The federal government's workplace reforms are well into implementation. An assessment is now possible as to whether the reforms are genuine or a mask to deliver power to unions.
So far the signals are positive. The government is sticking to the letter and spirit of its election commitment detailed in Forward with Fairness.
Further, it's not behaving vindictively towards business organisations that supported Work Choices. Consultative engagement appears broad and genuine. For some, this is perhaps unexpected.
Kevin Rudd's reforms need to be understood within a large context. They are not just a response to Work Choices. Strip out the political game and the reforms have all the hallmarks of an unfinished Keating agenda. Paul Keating as prime minister was famously slapped down by unions when he attempted to big-step workplace reform.
Staying on the broad theme, the Howard reforms implemented much of Keating's reform principles but with a politics and style that Keating disliked. Rudd is now retaining most of Howard's reforms but changing the style, politics and some substance, but remaining consistent with Keating's vision.
In short, there's a workplace reform policy continuum that transcends party politics. The collective is being retained, but unions can't monopolise collective engagement and there's a shifting focus to the individual. The facts are clear. Identical to Work Choices, Forward with Fairness stops compulsory unionism, pattern bargaining, secondary boycotts and wildcat strikes, and puts rules around union right of entry. Some unions complain these rules are anti the collective.
Unlike Work Choices, Forward with Fairness puts collective agreements at the centre of its policy but without giving unions automatic control of processes. Non-union collective agreements have equal emphasis to union agreements.
The shift to individuality under Forward with Fairness is marked, even though Labor says it is doing away with individual statutory agreements. This is more political spin than reality. In transition, Australian workplace agreements are retained and new individual agreements, ITEAs, have been introduced. Upon full implementation "upward individual flexibility" is to be compulsory under awards and collective agreements. Sound like individual agreements? They are!
The flexibility concept is that awards and collective agreements form the base and individual agreements operate above the base. This has all the hallmarks of a no disadvantage test without the time associated with compulsory bureaucratic checking, although a review service can be used.
These are the Forward with Fairness principles but what of reality? Is implementation indicating an alternate, pro-union agenda and a return to leveraging the law to deliver union power? So far no. Several indicators support this.
Employer groups are reporting genuine, productive and professional consultation with fast decision making, particularly from Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard. Issues raised by both unions and employers are being judged against one criteria: what does Forward with Fairness say? Unions have tried to seek advantage, as have some employers, but both are being knocked back when there is inconsistency with Forward with Fairness.
Unions have made self-serving submissions on the key individual flexibility issue. They seek compulsory union involvement in individual agreements and prevention of individual flexibility where the collective disagrees. None of this is consistent with Forward with Fairness. The published instructions from the minister to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission confirm the intent to implement Forward with Fairness as it stands.
If Forward with Fairness implementation continues on its present path, genuine workplace reform may become a long-term reality. The picture is of a mix of award, collective and individual agreements sitting on top of layered minimums. In this context the differences between Keating, Howard and Rudd are issues of style, design and implementation, not concept.
What's emerging through the haze of party political posturing is a steady progression on workplace law. Union dominance and the enforcement of the collective is over. The collective remains central but can take many forms. The individual can tailor arrangements to suit.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment