Workers will be on their knees for fair pay

[Adele]

MOST workers probably have no idea how their pay and conditions are determined. Some would grasp vaguely the concept of an award. But many, I guess, take the job, and what comes with it, in ignorance of how the award system protects them from exploitation. Most workers are not members of a union, and possibly they despise unions. They would be amazed to learn that unions negotiate with employers to produce awards. And awards form the spine of employment conditions in Australian workplaces, setting the ground rules, even for the majority of non-unionised workers covered by collective agreements or individual contracts.
But unless workers wake up fast to what is at stake under the Government's proposed industrial relations changes, they will discover in future it's bosses who rule. No one else will get a say.
The Government's industrial relations changes are based on the belief that "management knows best", and must be given more leeway to exercise its prerogative. At the same time, the Government argues that individual workers, like the noble proletariat depicted in old Soviet posters, are strong and smart, capable of negotiating as equals with their bosses. This absurdity is the cornerstone of the Government's industrial relations proposals which are designed to gut the award system and prod more workers on to individual contracts.
Individual workers - 14-year-olds selling bread rolls in chain bakeries, mothers returning to the workforce, migrants with poor English, people with disabilities being thrust off welfare - are supposed to be able to sit down at the table with a boss and negotiate fair pay and conditions. Ministers argue that the (transitory) shortage of mining engineers and accountants confers on all workers magical new powers to take on their bosses one-to-one, and come out winners.
The implication of the Government's attempts to engineer increased numbers of workers on to individual contracts, known as Australian Workplace Agreements, is possibly the least understood plank in its reform package. Individual contracts have been around since 1997. But the uptake has been slow. One reason is that under current laws the contracts have to pass a "no disadvantage" test: workers cannot be worse off on a contract compared to the relevant award. With Government control of the Senate, the gloves come off.
Under the proposals, bosses will gain huge new freedom to offer contracts to individual workers that undermine almost every condition in the award. The contracts will have to comply with only four minimum standards that the Government intends to legislate, as well as a yet-to-be-determined minimum pay rate. Bosses will be able to unilaterally dispense with penalty rates, shift allowances, minimum lengths of shifts and other conditions without having to, as now, compensate by increasing base pay.
Under this new regime, individual contracts will become much more prevalent. "It will be a trickle that turns into a flood," says John Buchanan, the acting head of ACIRRT, a centre for industrial relations research and training at the University of Sydney.
Bosses will rule. They alone will set terms and conditions. The research undertaken on the operation of workplace agreements up to now shows workers appear to have had no input in drafting them. If individual agreements were genuinely negotiated between two parties, you would expect the outcomes to be different for most workers. There would be great variation in contracts. But there is nothing "individual" about individual contracts.
Summarising the research on the agreements in a new paper, Mark Bray and Peter Waring, from the Employment Studies Centre, at the University of Newcastle, say agreements within the same organisation tend to contain standardised terms and conditions. In the coalmining industry agreements were unilaterally offered and either accepted or rejected by employees. In the hospitality industry three of four organisations studied revealed the same terms and conditions for similar grades of employees. Case studies from different industries indicated individual contracts were "rarely bargained but instead were unilaterally determined by management". It makes sense. Most employers of medium and big enterprises are unlikely to dedicate the necessary weeks to negotiations with each and every worker.
Management's generosity and sense of fairness cannot be relied upon. Many bosses are reasonable, some are not. Without unions or workers' councils, the concoction of individual contracts is a one-sided process. And without the "no disadvantage" test, decent and fair bosses may be forced to jettison their decency and fairness in a race to the bottom. They will have no option but to cut pay and conditions if their competitors use their new freedom to do so.
As the Government is keen to point out, currently employed workers cannot be forced to move off an award or enterprise agreement on to an individual contract. But new job applicants, including all those sole parents and disabled people being forced off welfare into the workforce, will have no option but to accept a management-devised contract, or refuse the job. And 25 per cent of workers change jobs each year.
Some workers will be winners. But a large proportion, who lack bargaining power, will fall further and further behind.
Conceding so much power to bosses is a recipe for creating an underclass of working poor that we have not really seen in Australia. It is the American model. This is no time for complacency, or indifference. You don't have to like unions to realise that a world where bosses rule unchecked is no good deal for workers; scrapping the "no disadvantage" test is going too far.

[Flash]

Adele said:

MOST workers probably have no idea how their pay and conditions are determined. Some would grasp vaguely the concept of an award. But many, I guess, take the job, and what comes with it, in ignorance of how the award system protects them from exploitation. Most workers are not members of a union, and possibly they despise unions. They would be amazed to learn that unions negotiate with employers to produce awards. And awards form the spine of employment conditions in Australian workplaces, setting the ground rules, even for the majority of non-unionised workers covered by collective agreements or individual contracts.
But unless workers wake up fast to what is at stake under the Government's proposed industrial relations changes, they will discover in future it's bosses who rule. No one else will get a say.
The Government's industrial relations changes are based on the belief that "management knows best", and must be given more leeway to exercise its prerogative. At the same time, the Government argues that individual workers, like the noble proletariat depicted in old Soviet posters, are strong and smart, capable of negotiating as equals with their bosses. This absurdity is the cornerstone of the Government's industrial relations proposals which are designed to gut the award system and prod more workers on to individual contracts.
Individual workers - 14-year-olds selling bread rolls in chain bakeries, mothers returning to the workforce, migrants with poor English, people with disabilities being thrust off welfare - are supposed to be able to sit down at the table with a boss and negotiate fair pay and conditions. Ministers argue that the (transitory) shortage of mining engineers and accountants confers on all workers magical new powers to take on their bosses one-to-one, and come out winners.
The implication of the Government's attempts to engineer increased numbers of workers on to individual contracts, known as Australian Workplace Agreements, is possibly the least understood plank in its reform package. Individual contracts have been around since 1997. But the uptake has been slow. One reason is that under current laws the contracts have to pass a "no disadvantage" test: workers cannot be worse off on a contract compared to the relevant award. With Government control of the Senate, the gloves come off.
Under the proposals, bosses will gain huge new freedom to offer contracts to individual workers that undermine almost every condition in the award. The contracts will have to comply with only four minimum standards that the Government intends to legislate, as well as a yet-to-be-determined minimum pay rate. Bosses will be able to unilaterally dispense with penalty rates, shift allowances, minimum lengths of shifts and other conditions without having to, as now, compensate by increasing base pay.
Under this new regime, individual contracts will become much more prevalent. "It will be a trickle that turns into a flood," says John Buchanan, the acting head of ACIRRT, a centre for industrial relations research and training at the University of Sydney.
Bosses will rule. They alone will set terms and conditions. The research undertaken on the operation of workplace agreements up to now shows workers appear to have had no input in drafting them. If individual agreements were genuinely negotiated between two parties, you would expect the outcomes to be different for most workers. There would be great variation in contracts. But there is nothing "individual" about individual contracts.
Summarising the research on the agreements in a new paper, Mark Bray and Peter Waring, from the Employment Studies Centre, at the University of Newcastle, say agreements within the same organisation tend to contain standardised terms and conditions. In the coalmining industry agreements were unilaterally offered and either accepted or rejected by employees. In the hospitality industry three of four organisations studied revealed the same terms and conditions for similar grades of employees. Case studies from different industries indicated individual contracts were "rarely bargained but instead were unilaterally determined by management". It makes sense. Most employers of medium and big enterprises are unlikely to dedicate the necessary weeks to negotiations with each and every worker.
Management's generosity and sense of fairness cannot be relied upon. Many bosses are reasonable, some are not. Without unions or workers' councils, the concoction of individual contracts is a one-sided process. And without the "no disadvantage" test, decent and fair bosses may be forced to jettison their decency and fairness in a race to the bottom. They will have no option but to cut pay and conditions if their competitors use their new freedom to do so.
As the Government is keen to point out, currently employed workers cannot be forced to move off an award or enterprise agreement on to an individual contract. But new job applicants, including all those sole parents and disabled people being forced off welfare into the workforce, will have no option but to accept a management-devised contract, or refuse the job. And 25 per cent of workers change jobs each year.
Some workers will be winners. But a large proportion, who lack bargaining power, will fall further and further behind.
Conceding so much power to bosses is a recipe for creating an underclass of working poor that we have not really seen in Australia. It is the American model. This is no time for complacency, or indifference. You don't have to like unions to realise that a world where bosses rule unchecked is no good deal for workers; scrapping the "no disadvantage" test is going too far.

Employers ARE taking advantage. Lots of Stoties.
Its been law for a few days now
. But we didnt have much option did we?

[john]

Two tickets sit in my wallet, one is my Sporting Shooter's Association membership card, the other is my union ticket, the two are not mutually exclusive. (sorry folks but I had to put that in for B1 and B2, now back to the subject)

Bosses have already started treating their workforce unfairly.

It was reported that a Melbourne kitchen installing company sacked three workers the first day of the new laws, and then rehired them as casuals. They lost about $20,000 a year in pay, sick and recreational leave and a host of other entitlements.

These laws will eventually damage small employers in this country, according to the Howard Governments own claims, Australia's ageing population means within a few years, we wil be short something like 350,000 workers.
You have a choice, take the job with the fellow who employs 75 people and take a job with NO unfair dismissal protection, or take a job up the road with a fellow who employs 101 people and get protected from unfair dismissal. Where are you gonna go. Small employers will soon have to start paying more just to get workers, and they if cannot afford it, they go belly-up. We are already seeing this pheomena starting where various employers are claiming they cannot get workers.

I would suggest all worker in small businesses join your union NOW.

Also, do not forget, there's more than one way to skin a cat, if you're a union member working for a small employer with no unfair dismissal protection, and you get unfairly sacked, you can always claim discrimnation on the basis of industrial activity through the Equal Opportunity. Commission. ;D

[ashton]

Workers blame Right-Wing Labor for voters shift to liberal

In the current debate about draconian Industrial Relation laws some workers are putting the blame for voters shift to the Liberals on the right-wing ALP. The criticisms come from an "Unidentified" worker and are put to an awkward looking KIM Beasley towards the end of this transcript of ABC TV's Lateline show.


www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1604169.htm

[workingman]

Thank you Johnny!
Thanks to the new IR laws, this week I got a pay rise. I still work the same 40 hours each week but now 2 of those hours are overtime. I now get an extra hours pay each week for no extra time worked. Thank you Johnny, you've got my vote mate.

[lennie]

I guess it depends on the Employer and the employee. There are Employers that will relish the idea of treating their staff with insecurity, low wages, and poor conditions. There are however those too that realise that good staff are a good investment. At the end of the day, the ones that don't do the right thing will be noticed and their success will be limited. One person tells another ten and so on.

There is also the other aspect where there are some workers who don't deserve their job and to date have been protected by left-wing unionism. I know of one such case in Wodonga where the worker has a serious alcohol problem. His boss started out by giving him time off to get help. He came back and within two weeks was drinking again which meant he was late almost everyday, or did not turn up, was lunchtime imbibing and was generally unproductive. The boss gave him another two weeks off (with pay) for him to attend another detox. He came back and within a week was doing the same thing all over again. The employer then took a stand and said, shape up or ship out, I am not prepared to help anymore. The worker then got the union involved and created havoc among the other workers. Why would you want to continue investing in somebody that is not prepared to help themselves?

Globalisation has created a much more competitive business world and like it or not, Australian business's and workers will both become victims. The playing field has not been even which gives the Australian worker and their employers an often slow start to be able to compete with countries such as China. Sad as it may seem but it is one of the facts of life.

The first three months are going to indeed be closely watched. There is fear among the workers but logic must prevail. The only known antidote for fear is faith.

[aussie]

Hello Adele
Over the past two decades a profound workforce revolution has taken place in which the traditional roles of employer and employee have increasingly given way to a whole range of commercial contract arrangements. Independent contracting has become the new norm fuelled largely by the growth in franchise and labour hire activities.

This growth in independent contracting has been so significant that 28 per cent of the private sector workforce - nearly two million workers - operate under independent contracting arrangements. In fact, the number of independent contractors in Australia exceeds the number of union members. This is a paradigm shift in the true sense of the word and the nature of this phenomenon should not be underestimated.

The world has indeed changed. The information age has allowed people to take more and more control of their lives and that inner resourcefulness and enterprise of so many Australians is bursting forth.

Advertisement
What distinguishes independent contractors from employees is the manner in which their services are engaged. Unlike employees, they are not subject to a “contract of dependency or control”, as the International Labour Organisation (ILO) defines it, but instead are parties to a commercial contract. As commercial businesses, even if it's just a business of one person, they are subject to the provisions of commercial law operating under free market principles where payment is most commonly linked to output.

Naturally, not everyone is happy with what is taking place. While tariff protection today has few serious defenders and open financial markets are no longer contentious, the “freedom to contract” has not been similarly championed and as a result the status of independent contractors is under threat both locally and internationally.

At the local level, state governments, with the urging of their trade union constituency, have enacted legislation that deems independent contractors to be employees. However, in what seems ironic at best and hypocritical at worst, state governments continue to be among the most prolific users of independent contractors, engaging their services in the performance of all manner of government activity, from cleaning toilets to orchestrating spin.

Thankfully, at a national level we have seen a more realistic appreciation of the changing nature of the workforce and as a consequence independent contractor legislation is about to be introduced into Federal Parliament. Through this legislation it is intended to define the scope of independent contracting and enshrine and protect the rights of independent contractors to engage on a commercial basis without impediment or interference.

A logical next step would be to take the responsibility of administering the new independent contractors Act out of the employment and workplace relations portfolio and put it with the Minister for Small Business to once and for all distinguish between employment (Workplace Relations Act) and business (the new independent contractors Act).

The Labor Party, however, seems to be in complete denial about the changes taking place in the real world. Kim Beazley's recent announcement that he will reinstate unfair dismissal legislation if he gets into office is a case in point. Heavens above, even the Europeans have been forced to admit that an impediment to fire is an impediment to hire, hence the decision by the French Government to abolish restrictive dismissal provisions to enable employers to hire unemployed young people more easily. Will Beazley leap on the independent contractors Act and threaten to repeal that also? Probably.

The ILO (a division of the UN), based in Geneva, focuses exclusively on labour issues and in recent years has been engaged in a protracted and difficult debate to define the scope of employment. Since 1996 the ILO has been struggling with this issue of independent contracting, culminating in 2003 with a significant thrust being mounted against the legitimacy of independent contractors.

The result of that struggle however was the successful recognition of independent contractors and acknowledgement of their right to operate within a commercial framework. In June this year the ILO will again debate the issue of independent contracting with a particular focus on what it calls the triangular relationship, more commonly referred to as labour hire.

While this debate may be far removed in a geographic and intellectual sense from the day-to-day interests of Australia's independent contractors, it is not. There is a great deal at stake here. What independent contractors value beyond all else is their independence and they utterly reject the notion that they should by way of deeming provisions, ILO declarations or any other regulatory measures, be turned into employees. They also believe that people should have the right to work as hard as they like, for as long as they like, in order to achieve the things they want in life.

Any attempt by the ILO, or anyone else for that matter, to diminish the capacity of independent contractors to enter into commercial arrangements which suit their own needs and purposes represents a threat not only to their rights of existence but also to the future strength and vibrancy of the Australian economy. What is needed in Australia is more independence and more self-reliance, not less, if Australia is to become the great nation it has the capacity to become.

On the productivity front, the benefits of independent contracting are there for all to see. Financial reward is linked to output, disputes are rare and when they do occur they are usually sorted out between the parties without the need for strikes, histrionics or legal interventions. But it's not just about productivity. Independent contractors are happier with their lot than employees. In research published by a Stockholm conference on self-employment, a survey of 16,000 people in 23 countries found that independent contractors were happier in their work because of their independence.

Australia's independent contractors Act will be a world first. Australia's role as a strong, resilient, robust economy riding on the back of an increasingly flexible workplace structure makes it ideally placed to champion this new workplace paradigm, so desperately needed throughout the world.

[john]

I find your comments interesting Aussie.

You describe what has recently been happening on the IR front in Australia as a "profound workforce revolution ".

Some of us would use other terms for widespread sacking of employees immmediately followed by the offering of those same employees their old jobs back as casuals.

Surely if we're going to have "successful recognition of independent contractors and acknowledgement of their right to operate". The same principle should be provided to unionised employees and their unions?

[johnofmelb]

It was announced on SBS "Insight" tonight, next week their looking at IR laws.