Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Time for tough questions on Abbott's industrial relations policy

From Worksite by Mark Hearn*

Tony Abbott was desperate to smother a debate on industrial relations during the 2013 election campaign. It's hardly surprising, because industrial relations raises fundamental questions about the society we live in, questions Mister Abbott seemed keen to avoid. How should we share the rewards of work - productivity - between us? How much time should we spend at work or with family, or friends? What are your rights at work?

Senator Eric Abetz, the Coalition's spokesman on industrial relations, barely surfaced during the long weeks of the 2013 election campaign. Interestingly, his brief appearances attracted attention - although possibly not the kind enjoyed by Tony Abbott or Liberal Party campaign headquarters.

Prior to the election Fairfax Media reported that 'Tony Abbott's industrial relations spokesman Eric Abetz attracted internal criticism for "freelancing" on future Coalition policy by suggesting an Abbott government would intervene in wage settlements if wage rates were too high.'

Abetz also warned that an Abbott government would not consider 'excessive ambit claims' as good faith bargaining. These claims should be subject to a 'productivity' test.

Apparently, Senator Abetz failed the honesty test: he was a little too honest with the Australian people about the Coalition's policies. 'Senior Liberals were aghast on Thursday when they read that Senator Abetz had granted an unscheduled interview on his party's workplace relations laws', Fairfax reported.

Abetz did not define what he meant by an 'excessive ambit claim', or how 'productivity' would be measured. When are wage rates too high? It seems sufficient to deploy these vague edicts untested by any kind of rigorous methodology.

Abetz also promised that the Coalition would initiate a Productivity Commission inquiry into Australia's industrial relations. That sounds pretty significant, doesn't it?

It would suggest that Australians could expect to see some profound changes flowing from the Productivity Commissions' ensuing report: changes to the rules governing work, how pay and conditions are negotiated, how employers and employees manage their workplace relationships.

Abetz declined to outline the specific terms of reference that will frame the Productivity Commission's inquiry. And apparently, Abetz felt little pressure to really explain Coalition industrial relations policy to the people of Australia during election 2013. 

It seems that everything will be 'fair' under the Coalition's new rules of work: its industrial relations policy document assures workers that they will have the 'right' to 'access fair flexibility', in order to 'work innovatively'. Sounds fair; workers can only assume that left to their own resources in negotiations with the boss, flexibility and innovation doesn't simply mean longer hours and less pay. 

The right of unions to enter workplaces will also be 'sensible and fair', under a Coalition government and, one suspects, virtually non-existent. Union right of entry - to consult their members - is a major source of employer irritation.

The Coalition justifies a critical stance on unions by reference to the criminal charges brought against Health Services Union officials over the alleged misappropriation of funds. The Coalition will require tighter financial disclosure and reporting guidelines, like those subjected to companies. Union officials will also be held to the same standards and tough financial penalties applying to company directors.

The trouble is, unions aren't companies. They are non-profit associations, whose tasks are not only fulfilled by paid officials but by the volunteer labour of thousands of ordinary working men and women who serve as rank and file union delegates or on the union's management committees. They are not running profit-generating enterprises. They often perform demanding tasks for little or no recompense and precious little glory.

Persons charged with criminal offences should face the courts. If the Coalition intends to treat rank and file unionists who take on elected roles as if they are company directors - the Coalition's policy does not clarify what it means by a 'union official' in this context - it will amount to a punitive sanction and an attack on democracy. It will discourage participation in what is essentially a voluntary community service. Perhaps the Coalition knows that?

It's difficult to shake off a suspicion of deviousness about the Coalition's industrial relations policies. Just as newly-elected governments love to 'open the books' and discover the financial wickedness left behind by their predecessors, it seems that the Productivity Commission is being primed as the bomb to plant under 'obstructive' workplace practices that hamper 'productivity' growth. Look, Tony Abbott will say: we can't ignore the shocking problems uncovered in this damning report.

There is little critical analysis of the way in which the term productivity is used in public debate. Simply invoking the word apparently justifies reducing wages and cutting entitlements, or outsourcing jobs, or even sending them offshore.

Productivity is often polite code for what employers have always craved: reduced labour costs. They want someone to do the same amount of work - or more - for less money.

Presumably an Abbott government will be forced to clarify how it intends to renovate the rules of work. The terms of reference handed to the Productivity Commission will likely give the Coalition's game away.

* Dr Mark Hearn is a lecturer in the Department of Modern History and Politics at Macquarie University.
Published 4 September 2013

No comments: