Rudd's IR

Rudd’s current IR plan:

1. AWA’s abolished.
2. “Return the right” to “basic working conditions” – penalty rates, overtime, public holiday pay.
3. Ensure a minimum wage, set by “independent umpire” that “keeps track with living standards”.
4. Federal jurisdiction of IR laws, and a “uniform” system.
5. Industrial action outlawed unless voted by a majority secret ballot.
6. Industrial action outlawed during the term of, and in support of, a collective agreement.
7. Industrial action outlawed if there has been “genuine good faith bargaining”.
8. Industrial action outlawed in support of “industry wide agreement”.
9. Pay during industrial action outlawed.
10. No unfair dismissal for 6 months with less than 15 employees, and 12 months for larger businesses.
11. Unfair dismissal dealt with by new local “industrial umpires”, heard in 7 days, no lawyers, effort to “resolve claims by discussion”, else umpire makes decision.
12. A Fair Dismissal Code – a guideline for employers to follow, to help them sack employee’s fairly.

It’s not fantastic, but it’s not complete yet. Getting rid of AWA’s solves the problem of reinstating the No Disadvantage Test, having the minimum conditions, etc.

NOTES:
1. No qualms.
2. Devils in the details, this pledge is meaningless as it stands.
3. I don’t see how this is any promise to abolish Work Choices’ Fair Pay Commission. It sounds like that’ll be retained – in fact the wording is almost identical to the description of the commission.
4. The corporations power ensures federal control regardless, so unless Labor plans to hold a referendum to alter that section of the constitution, this seems a moot point.
5. Secret ballots will have to be paid for, waited for, etc. This serves more to delay and disenfranchise than to protect employees from (I’d imagine quite illegal) harassment.
6. This is a nuisance. Collective agreements can, and usually do, go for several years. Action can only be taken during bargaining. Also, taking action to protest a safety hazard, or any other grievance is outlawed. Not good.
7. Not easy to enforce, but the wording doesn’t sound too insidious.
8. I’d need to be convinced that industrial action taken to support industry wide agreements were sufficiently damaging in order to justify outlawing it.
9. This is a removal of the right of both employers and employees to make an agreement. It ensures that workers suffer during industrial action, which is not particularly humane.
10. This isn’t particularly bad, but it IS worse than what it was for most of Howard’s term. With Work Choices, employers could trial for 6 months instead of 3. Not sure what’s happening with that, but it gives the employers the same employee – checking abilities as this law, so I’d hope the trial gets reduced or abolished.
11. Umpire is a weasel word – at least Howard’s “taskforce” was more honest. Otherwise a seemingly sound policy.
12. This seems to be the government doing the work of industry/small/large business groups. It encourages sackings, and I fail to see how it is necessary – compared with a simple requirement for 3 written warnings. It might not be sinister though.

BETTER? BY HOW MUCH?

It’s hard to judge such a rough vague policy sketch, but it can be reduced to three main points.

AWA’s, unfair dismissal, and protected action.

Lower is better for workers. Higher mark represents degradation in worker rights for each issue. Middle is bad, top is worse.

This graph shows in 1996 that AWAs were introduced, and protected action restricted. Then with Work Choices, they were both attacked, as well as unfair dismissal being heavily restricted. 2008 is Rudd’s proposal, protected action unchanged from WC, unfair dismissal restrictions reduced instead of removed, and AWAs abolished altogether.

Lower is better for workers. Uses same data as above, with 1 point given to bad, 2 for worse.

This graph shows four periods – before Howard, Howard with no balance of power, Work Choices, and Rudd’s proposal. It shows Rudd’s proposal is worse than the IR system under Howard (before Work Choices/balance of power). Whilst the AWA-issue would be improved, unfair dismissal and the right to protected action will be further restricted.