Game on
Workers in WA’s north-west are planning a massive stop-work meeting tomorrow, with about 4000 people expected to attend. They’re considering a 24-hour protest strike to kick off a long campaign. Interestingly, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry also sees it as a long-term campaign, and thinks workers should consider prolonged strike action in future: “Any significant strike action would be counterproductive and an over-reaction at this stage.” Update: 24-hour strike on Tuesday.
And the 1.9 million of us self-employed, sub-contractors and franchisees, who now outnumber the nations mostly public service and big biz unionists are all going -snooooooooooozzzzzzzze!
“Game on”
Has Landeryou copyrighted that yet?
Self-employed and sub-contractors are unionists, too, Observa. A big proportion of CFMEU and TWU members fall into those categories.
Yes but that’s my point Rob. It’s a big biz , big govt thing(the missus is in the teacher’s union), which doesn’t affect the vast majority of self-employed and employed. The Govt’s got a point about the boot being on the worker’s foot, with unemployment the lowest in 3 decades and skills and an aging population becoming problematic. The lowest skilled and casual workers are of course the least unionised. Anyhow, the IR reforms should go through with a compliant Senate and when the sky doesn’t fall in as the doomsayers predict, where will that leave the ALP at the next election? Certainly not rollback, if Beasley’s comments are anything to go by. Another storm in a teacup, that the protectionists still bung on, as their digital world speeds by.
the boot being on the worker’s foot … when the sky doesn’t fall
That’s the point, Observa. Things will be okay for a while — but when the economy heads South, as it must, that’s when people will realise that safety nets are there for the hard times and not the good times.
The old “I’m all right, Jack” thing, is it then?
Actually Rob, it might be a double edged sword having the Feds take over IR and perhaps the ALP are biding their time on this one. True Liberals are concerned that ditching Federalism here, might create a rod for their own back later with a Fed ALP govt. Their is some truth that competing State systems stop the spread of the most outrageous examples of big brother lawmaking. Brack’s Vilification Act is a good example of this. I certainly wouldn’t want to see Rann’s proposed draconian ‘Fair Work Bill’ adopted unilaterally under a Federal Labor govt.
What makes me laugh is how this issue demonstrates the gulf between Howard and Costello. That being that on one hand Costello is screaming to increase the workforce participation rate, yet Howard then goes and pushes reforms that (whatever your political allegiance) are clearly likely to make those Costello is targeting (those who can afford to choose whether they do or don’t work) less likely to enter the workforce. Contradictory if i ever heard it!!! Personally i think that with discouraged workers being part of the measure of unemployment statistics, Howard has made an error in thinking his changes will be beneficial. They would only be so if every worker in Australia had no choice but to accept his reforms. This may be reality for some but it isn’t for all, hence it will increase unemployment, as people will opt out of the workforce and become discouraged quicker. I resent Howard’s banging on about growth and real wages increases, as he knows they are far more influenced by wider economic forces, both in Australia and overseas, than his decisions. The reality is the decision, if it creates a climate of fear among workers, could also reduce consumer expenditure and economic activity. That said it could increase private investment expenditure, however this is of little value if the unemployment rate increases, the workforce participation rate decreases as there will be less people to purchase the products of these companies, so in the long term there will be no net investment gain.
That’s what annoys me about these reforms, there is a risk they will harm the economy, although if we’re lucky with economic conditions they may not, but regardless there is little potential for them to increase economic activity, and much potential for the opposite to occur. So i’ve asked myself, why would any sensible government engage in them? My belief is that the government’s pushing a political barrow at the expense of its economic activity. And to clarify, im no unionist, and i think Labor sucks, i just think this issue proves that the management of most economic issues, much like we have with interest rates, should be managed by an independent economic body which can put the health of our economy before political objectives, something this government can’t seem to do.
Wombat.
Not sure I understand your Howard and Costello contradiction Wombat. My hunch is dropping unfair dismissal for SMEs will have 2 main benefits-
1) It will make those employers more likely to give any worker a go, knowing they can dismiss them if they are a ‘dud’ or don’t fit the group ethos.
2) With more flexibility for those employers to do so, it will inevitably dilute the odium attached to being a ’sacked’ worker.
At present it is possible for the slackers and shonkies to get assistance with ‘unfair’ dismissal and the employer will inevitably lose and cop a payout. (Try sacking a worker for theft or pilfering these days and see where it gets you) Once bitten, twice shy, although you only have to hear the odd horror story when business networking, to make you very gunshy. Consequently the preference for outsourcing, casualisation and lengthy trial periods. I think this problem will ameliorate remarkably with the dropping of unfair dismissal law for those employers who don’t have the HR screening resources of the big boys, to avoid a hefty ‘unfair dismissal’ payout.
As far as workplace agreements go, I think there is a big future for unions to switch to an individual advocacy contract with workers, who will not be so adept at AWA bargaining for their skills. They can offer to sell their services for an agreed fee to negotiate annually, or less often(bi or tri- annually) on worker’s behalf on the basis of having their finger on the pulse of market wage rates, etc. Individual performance would also be on the table. I guess personnel from labour hire Cos could also offer their services here as they are in touch with the marketplace. Emotionally detached, third party advocacy, would be an important role for union types in future, with their specialisation in particular fields. With individual AWAs spread out over time, there would be more time to devote to each individual’s needs. Hell, what’s to stop the unions becoming a one stop shop for labour hire themselves? Think about that role of matching the best employees with the best employers and placing and negotiating on behalf of workers. Keep your fees and services right and I’m sure workers will be happy to stay on your books. Non profit, union labour placement and advocacy would have to beat the for profit boys, just like industry super funds.
I’m convinced, observa, especially as your tales of employer woe re unfair dismissal are carefully backed by statistics, not mere plucked-from-the-air anecdotes.
Ditto for the unions’ tale of woe here Bill, but I’m not suggesting they haven’t got some similar anecdotes about shitty employers. The proof of the IR reform pudding will be in the eating and if it doesn’t produce the overall positive outcome touted, I’m sure a new ALP govt will soon put that to rights once and for all.
Observa, what i meant is that Costello has clearly stated he wants to increase the workforce participation rate, yet Howard then unleashes a policy that will make people less likely to make a discretionary choice to enter the workforce. In other words will lessen the workforce participation rate, hence the contradiction. The reforms may make employers employ more workers, but as i have said, if we have less satisfied and motivated workers, hence less productivity, hence higher prices, hence less consumer expenditure, hence less economic activity, the economic decrease over time will actually force organisations to lay off those workers anyway. Re your unfair dismissal exploitation allegations, im not really gonna go there, as i’ve said it’s not a political issue. All i will say is that if your allegations are correct they indicate the need to fix the way unfair dismissal is administered, not to abolish it. As regards to individual advocacy this may aid self employed workers, contractors and the like but wil disadvantage those with low baargaining power. Anyway given this is an economic issue i’d like to come back to it’s economic impacts.
The reality is that most motivational theories (ie Maslow, McClelland, Herzberg, Alderfer etc), and research on the subject, has overwhelmingly concluded that things such is remuneration (ie pay) are only low level motivators for workers, which most people have ignored in considering the issue. In fact Herzberg correctly identifies that factos such as remuneration, and workplace environments (critical as the changes will create tension between workers and management, and esp between workers where other workers have been able to negotiate better contracts) are hygienes, in other words they do not motivate, but they de-motivate. In other words, particularly in todays workforce where people want to be fulfilled and realise career goals (and hence organisational loyalty is low anyway) there is little benefit from paying employees more and creating a better workplace, but there’s a massive negative to not doing so. This is symptomatic of the whole issue. Any decent analysis of an economic report, textbook or RBA statistics indicate there is a low potential for the policy changes to increase economic activity (read up on the components of EA), but a high potential for them to decrease economic activity . This indicates (given that the government’s departments would have given Howard the same economic advice) that the government could only have made the decision for political reasons. And regardless of whether we think workers may be exploiting unfair dismissal, or whether small businesses need less to worry about, there is no direct economic benefit from pursuing these objectives, and a high chance that we will in fact damage the economy. Thus no responsible government could propose such changes, so the fact that Howard is indicates that the government is prepared to put politics above, and even to damage the economy. As i have said, this is precisely why more economic instruments (like interest rate controls) should, and must be taken out of the government’s hands, and given to an independent economic body that can focus solely on what will benefit the economy.
Wombat.