The Howard Government has been attacked by unions and supporting academics for allowing small business to collectively bargain but denying the same right to employees.
If this were true the Government would be a two-faced political manipulator that hated employees and should be defeated at the next election. At least that's how unions paint the Government. But do the facts support the allegations?
Recently the Government made it possible for small businesses to collectively bargain when buying goods and services. Groups of small independent supermarkets, for example, can now collectively negotiate bulk purchases of milk and any other items.
This is good. It means that, together, small supermarkets can create buying power to match the dominant Coles and Woolworths. It means small businesses can better compete on price. It keeps big business more honest and ultimately we, the consumers, benefit from better prices.
In the past there have been heavy restrictions on doing this under trade practices laws. These laws are designed to penalise businesses which collude to stop competition.
These consumer protection laws are necessary but sometimes the restrictions limit competitiveness. That's why small business collective-bargaining laws have been introduced.
Small businesses that want to collectively bargain must obtain approval from the competition regulator, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, to ensure there's no price manipulation.
And just as importantly, if one group of small supermarkets wants to collectively bargain, the laws do not force other small supermarkets to join them. Further, suppliers are not forced to negotiate with the buying groups.
The laws are designed to allow all businesses free choice in where and how they buy and sell. These are the same rights that we as consumers have and it's what keeps competition and our economy fair and strong.
The approach of the Howard Government to collective bargaining for employees follows the same principles. The federal laws allow a series of choices. Employees can have individual agreements with their employer under AWAs or non-union or union collective agreements. The Howard Government has introduced choice into employment agreement options.
In this respect the Government is not two-faced and is in fact totally consistent. The criticism from unions and labour academics is wrong.
What unions allege is that employees are not capable of negotiating their own employment contracts and will always be exploited by employers. Unions claim employers should be forced into collective agreements. The Government replies that with proper legal protections, employees and employers benefit from individual agreements.
Unions want to take their agenda further. They want laws where, if a majority of employees vote for a collective agreement, all employees must be forced into the collective. And they want the employer to be compelled to negotiate and presumably enter the collective agreement.
Unions want to compel collective arrangements.
In arguing this way, unions and some academics are being two-faced. They are no different from any big business that tries to manipulate competition and public opinion for selfish purposes. They mask their desire for monopoly by claiming it's for the public good.
What is wrong is to have laws that force either model on everyone.
Unions can claim they protect employees. But if they were genuine, they would not seek a business-type monopoly. They would welcome employee and employer choice on agreements and compete to provide a top-quality service.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment