It's generally believed that Work Choices is a political liability for the Howard government, but by the time of the next federal election, this belief may be hard to justify.
It's true that Work Choices has substantially diminished the power of unions; but contrary to most impressions, it has involved only a small shift of power to employers. What has not been understood is that the real shift of power is to the bureaucracy and the minister.
The union campaign against Work Choices is dependent on the assumption that it frees employers to exploit employees. The unions' media campaign giving "real life" demonstrations of this was initially successful, but it suffered credibility when many of the cases proved false or unrelated to Work Choices.
Now unions are trawling for examples of provable employee exploitation to feed a willing media. However, new cases are not forthcoming. Why?
First, employers have realised that Work Choices imposes a wide range of new restraints on them.
Second, unions have succeeded in scaring businesses. Companies don't want to be subject to union-run, media brand attacks and so frequently maintain existing work arrangements rather than change things.
Third, the expanding labour shortage means that workers in dispute with employers can do better by moving to a new job. Why fight when better jobs are readily available!
Finally, the government bureaucracy empowered to enforce Work Choices is now nearing full operational strength. The Office of Employee Advocate has expanded to some 250 staff checking all new workplace agreements. The Office of Workplace Services is nearing its 200-plus staff target. It's designed to police employers breaching Work Choices. And the Australian Building and Construction Commission which specialises in policing construction has more than 100 staff.
This new bureaucracy dedicated to policing working arrangements rivals in size the union movement. But unlike the union movement, it's focused on this singular task, whereas unions are diverted into political and other activities.
What needs to be understood about Work Choices is that the bureaucracy is intended to replace the union movement as the protector of workers' rights.
Now the government is positioned to prove its new system.
The removal of unions' dominant role in the national minimum wage case, and the surprisingly high increase awarded last week have challenged the public impression that wage justice is dependent on union power.
Negative public reaction to Work Choices is heavily based on people's sense that someone else might be exploited. The union movement is trying to maintain this fear. The fear is a state of mind largely unsupported by personal experience.
The federal government now has in place its employee protection systems through the bureaucracy. It hopes that employers will continue to behave, that employees will not experience exploitation and fear will dissipate. At election time, the Work Choices battle will be between perceptions and reality.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment