Industrial relations campaign update
-
A senior industrial relations judge says there is “no compelling impetus in fact or in substance” for a major overhaul of Australia’s IR system. The vice-president of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission, Justice Walton, told a symposium at Sydney University:
I suspect that the true distinguishing feature of the proposed reforms is that they challenge root and branch, for the first time, the sometimes unstated philosophies and values which have underpinned the industrial model in Australia.
It has been apparently seriously questioned that fairness is an outmoded concept and, in fact, counter-productive in employment relationships, decision making or award agreement making. This approach is the antithesis of the objectives of the current industrial systems, if not the ethos of our society.
-
Tomorrow, the High Court will consider the legality of the Government’s industrial relations propaganda. Last week, it emerged that legal advice to the Government in 1998 suggested that appropriations needed a fair degree of specificity. Henry Burmester QC said there must be a “reasonable attempt to describe the purpose of the appropriation”, and that “outcomes such as ‘good government’ are, in my view, insufficiently specific.” This is the basis of the ACTU’s case: it says the item “higher productivity, higher pay workplaces” is too vague to be valid. Labor says that if the High Court decides the spending was unauthorised, the Liberal Party should repay the $5 million that’s already been spent.
-
Unions are planning to levy their members to finance a new round of advertising against the Howard Government’s proposed IR changes. Members will contribute about $5.50 each. Kevin Andrews said this was “extraordinary”, because the legislation hasn’t yet been drafted — but his Government has already spent $5 million spinning his unfinished package, and is planning at least $20 million more.
-
John Howard’s claim to have delivered a 14% pay rise to Australian workers is misleading. New research by acirrt shows that while the top ten percent of wage earners saw a rise of 13.8% between 1998 and last year, the median rise was 2.6%. The bottom twenty percent saw an increase of just 1.2%. Meanwhile, “over the same period the incomes of the 50 highest-paid Australian chief executives had increased by 194 per cent”, and “by up to 230 per cent if earnings from share options were taken into consideration.”

the median rise was 2.6%. The bottom twenty percent saw an increase of just 1.2%. Meanwhile, “over the same period the incomes of the 50 highest-paid Australian chief executives had increased by 194 per cent�, and “by up to 230 per cent if earnings from share options were taken into consideration.�
Does this mean rises in just monetary earnings, or real earnings? because if it’s the former, you’d have to take increases in the cost of living into account, too.
I haven’t read the study, Helen, but I’m sure acirrt would have taken inflation into account. I’d say they’re real figures.