Lots of questions on ALP’s IR policy
The ALP now has to answer why it appears to have moved to a position that can fragment collective bargaining and collective representation, writes BRENDA SEYMOUR.
In an August 28 policy statement, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd and workplace relations shadow minister Julia Gillard outlined a 10-point implementation plan for Labor's industrial relations policy with January 2010 the envisaged implementation date.
The announcement has certainly triggered an interesting debate.
Julia Gillard, when questioned by Kerry O'Brien in a head-to-head debate with Joe Hockey on the ABC's 7.30 Report on September 4, said that the ALP had gone for a balance that was "straight down the middle", a policy that was as fair to unions as employers.
Ms Gillard rejected the submission that the policies of the Government and the Opposition had been made equivalent.
The ALP now has to answer why it appears to have moved to a position that can fragment collective bargaining and collective representation.
The recently announced changes include, from January 2010, the capacity and so-called "flexibility" for employees earning more than $100,000 and new employees moving to new positions to be "free to agree to their own pay and conditions without reference to awards".
As well, they can either make common law contracts of employment underpinned by legislative standards or continue on award safety net provisions.
The ACTU is already on the record as not supporting the limiting of the award safety net for employees earning over $100,000 and the dent that's been made on union bargaining and representation.
Federation already has significant numbers of members in classifications where the 'salary only' threshold is greater than $100,000. There will be an even greater number in 2010.
Federation's wants to know: What does $100,000 mean in terms of remuneration? (Is it the value of the employment package, for example?)
Federation also questions why:
- education employees earning more than $100,000 need common law contracts when, for negotiation of the common law contract, the education employee can be represented by a teacher union but not be a party to the common law instrument?
- if education employees stay in the industry award they may not receive pay rises under that award?
- from 2010 the 10 legislated National Employment Standards, not the terms in the new award, may be the safety net for education employees earning over $100,000 if they choose to enter a common law contract?
- it appears there is the mandatory exclusion of all education employees on $100,000 plus from full collective bargaining rights?
Education employees in NSW have been well served by the NSW ALP's significant legislative initiatives to retain full rights for public sector employees in the face of WorkChoices.
The future will see more harmonised state and federal industrial relations systems so the questions posed here are timely.
The other transitional implementation plans announced include:
- a further 10 minimum conditions in awards, with the qualification that there will be a flexibility clause "to enable arrangements to meet the genuine individual needs of employers and employees"
- that collective agreements will have an agreed flexibility clause
- the retention of current right of entry laws
- the retention of secondary boycott provisions under the Trade Practices Act
- a two year transitional period to the full implementation of the ALP's industrial relations system
- transition arrangements for employees on AWAs.
Against this the ACTU still welcomes the commitment that a Rudd Labor government would restore unfair dismissal to more than four million workers who lost those rights, protect important working conditions generally in improved safety nets, phase out unfair AWAs and generally provide workers with stronger collective bargaining.
Brenda Seymour is the Assistant General Secretary (Research and Industrial).
Festival promotes democratic and industrial rights
Shame file
For further information
September 2007 contents
|