In the highly charged debate over the Federal Government's industrial relations changes, emotive images seem to dominate. We are being told that the changing of the powers of the industrial relations commission will destroy family life. Parents apparently will be forced to work on weekends and leave sick children at home alone. People's pay will be reduced. Families' access to quality time together will be stripped away. Essentially, we are being told to imagine how bad things are going to become. It's the creation of a big fear factor of the unknown. But what's missing in the debate is a proper analysis of how things actually work at the moment.
We are told to believe that the current industrial relations system, with its legalistic regulations and rules, delivers us justice which underpins our Australian way of life. But this claim is never really tested. To understand what's currently happening it's often the simplest of examples that bring the greatest clarity. Take the true story of Tom. He's worked for a community, non-profit sports association for over 20 years as grounds keeper and maintenance man. The club has always been run by volunteers, doesn't have and doesn't want pokies, and is a vital part of the local community. But Tom wants to take his long-service leave early next year to travel overseas with his wife. He's entitled to six months, but only wants three months off. He has asked the club committee if he can have the other three months paid to him in cash. The committee is more than happy to agree.
But when they check the award it prohibits the cashing out of long-service leave. Further, the relevant State long-service leave legislation would fine both the club and Tom if they cashed out his leave. Tom and his wife are bitterly disappointed. The inability of the club committee to grant Tom's request has created unfortunate tension. This award, created through the industrial relations commission and combined with the long-service leave legislation, is supposed to deliver justice, employee entitlement and rights, but from Tom's angle the system, instead, seems to be denying him the right to control his money and his family lifestyle. It appears that the long-service leave rights are also restrictions. The industrial relations system is telling Tom that he must take the full six months off and not work.
That is, he is not sensible or mature enough to make lifestyle and work decisions for himself. The system will decide what holidays he can take. Apparently this is what the recent mass demonstrations against the industrial relations reforms are trying to protect. Tom, however, has found a way out. He studies the rules of the proposed individual contracts. If he signs an Australian Workplace Agreement with the club, with a clause that allows him to cash out his leave, this will override the award and the state legislation. That's being attended to right now. Tom and his wife will take the overseas trip they want. Tom's example is repeated in thousands of different but unseen ways every day. It demonstrates the key issue in this heated and often confusing industrial relations debate.
The industrial relations system, as it currently stands, is as much about denying working people their right to control their entitlements. Instead workers' rights are controlled and can only be changed by the specialist industrial relations courts together with the lawyers, unions and employer associations. The reforms about to be implemented take much of the control away from this complicated legal process and give it to average workers. Given Australia's history on industrial relations, this is quite revolutionary. Certainly the people who run the legal system don't like loosing their power. Admittedly there's a lot of detail to grasp in the new WorkChoices laws, but the central issue should not be misunderstood. This is not a battle over workers' rights but who controls the rights.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment