Force is not friendly

There is no doubt that achieving a better blending of family and work is a top priority for many Australian families and businesses and for the community at large.

But the ACTU's approach, taken in its so-called Family Friendly test case launched in the Industrial Commission this week, is not the way to go.

As even the ACTU has recognised, many workplaces have made significant advances in becoming more family friendly.

The key has been the adoption of individual and enterprise-based agreements.  These agreements have given employees and employers the freedom and responsibility to structure work and conditions to meet their diverse and changing needs.

Under these agreements employers and employees have agreed to a raft of family friendly innovations.  They include:  allowing workers to vary hours and days of work;  shifting to part-time or casual work for a specified period;  trading off annual leave loading for longer annual leave;  time off in lieu of overtime and penalty rates;  and more flexible use of annual leave.

Of course, the ability of companies to accommodate these changes varies enormously, as do the needs and preferences of workers.  For example, a trucking firm which faces peak demand early in the morning cannot afford for its workers to flex-off to take their children to school.

While access to part-time work may suit some workers, others may place higher priority on longer hours with longer weekends.  Thus the ability to tailor work and pay conditions to meet the particular requirements of employees and businesses is of paramount importance.

The problem has been that companies relying solely on awards (mainly small private sector businesses) have been prevented from adopting family friendly arrangements.

Many awards have not been up-dated and prohibit trading off set conditions to improve flexibility.

For example, many awards prohibit shifting from full-time to part-time or casual work;  prohibit trading off annual leave loading and prohibit varying annual leave conditions.

Other awards place insurmountable bureaucratic barriers to the adoption of such measures.  What is more, the ACTU has been the main culprit for these anti-family conditions remaining in awards.

What the ACTU is seeking in the current test case is to remove flexibility and responsibility from employers and workers and force, through the commission, a prescribed set of new employee rights.

These include the right to five years of part-time work after returning from parental leave and the right to adjust start and finish times to accommodate school and after-care commitments.

While these rights may suit some companies and workers, they will not represent the best option for many more.

If successful, the ACTU's approach will override more suitable arrangements already agreed to and will restrict the ability of workers and businesses to develop more suitable arrangements.  It will also enforce conditions which some businesses will not be able to accommodate.

This will reduce employment, particularly for people with demanding outside commitments.

The ACTU approach of forcing prescriptive conditions on employees, from whom they have no mandate, and on employers, who they view as exploitative, is itself a major impediment to achieving family friendly workplaces.

ADVERTISEMENT