supposed misinformation because that is only possible when there is a piece of legislation on the table.

 

[walrusbear]

Well if the ACTU is going to spread gross misinformation about legislation that hasn't even been drafted yet, they can't exactly complain when the Government launches a campaign of their own to counteract it.

in addition to asqy's comment, the union used union money

 

[withoutaface]

Do unions have a role to play or should they just get out of the way and let the market forces determine what workers should be paid?

Unions do have a role to play, but it should be constructive, rather than deceptive.

 

[Generator]

Unions do have a role to play, but it should be constructive, rather than deceptive.

In what way have they been deceptive? Given that the legislation is yet to be tabled and that only the generalities of the reform packaged have been outlined, there is quite a bit of room for what you would call scaremongering, and as of the current time the Unions' campaign has been quite effective in that it has forced the Government to carefully consider what has been proposed, more so than the Government thought necessary. In a roundabout sort of way, I would consider that as being constructive.

 

[absolution*]

Liberal party policy doesn't really envisage any role for unions at all. Corporatism (unions with business) is not to accepted. Classical liberalism sees freedom of contract asessentiall and as such the worker should contract with the employer freely without unions interfering and making things 'fairer'. Of course economic liberalism defines fairness as procedural fairness. As in inequality in bargaining position is the right of the employer as it fits within procedural fairness. Not in social democratic/reform liberalist who would prefer to see the parties on a more level pegging when it comes to negotiation. But on the classical libreal approach THIS is unfair as it is not proceedurally fair and is interfering with the market (the procedure) which has given the employer the right to exercise its power over the employer when it comes to negotiation.

I think even the most fundamental of neo-liberalalists would agree that complete free-market practise is not always the most equitable and fair solution to all economic problems. There must be a balance. The question then extends to where this balance is maintained. In its present state i think choice of unionism is more than adequately available and as such the current policy not only pushes for a more neo-liberal stance but also as a self-concerned push by the Liberal Party to assert dominance over the Labor party. Though, the balance between neo-liberal and collectivist policies ineluctably varies, and as this is an equation of values there can be no objective proof in any respect. And such the unions, have every right to use whatever means possible to educate the people as the governments also do. To say what they are doing is deceptive lies in stark contradication to any political transmission of values in the current context.

 

[absolution*]

I know I'm going to sound all Marxist but do think it is important that unions preserve some form of social capital that is important for the functioning of a free market. I recon the question is how far can we go with the free market until we get market failures and a loss of social cohesion that holds it all together. Resulting in people going into little groups with narrow interests. Gated communicates etc and the beginning of a new type of feudalism.

I HOPE some people in the Liberal party are keeping in mind social cohesion and not going all ideological on us all.

Firstly, there is nothing wrong with sounding like a Marxist. The majority of the most highly regarded economists and political economists in Australia are markedly Marxist thinkers.

Secondly, neo-liberal economic policies operate on enclosed basis' which make assumptions, just like any economic viewpoint, however where it differs is in the fact that it is an science, not a social science. As such the current policy mix is irrefutably mathematically and theoretically based where the goals of high growth, low inflation and low unemployment are at the forefront. Little consideration is given to any social or environmental consequences, something which the populace applauds. Whether this system of erosion of social cohesion matters in a world of MTV, ipods and the internet is debatable. Do people even need community?

Adam Smith gets a bad rap. He really wasnt so bad. The Classicals have shown to have much more sense int heir beliefs than the neo-liberals.

 

[walrusbear]

Thats why pols lecturers hate public choice. It applies very scientific methods to politics and implies that there is one right answer. It applies a very fundementalist free market view to politics.



OMG economics is fun (I've had to learn most of it for pols) or at least understand it. It's amazing how little many arts students know about it. As in NOTHING. Which is a bit sad. Probably just as sad as com students who only know economics.

I don't think he was that bad. I think some people took off and ran with his ideas without recognising his qualfications of his theory in his work.

i'm an arts student and i wish i knew more about economy. should have done economics in high school.

anyone know a good place to start learning?

 

[Generator]

Little consideration is given to any social or environmental consequences, something which the populace applauds. Whether this system of erosion of social cohesion matters in a world of MTV, ipods and the internet is debatable. Do people even need community?Do people even need community?

Many would say that they do (even if it's just a nostalgic, and possibly exclusionary, notion), and however many government policies are also making the most of the rhetoric of community (in urban strategies and regional development schemes, for example), and it's primarily a result of the apparent loss of social cohesion over time and the perceived nature of social relations evident today.



[random]
This new keyboard is giving me the shits.
[/random]

 

[Generator]

IR reform smaller than GST: Costello

Costello is on the warpath, it seems.

I was waiting for the transcript of the ABC radio interview to be made available, but this will do - ACTU pushes for collective rights

He said the plan, which has not yet been endorsed by the ACTU, may be the only way to protect workers under the government's proposed industrial relations reforms.

"I think it's time we had the argument," Mr Combet said.

"You know if you're building a system as John Howard is – taking away the award safety net, taking away access to the independent umpire, making it harder for unions to represent people, and forcing people to bargain on their own individual contracts with their employer – if you're building a system like that ? then you must give employees an enforceable collective bargaining right."

He said the plan had been successfully implemented in the United Kingdom, Canada and the US.

"If there's a disagreement between the employees and the employer over the form of bargaining to take place, the employees can vote by majority in the workplace to decide in favour of collective bargaining," Mr Combet said.

"And if they do so, that's enforceable on the employer."

Edit: Howard can't win a trick (Opinion)

Edit 2: From tonight's sbs news:

FEARS FOR WOMEN IN IR CHANGES

More than 60 national women's organisations say the Federal Government's proposed workplace legislation could leave female workers worse off. They fear the industrial changes could severely impact on the bargaining power of female employees.

It's low-paid women in an increasingly casualised workforce who are seen as the most vulnerable to industrial change. The national forum of 64 women's groups is concerned these women's voices will be lost when it comes to bargaining a better deal with their bosses or being protected from unfair dismissal.

MARIE COLEMAN, WHAT WOMEN WANT PROJECT: We already know in some parts of the hospitality industry, for example, there are some every irresponsible industrial practices.

Marie Coleman heads the National Women's Forum which will next month meet Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews.

MARIE COLEMAN: We think the proposals about illegal dismissal just don't cut the mustard. We want to make sure that none of these low-paid women can be forced to accept a lower wage rate.

A spokesman for the Minister says the Government has a strong track record on improving the lot of working women. Employer organisations say the industrial safety net is there to protect everyone in a vulnerable bargaining position.

HEATHER RIDOUT, AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY GROUP: Not just women, there are people from different migrant backgrounds, there's men who have very low skills. I think this is what the whole safety net issue is all about - making sure we have a robust safety net.

The ACTU, meanwhile, is calling for collective bargaining to be legally recognised, as it is in Britain.

GREG COMBET, ACTU SECRETARY: If people want to join together and collectively bargain, they should have the right to do it, and one way to achieve that is by giving them a vote in the workplace.

The ACTU has a second series of advertisements ready to be screened.

Source: http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/trans.php?transcript=34317

 

[Generator]

Another article from the Herald - Push to cut labour costs to match NZ
As noted by earlier articles, some would more than readily dispute the notion that to match New Zealand's level of 'reform' is a progressive act. Then again, econocrats don't think about much beyond the flow of commodities and capital, so I guess that for one with such a frame of mind it would be considered as being progressive.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Classical liberalism sees freedom of contract as essentiall and as such the worker should contract with the employer freely without unions interfering and making things 'fairer'. Of course economic liberalism defines fairness as procedural fairness. As in inequality in bargaining position is the right of the employer as it fits within procedural fairness. Not in social democratic/reform liberalist who would prefer to see the parties on a more level pegging when it comes to negotiation.

I still think comissions and government bodies with the power to oversee things are generally accepted as important.

 

[Sarah]

Another article from the Herald - Push to cut labour costs to match NZ
As noted by earlier articles, some would more than readily dispute the notion that to match New Zealand's level of 'reform' is a progressive act. Then again, econocrats don't think about much beyond the flow of commodities and capital, so I guess that for one with such a frame of mind it would be considered as being progressive.

Well it is in the name of competitiveness that wages go down... either that or investing in human capital but i don't think the govt wants to pursue that path.
Who knows though, it seems the economy works in cycles so maybe these reforms will have the effect of increasing the unions relevance.

 

[Generator]

What I would give for a time machine...

Here's the transcript for one of the reports presented on the 7.30 Report earlier tonight. It's dealing with the issue of Government advertising more so than the IR reforms as such, although it's interesting to note that yet another issue has been brought to light as a result of the Government pressing ahead with its reform agenda.

 

[Generator]

Unions levy millions for IR battle

Kiwis here for good reason, say unions