During the last six months of 2003, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission began hearing a case which is likely to have a profound impact on the way Australian business is organised and on the working lives of many Australians. The "family friendly" case could change the fundamental structure of industrial awards in Australia.
But, so far, this key debate has been kept behind closed doors, secreted away from political or community input. The closed door approach has occurred by agreement between the players involved in the applications and results from unusual tensions between them.
The family-friendly award proposals were initiated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions which applied for award changes based on a traditional and prescriptive "employee rights" versus "employer obligations" approach. For example, the ACTU application seeks to allow employees to demand time off if a family member is ill. The employer would have to agree to the demands and awards would prescribe in detail the process of allocating and managing the time off.
In responding to the ACTU application, the employer bodies could have done the usual and moaned about the cost to employers. The stage for moral posturing would have been set where unions would say workers need new rights with employer organisations replying that the bosses can't afford it.
But this time something substantially different happened. The major peak employer bodies responded to the ACTU application with a counter-application that would produce fundamental structural change to awards. The major employer counter-application states that "if the employer and employee agree", individual employees and employers could vary a wide range of work arrangements without reference to industrial relations institutions. The only stipulation on process being that an individual employer-employee agreement was genuine.
This individual agreement process sanctioned by awards would apply to things such as accessing part-time and casual work, being able to work "ordinary hours" on weekends, varying hours, days and times of work, accessing time off instead of payment for overtime and penalty rates, and a wide range of other key reforms.
The changes sought are historic and would have far-reaching implications on the mix of lifestyles and working choices formally available to workers. The impact for businesses on how they could potentially service their clients would be substantial.
But the secrecy of the negotiations so far reflects the fact that the employer application has unsettled normal relationships between the institutions that control these matters.
There are indications of division within the employer ranks. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry with the National Farmers Federation and smaller employer bodies support the "by agreement" approach. The Australian Industry Group errs to the more prescriptive model which is aligned to the ACTU's wishes. The ACTU is prepared to discuss the AIG approach but won't discuss the employer-employee agreement model.
The ACTU is trying to manage deep internal union divisions, particularly between white- and blue-collar factions. White collar unions are said to be disposed towards the "agreement" approach. Blue collar unions want process imposed on employees. The ACTU has sought to buy time by tying up the application with challenges to dozens of procedural matters, including excluding the construction industry from family-friendly consideration.
Of all this, the public to date knows little, has had no direct input -- yet it affects them intimately.
Over the last two decades, Australians' attitude to work and their expectations of it have changed massively. An ageing but physically and mentally fit population want work options but not full-time. Younger Australians are bored with the idea of a job for life. Families need adaptable work. People simply want income! Yet "the people" are excluded from the debate and change process.
Australia's industrial award system is stuck in a framework that fails to match these newly emerging social needs of many working people. The small number of players who have the capacity to change the work regulation system can renew the relevance of the system. But this will mean a shift in their institutional roles and could prove the main blockage to family friendly and lifestyle reform in 2004.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment