Academics list ‘grave concerns’ over WorkChoices

by Kerri Carr

A group of 150 Australian industrial relations, labour market, and legal academics share "grave concerns" about the effects of the industrial relations changes upon Australian workplaces, workers, larger society and economy.

The academics, including Adelaide University Labour Studies Associate Professor Barbara Pocock and University of NSW School of Organisation and Management Senior Lecturer Anne Junor, made a submission to the Inquiry into the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005, titled "Research Evidence About the Effects of the 'Work Choices' Bill".

The academics described the proposed changes as "profound".

"They are not evolutionary," the academics said.

The submission stated the proposals would "undermine people's rights at work; deliver a flexibility that in most cases is one way, favouring employers; do little or nothing to address work-family issues and exacerbate problems on several fronts; have no direct positive impact on productivity and, through it, wages or employment growth; disadvantage the individuals and groups already most marginalised in Australian society; widen inequality; add levels of complexity to the regulation of industrial relations, that both employers and employees will struggle to understand and apply"; and "intrude, uninvited, into the workings of State industrial relations systems in a 'one-size-fits-all' approach".

The academics noted the Government assertion that jobs and productivity would grow as a result of the Bill but stated there was "no solid research basis to give confidence that this Bill will address these economic and social problems".

"However, there is persuasive evidence that the Bill's provisions will contravene long established international labour standards, strengthen employer prerogative, create new hazards for many working Australians, widen inequality and disadvantage the most vulnerable," the submission stated.

The academics said the bill was in conflict with international treaties to which Australia is party.

"Internationally, labour law is designed to protect workers from unfair exploitation and to ensure that labour market competition occurs above a platform of basic rights. This platform includes the practical right to organise collectively, and to bargain collectively. The Bill not only ignores these widely accepted views and practices, it shifts the balance in Australian workplaces," the submission said.

Their submission noted that if the bill was enacted, Australia would become the only OECD nation which legally discriminates in favour of lockouts and against strikes.

The academics said the bill would significantly affect the growing proportion of Australian employees who have responsibility for both work and care.

The submission stated: "employees' 'choices' in these matters appear likely to be hampered rather than enhanced by the Bill, as it enhances the employer's capacity to exercise managerial prerogative and impose their choices on employees."

"Workers with family responsibilities need a secure living wage; adequate, predictable common family time (including social work time and holidays); flexibilities that meet their needs, including the opportunity for leave and to work part-time; protection from excessive hours; and quality, accessible affordable childcare," the academics said.

"Australia lags behind the industrialised world already on several of these measures, with high levels of insecure work, long average hours of work, a growing proportion who work excessive hours, a poor leave regime and a high proportion of workers -- especially those with families -- who work unsocial hours. Industrial relations reform should remedy these challenges. The Bill, heavily weighted in the employer's favour, will exacerbate them.

"The capacity to set aside key award conditions in AWAs (public holidays, rest breaks, annual leave loadings, allowances, and penalty, shift and overtime loadings) will be especially disadvantageous for families. This is a pernicious change, which will see both long and unsocial working hours increase," the academics said.

The submission said new regulation of the labour market "enhances employer power and demonstrably weakens the position of employees".

The academics described the proposals as "extreme and radical" in the unilateral power they give employers over employees in forms of bargaining.

"Collective bargaining matters: it allows workers to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment on a more equal footing with their employer and it makes a real difference to the working lives of employees both in Australia and abroad. On the other hand, individual contracts mean less pay, worse conditions, and less control over work for ordinary Australian employees," the academics said.

The academics also warned the introduction of the proposed Fair Pay Commission and other reforms would "significantly" encourage employers to pursue low wage employment.

©2000-2002 NSWTF Online is a resource for teachers
provided by the NSW Teachers Federation.
[Authorisation of election comment] [Privacy]

http://www.nswtf.org.au/journal_extras/aca.html
Last Modified: 08 Dec 2005