Ever since Work Choices was proposed by the Federal Government the Labor Party and unions have campaigned hard, claiming the demise of the old industrial relations system would impose unfairness and injustice on working people. But Labor leader Kevin Rudd now seems to concede at least parts of the government's industrial relations changes are acceptable.
Rudd says a Labor government would create a national industrial relations system -- but only for the private sector -- make strike pay illegal, require compulsory secret ballots before strikes and prevent unfair dismissal action against small businesses employing fewer than 15 people for the first 12 months of employment. These represent important steps for the Labor Party.
Labor is accepting that, when unfair dismissal damages are imposed against a small business, it is the individual business owner who pays. Small business people usually have their homes mortgaged to finance the business, so unfair dismissal payouts are in effect paid from the mortgage. In these instances, it is one little guy (the employee) taking from another little guy (the employer).
Now, the difference between the government and Labor relates to the size of a small business when it suffers and how long they have employed people. The policy step may be small but the conceptual shift is larger. The embracing of a national industrial relations system is a further big step. It recognises the confusion, cost and complexity of having eight different sets of labour laws in an integrated but modest economy that must compete internationally. However, the restriction of Labor's national system to the private sector creates a new twist.
Does this raise the possibility of differing labour rights for public sector employees as opposed to private sector employees? Who will have better rights? And will public sector employees be unfairly exposed to exploitation by their state government employers, who can write the industrial relations rules to suit the state governments?
Labor's requirement for secret strike ballots and the banning of strike pay are also a significant move towards consensus. A political divide seems to have vanished concerning the right to strike. Labor perhaps accepts that the old rules enabled workplace agitators to artificially create problems which most employees didn't support.
This appearance of an emerging tentative consensus holds a risk for Rudd. He accepts many unionists aren't happy with his plan and that he may suffer dissent at next week's ALP national conference. But in moving towards coalition policy on some issues, he gives legitimacy to coalition claims its labour law reform agenda is vital to Australia's future. Is this a bad thing?
The economy seems to be achieving a miracle, with astonishingly low and declining unemployment and no breakout in wage-induced inflation. It is hard not to give considerable credit to Howard's labour reforms for this.
Certainly the economic powerhouse that is the minerals industry is loud in claiming two decades of cutting-edge labour reform delivered the productivity and efficiency gains that enabled it to exploit the China boom. Perhaps some political consensus on labour reform could help the troubled manufacturing sector replicate the focus evident in the minerals sector. It's a worthwhile thought.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment