Red Rag

• The Government has proposed changing the minimum conditions of employment, to replace four weeks’ annual leave with two weeks’ leave plus cash. Unions are concerned that this would be the end of the family holiday as, over time, two weeks would become the standard.

  Kevin Andrews says it would be the employee’s choice, “at their own request”, but that’s not true if they’re signing a new contract. In that case, the choice is between two weeks’ leave or the dole. Andrews also claims that employers can not “force” employees to give up leave, but they can lock them out of work without pay, for weeks on end, until they sign the new contract.

  Andrews also claims that the system already exists in WA, but that’s only partly true. A similar scheme was introduced “under laws brought in by the previous Liberal state government.” UnionsWA secretary Dave Robinson told ABC radio, “We have got a track record here of this provision having been abused… We know that from WA’s experience.” The WA Government is considering scrapping the laws altogether.

  It’s also worth pointing out that the Gallop Government has introduced a much stricter no disadvantage test than has been proposed by Andrews. Ben Packham reports that the Andrews changes mean people will forego their leave “without the protection of the award safety net.”

  Even some employers are worried about the proposal’s social impact:

  One of Australia’s biggest employer organisations — the Australian Industry Group — also expressed concerns.

  AIG chief executive Heather Ridout said workers should be able to cash in accrued leave above four weeks.

  But she was concerned the minimum standard could be eroded.

  “It could be potentially detrimental to family interests,” she said.

  The tourism industry is concerned about the impact on its business, especially in regional areas, which suggests that the threat to the family holiday is real.

• After the Government took a hit in the polls, the business lobby has demanded that the $20 000 000 industrial relations propaganda campaign be brought forward. And the Daily Telegraph reports that John Howard might be forced to cut short his own holidays because his attacks on workers have been met with stiff opposition.

• The fact that the industrial relations proposals are stacked in the bosses’ favour is reflected in promotional literature that “goes to greater lengths to explain the changes to employers than to employees.”

• In The Bulletin, Laurie Oakes points out that “the fight against the IR changes has given Kim Beazley a boost. … Beazley is doing what opposition leaders are supposed to do: he is getting stuck into the government.” Meanwhile, “[a] degree of ad hocery has been evident” in the Government’s campaign, as they scramble to force something through the Senate as soon as possible. Oakes says neither Howard nor Costello will back down, so this is going to be fought right up to the next election.

• Ross Gittins argues that the reforms present a great opportunity for the union movement, because “[t]he health of an organisation can be aided by a bit of persecution.” Freeloaders will no longer be able to bludge off the unions’ work. Gittins points out that a recent study “found that half of all non-unionised workers said they’d never been asked to join. And 39 per cent of workers who didn’t have a union at their workplace expressed a willingness to join.” The Government’s proposed changes to rights of entry to workplaces are designed to frustrate union recruitment campaigns, and to deny those workers real choice.

• Family First wants the Government to produce a family impact statement on the industrial relations reforms. It is unclear how Stephen Fielding will respond to the inevitable whitewash. Hopefully he will have more backbone than the Australian Democrats, who are are preparing to sell out yet again.

• ABB Australia has recently completed a study of its workforce that reveals labour hire arrangements are a danger to workers’ health and safety:

  There is a growing body of research that indicates labour hire workers — as part of the precarious or contingent workforce — are at increased risk of injury at work due to lack of training, unfamiliarity with the workplace, and poor integration with the permanent workforce, being used on higher risk tasks; and to lack of supervision, extended hours or working multiple jobs.

  In an as yet unpublished study performed by an ABB operations manager, it was concluded that, in one part of our business, labour hire workers were seven times more likely to be injured — this was reflected in the ABB Australia incident statistics recorded.

  Part of the Government’s IR push is to “protect” labour hire workers from “interference” by unions — despite the fact that workplaces with union involvement have higher safety standards.

• ACTU secretary Greg Combet gave a speech to the National Press Club today, in which he explains the importance of workers’ rights, points out the Howard Government’s failure to invest in skills and social capital, and outlines the union movement’s campaign: “we intend to keep campaigning for the rights of workers for as long as it takes. We will take our argument to the High Court to test the validity of the laws. We will campaign in the workplace to protect people’s pay, employment conditions and bargaining rights. And we will campaign in the wider community to build political support for workers’ rights all the way up to the next election and beyond.”

Update: I nearly forgot:

• Griffith University’s David Peetz argues that the evidence does not support a radical overhaul of our industrial system. The Business Council of Australia funded a series of studies to show that smashing unions was good for the economy, but “[n]one found the result the BCA would have wanted.” Rather, “[t]he Government’s attempts to shift workers from collective bargaining to individual contracting have done nothing good for productivity.” And looking across the Tasman, New Zealand’s Employment Contracts Act, which was similar to the Howard/Andrews proposals, “was a disaster for productivity.”