Leo

Lots of publicity on this one at the moment. I wanted to get this thread started to know what people think of the workplace relations reform proposals.

IR's a big part of my current job and my previous job was exclusively IR for a large national organisation. I wouldn't claim the title of expert, but I do have a good understanding of the issues - certainly enough to sort the wheat from the chaff in the info that's about. There's no shortage of chaff.

I have a paper to write over the next few days (IR paper actually) so won't have time to debate details yet. Hopefully I will get round to that during the coming week.

But what I'm broadly thinking is as follows.

I support the general concept of a unitary IR system. Six (potentially seven) IR systems in one nation is ridiculous. It's been ridiculous since federation. Like different gauge railway lines in different states. These proposals won't achieve a unitary system, but have the potential to go a long way towards it. The concept's a step in the right direction.

Supporting the concept is different to supporting the content. Some of the proposals are good. Some are bad. Good one includes statutory protection of certain working conditions for the first time ever. Bad one is changing recourse to unfair dismissal claims for workers in businesses from under 15 employees to under 100. Bad. Every worker should have recourse to unfair dismissal claim against an unscrupulous employer.

If you don't support particular aspects of the reforms, write to Kevin Andrews and your local member and tell them. I have. But get informed first. One thing's for sure - if you're getting your info from the unions and the media (either leftish or rightish) you'll be misinformed.

Go to primary sources and make your mind up about the issues from there (there aren't alot about yet because the detail's not finished and the proposed legislation won't be completed for a couple of months).

Don't reject the proposals out of hand just because the Libs are introducing them. I personally think that is lazy thinking. Instead, read primary sources, get informed, make up your own mind about the proposals, then reject or accept them and take positive action that you think's appropriate (eg write to the minister, get a petition going, etc).

It's a terrific country. They won't throw us in gaol or pull our fingernails out for questioning them. At least I hope not, otherwise I'm in trouble. I imagine it will be painful typing without fingernails. The sky won't fall in because of the reforms. It will continue to be a great country after the reforms. Enjoy the good ones. Do what you can to positively influence change over the bad ones. Happy to have my views challenged if you disagree with me and will certainly change my thinking if the arguments are good.

dlish

IR is one topic i know little about, but undoubtedly intersted in. what sources or links can u refer me to?

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

hulk

What I'm against, here, is basically:
Loss of unfair dismissal for a huge number of people
Less compulsary rewards for workers.

The rest I'm quite happy with. It's a bit much that employers will be able fire you because it's Tuesday, or because you refuse to do extra hours for no pay. They can't, however, fire you because you're black, or gay, or a woman. Of course, they can fire you because you're a black gay woman, but they have to say because it's tuesday, or whatever reason they come up with.

That's my take, anyway.

__________________
"'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex."
-- From an IGN game review.

htra0497

One of the economic arguements that I tend to agree with is the need to have as little barriers of entry and exit for labour so that industries where there's a shortage will get the employees they need.

The textiles, clothing and footwear (TCFs) sector for instance should not be compelled to keep employees considering that there are labour shortages elsewhere.

Leo

Hey dlishsguy...the above still stands which is why I haven't responded yet. I attended an IR forum earlier this week and there's still not a lot of firm detail about. They anticipate the legislation will be finished around October. The broad policy was announced 26 May and can be found at www.workplace.gov.au Just click on the 'Workplace Relations - our plan' link and you will find the PM's 26 May policy statement to parliament outlining the reforms as well as some other bumph. Ignore the political spin and look at the detail (such as it is). You can find some pretty extensive info on the broader rationale for the changes at www.simplerwrsystem.gov.au It's an older site but the government hasn't moved much from the position given there. There's enough info there to put insomniacs to sleep the world over.

almostaugust

I dont like the sound of the IR reforms. For one, these changes are anti-union and discourage, what i think is a democratic right, collective bargaining. Unionism has contributed to making this country one of the most egalitarian places on earth. I think we should respect the hard earned rights of the worker.
We have a healthy, strong economy and i dont think IR reform is a priority at the moment. Im interested to see how this issue pans out.

__________________
'And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe
Maybe this year will be better than the last
I can't remember all the times I tried to tell my myself
To hold on to these moments as they pass'

Leo

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.