Many people think that unions are more enthusiastic about ruthless power plays than advancing the interests of workers. Recent allegations that the Australian Workers Union has long been at the forefront of branch stacking in the Labor Party in Queensland will only serve to confirm such distrust.
But while unions have their fair share of cynical apparatchiks, they also contain many committed activists who are convinced that without their efforts, workers' pay and conditions would be forced down to unacceptable levels by unscrupulous bosses.
So when these true believers in class struggle contemplate the precipitous decline in union membership in recent years -- from 38 per cent of all Australian employees in 1993 to 26 per cent last year -- it is fair to assume that it is not only their own positions they are worried about. They genuinely fear that without union muscle to protect them, many workers will be vulnerable to exploitation, particularly in industries where the demand for labour is cyclical or weak.
The decline in union membership has a number of causes -- structural changes in the economy and the composition of the labour force, legislative reforms aimed at freeing up the workplace, and shifts in employee attitudes.
While many union leaders realise the importance of adjusting to make their organisations more attractive to potential members in these changed conditions, they are even more eager to wind back much of the recent labour market deregulation. The same people who criticise John Howard for supposedly wanting to take Australia back to the 1950s in social terms, would be happy to take us back just as far in industrial relations.
One of the developments that has most upset the unions has been the success of labour hire firms that arrange for individuals to work as independent contractors rather than as employees. Although independent contracting has long been possible in Australia, in the past decade it has become increasingly popular and now involves over 10 per cent of the workforce, including people in traditional industries such as housing construction and the pastoral industry, as well as new sectors such as information technology.
People working under such contracts for services are free to negotiate their own pay, conditions and times of work with those who engage them, and are also responsible for their own leave and other matters that are normally the province of employers. In some industries, most contractors also belong to unions, but in many other industries few bother to take up a union ticket.
The unions argue that because these arrangements enable people to work outside award provisions, they drive down pay and conditions for everyone, although the evidence does not support this claim. They say that ultimately, all workers in affected industries will be forced to be contractors, irrespective of their own wishes, and that such a coercive situation would not be in the public interest.
In response to union demands, last year the Beattie government passed the Queensland Industrial Relations Act, which establishes new heights -- or depths, depending on your perspective -- for regulatory intervention. Amongst the many provisions of the Act designed to gladden the hearts of class struggling shop stewards is section 275.
This gives the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission the power to declare that any group of contractors are employees, thus placing them under award regulations. In other words, a coercive situation indifferent to the wishes of the individuals concerned.
Last March, the AWU launched a test case under section 275 against Charleville contractor Barry and Moera Hammond, whose company, Troubleshooters Available, brought the labour-hire contracting system to the Queensland wool industry in 1992. This case is still being heard by the commission, but if it succeeds, contracting arrangements in a wide range of other industries will be under grave threat.
The Hammonds, whose clashes with the AWU go back to the "wide combs" dispute in the 1980s, have long regarded the Queensland Shearing Award as perpetuating inefficient work practices and as detrimental to the interests of shearers themselves. Barry has served a couple of brief jail sentences for failing to comply with outdated restrictions in the award and refusing, as a matter of principle, to pay the resulting fines. A lot of workers obviously agree with his stance, as he has over 300 shearers, wool classers and other pastoral contractors on his books.
Rather than driving down wages as the unions claim, the improved efficiency that can result from contracting enables higher rates of remuneration. And in any case, there are longstanding protections in common law to ensure that contracting arrangements cannot be used as a ruse to underpay workers, and to prevent people from being forced into such arrangements against their will.
But the battle between the unions and contractors does not just encompass narrow matters of industrial relations and rates of pay. It involves important cultural considerations about the nature of work, freedom and control in a modern economy.
Contractors are embracing a situation in which they are not bound by the constraints inherent in the master-servant model that governs the usual relations between employers and employees. They are asserting their right to negotiate conditions of work that suit their own individual needs, and to take the greater degree of personal responsibility that comes with being self-employed. If the notions of cultural diversity so beloved by the Labor Party and the unions are to have any meaning, they must also allow for diversity in the circumstances under which people work.
So despite their oft-stated commitment to egalitarianism and workers' rights, the unions would prefer to perpetuate an unequal system that enhances their own powers while making it more difficult for individuals to take real control over their working conditions. Just like the bosses they claim to oppose.
ADVERTISEMENT
