Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Leo · 08-01-2005, 04:19 AM

I agree with you that collective bargaining is a democratic right and that many of the benefits we enjoy are a direct result of unionism. But there's a balance. Unionism has also caused its fair share of problems.

Most unions can be reasoned with, but some (the militant ones) will sometimes try to achieve their ends through fear and intimidation, even of their own members. I've seen it first hand. Hardly democratic and egalitarian.

Unions have a rightful role in a healthy IR system, as does genuine collective bargaining. Fear and intimidation do not - they are part of an unhealthy IR system. That goes for employers too.

The main reason for starting this thread was that, from where I sit, there's alot of misinformation being spread about the proposals. For example, the ACTU knows that the proposals prevent sacking of pregnant mums, etc. While pregnant mums can't claim unfair dismissal they can claim unlawful dismissal. The ACTU is playing with words.

I may be proved wrong in the next few months because we don't know the detail yet, but from what I've seen so far, the following issues seem to be the most critical:

1. The watering down of the 'no disadvantage test'. There has been very little focus on this in the media, this seems to be the single biggest threat to workers' conditions. 'No disadvantage test to be watered down' makes a pretty clumsy and uninteresting headline I suppose.

2. Denying access to unfair dismissal claims for workers in companies with less than 100 employees. Notwithstanding my comments above (unfair vs unlawful dismissal) I believe all workers should have access to unfair dismissal claims. What the ACTU should have done was base its ad on an unfair dimissal that was not unlawful. That would have been credible (though less sensational) and would still have highlighted the problem.

3. The reduction of the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Note - the lesser the AIRC's jurisdiction, the greater the 'managerial prerogative', and vice versa.

I think if the Government (1) keeps the no disadvantage test intact (2) opens unfair dismissal claims to all employees and (3) retains the duress provisions re: individual contracts (and stiffens the penalties), the proposals have potential for gains all round.

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

08-01-2005, 04:19 AM	#7 (permalink)
Leo Tilted	I agree with you that collective bargaining is a democratic right and that many of the benefits we enjoy are a direct result of unionism. But there's a balance. Unionism has also caused its fair share of problems. Most unions can be reasoned with, but some (the militant ones) will sometimes try to achieve their ends through fear and intimidation, even of their own members. I've seen it first hand. Hardly democratic and egalitarian. Unions have a rightful role in a healthy IR system, as does genuine collective bargaining. Fear and intimidation do not - they are part of an unhealthy IR system. That goes for employers too. The main reason for starting this thread was that, from where I sit, there's alot of misinformation being spread about the proposals. For example, the ACTU knows that the proposals prevent sacking of pregnant mums, etc. While pregnant mums can't claim unfair dismissal they can claim unlawful dismissal. The ACTU is playing with words. I may be proved wrong in the next few months because we don't know the detail yet, but from what I've seen so far, the following issues seem to be the most critical: 1. The watering down of the 'no disadvantage test'. There has been very little focus on this in the media, this seems to be the single biggest threat to workers' conditions. 'No disadvantage test to be watered down' makes a pretty clumsy and uninteresting headline I suppose. 2. Denying access to unfair dismissal claims for workers in companies with less than 100 employees. Notwithstanding my comments above (unfair vs unlawful dismissal) I believe all workers should have access to unfair dismissal claims. What the ACTU should have done was base its ad on an unfair dimissal that was not unlawful. That would have been credible (though less sensational) and would still have highlighted the problem. 3. The reduction of the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Note - the lesser the AIRC's jurisdiction, the greater the 'managerial prerogative', and vice versa. I think if the Government (1) keeps the no disadvantage test intact (2) opens unfair dismissal claims to all employees and (3) retains the duress provisions re: individual contracts (and stiffens the penalties), the proposals have potential for gains all round. Guess we'll have to wait and see.