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 yesterday's speech by Labor leader Kevin Rudd at the National Press Club seems to concede that at least parts of the government's industrial relations changes are acceptable.
Is it possible that some measure of political consensus is emerging on labour issues? Is labour reform coming to be seen to be as important as the tariff, banking and other reforms that have made Australia a more competitive and successful economy?
Look at the details of Rudd's speech. He announced that 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.
First, it has taken a conceptual leap in accepting that unfair dismissal laws damage at least some businesses.
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?
Other questions exist concerning a Labor national system. If the Labor states are going to voluntarily give their industrial relations powers to a federal Labor government, which state system would a federal system most replicate? Would it be the comparatively soft-touch approach to labour law that exists in Victoria, or the aggressively detailed and intrusive approach that business experiences in NSW? This could be a complicated process to resolve for Rudd.
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. The coalition and Labor both accept that the way strikes previously occurred damaged workers, families, businesses and the economy. Labor perhaps accepts that the old rules enabled workplace agitators to artificially create problems which most employees didn't support. Secret ballots ensure that workers' views are genuinely known.
This appearance of an emerging tentative consensus holds a risk for Rudd. He accepts that 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 that 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. This is a big shift from the past. 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 that 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