More Ruddy IR

As I predicted (insert my own trumpet where appropriate) Kevin Rudd has released the better policies after the worst ones.


LIST OF "CHANGES"
1. Hours of work Standard working week of 38 hours.
2. Parental leave Guaranteed 12 months' unpaid leave for both parents.
3. Flexible work for parents Guaranteed right for parents to request flexible work arrangements until their children reach school age.
4. Annual leave All full-time, non-casual employees will be guaranteed 4 weeks' paid annual leave.
5. Personal, carer's, and compassionate leave Guaranteed 10 days' paid carer's and personal leave. An additional two days a year for the death or serious illness of a family member or person the employee lives with.
6. Community service leave Employees will be entitled to leave for community service such as jury service or emergency services.
7. Public holidays Guaranteed public holidays including Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year's Day, Australia Day, Anzac Day, Good Friday and Easter Monday.
8. Information in the workplace Employers must provide employees with a statement containing information on rights and entitlements.
9. Termination Guaranteed fair notice. Less than one year service, at least one week notice period. Less than three years, at least two weeks. Less than five years, at least three weeks. More than five years, at least four weeks.
10. Long service leave Nationally consistent long service entitlements


REVIEW OF "CHANGES"
1. Same as WorkChoices. Not sure whether the averaged-over-a-year will be repealed.
2. Same as WorkChoices. I originally thought it was an improvement – but Rudd says only one parent at a time – WC says the primary caregiver.
3. Ah, see, you have to read these things carefully. “Guaranteed right for parents to request“ – not a “right to”. I imagine that will be worded with escape clauses for employers. I predict the word ‘reasonable’.
4. Same as WorkChoices. Not sure whether the option to cash-out will be repealed.
5. Worse than WorkChoices – it appears to be the same quantity of leave, but WC did guarantee at least 2 days carers leave unpaid.
6. Better than WorkChoices. Potentially. It’s a bit of a grey area. It seems to be absorbing the jury service rules from the states rather than adding any non-existing protection. Protection for emergency services personnel might be new.
7. Better. Penalty rates will be reinstated. (Although in removing AWAs, this was always a given.)
8. Good. Workers get pamphlets – should tackle a bit of ignorance.
9. Same. This is exactly how the law already reads. WC only removed the ability to include termination notice in awards – no word on whether that’s being reinstated.
10. Unknown. It could be good for some states, worse for others.

On point 4, Rudd claims “that, we believe, is the pro-family way.” That, Mr Rudd, is the WorkChoices way. It words it: “Parental leave of up to 52 weeks unpaid after the birth or adoption of a child for the primary caregiver”, as one of the 5 minimum conditions. Sounds strikingly similar to your own stance.

SUMMARY:
Mostly the same as WorkChoices.

PROS:
Parents get to ask for flexible working arrangements.
Emergency services are guaranteed leave. (Not sure if they have that already.)
Penalty rates for public holidays returned.
Possibly better long service leave entitlements.
Workers get pamphlets on their rights.

CONS:
Standard working week might still be averaged over a year.
Option to cash out annual leave might not be repealed.
Two days unpaid carers leave might be repealed.
Possibly worse long service leave entitlements.

RANT:
Rudd may as well have got up and said he was going to read out the Workplace Relations Act, because that’s essentially what he did. I’ve struggled to find the benefits, but workers get public holidays and a booklet. Amazing. But it’s too easy to get mired in the spin, let’s get a list of the changes made by WorkChoices, and see what’s changing. Here’s my WorkChoices graphic, which does just that:

GRAPHICS FOR THE HARD OF THINKING:

This is based on Wikipedia’s WorkChoices article describing the scope of changes. I added in AWA's because they're a big part of it (despite the fact they were brought in before WorkChoices). I'm sure this graphic is subject to change, but it seems accurate so far. (Critiques welcome.)

UPDATE: As I feared, the right to flexible work hours for those with young children won't be binding. Employers need only reject the request in writing, with no fear of challenge or penalty. Which kind of hollows out the proposal - a guaranteed right to ask? I would have assumed asking for flexible hours wouldn't exactly be grounds for dismissal.

Ruddy-IR from blogland.

We’re not going to get much in the way of critical analysis of Rudd’s IR from business – they’ll toe the ‘oh no, Labor is standing up against us evil bastards’ line, unions are wedged against Howard and a hard place so they won’t be picking through it, and the media has been quite weak on the matter. So we’ll turn to blogs.

The Solidarity blog started off positive but cautious – “all in all, Fair Work Australia seems like a good idea”. Then lost a little faith with further examination – “Labor’s IR plan is an unacceptable restriction on workers’ legitimate right to take industrial action, including strikes. It should not be supported by the union movement.”

Andrew Bartlett believes Rudd’s changes will leave IR not quite where it was before the Coalition got control of the Senate.

The Age had some good commentary, with a Your Say section here, with arguments for and against.

Mikey loves the laws. But I noticed some comments that were interesting.

Here’s a result of searching for Mikey’s opinion on unfair dismissal laws.

2005-10. Mikey defends unfair dismissal, claims only 3% went before the courts.
2005-11. Mikey gets into his argument for unfair dismissal with his boss.
2005-12. Mikey claim no access to unfair dismissal could result in sexual assault.
2006-02. Mikey refers to unfair dismissal and right to charge before incarceration as only affecting 0.001% of economic growth.
2007-04. Rudd unveils ALP's weaker unfair dismissal laws.
2007-04. Mikey claims the same unfair dismissal laws he was previously defending were broken, abused, needed fixing, and Rudd’s new plan adds balance.

I don’t want to slander Mikey, he’s a good bloke and I feel bad even mentioning this, but I found it annoying. Maybe he’s toeing the party line, maybe he just neglected to mention his opposition to unfettered unfair dismissal until after the ALP decided to restrict it, I don’t know. I hope his opinions are not a result of any organisation’s stance, but stem from his own senses.

Howard neuters, Rudd kills.

Is there a new April Fools Day? Is it today? Please tell me it’s today, because I just read that Kevin Rudd plans to scrap the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

I know, it’s absurd, couldn’t possibly be true.

SCRAPPED UNDER LABOR:
* Australian Industrial Relations Commission (103 years old)
* Fair Pay Commission (2 years old)
* Office of the Employment Advocate (10 years old)
* Office of Workplace Services (2 years old?)
* Australian Building and Construction Commission (3 years old)

One of these was NOT created by John Howard. In fact, it was created several decades before he was even born.

Why the AIRC? Mr Rudd claims:
1. It is “a 20th century institution that is too remote from the needs of modern Australian workplaces”
2. “Australian working families need an industrial relations system with a fair and independent umpire.”

1. So it doesn’t meet the needs of today’s workplaces? How? Is it too far away? Too slow? Favours justice? I’m pretty sure it’s met the needs of everyone I know that has utilised its services. In fact I’m not aware of any single incident that would suggest such a thing. I must be missing something – there must be overwhelmingly different workplace requirements around now for this to be justified. What are they?

2. Its not fair or independent? I don’t recall unions or employers seriously making any such claims. But there must be overwhelming proof of bias - otherwise Rudd wouldn’t have said it. Where is it?

There is no proof of any need, nor any call, for the AIRC to go. An efficient institution that has safeguarded worker’s rights for a century is not your play-thing, Kevin. Do not destroy them with your petty Orwellian IR projects.

Rudd wants a new system. And He shall call it:
'"Fair Work Australia."'

I would have gone with Super-Happy-Good-Worker’s-Worry-Place, but his is good too. Howard neutered the AIRC. Rudd would have it put down.

ALP will now be placed last on my ballot paper. Final straw.

UPDATE: There is simply no need to scrap the AIRC in order to ease any issues caused by distance - increase the number of courts, and space them around. It's a fair court system with due process. A guy coming into the workplace with powers to judge, and make a quick binding decision, is not. I have a lot of trust in the AIRC, much like other courts, and a lot of distrust of those that seek to scrap it.

I know our legal system is expensive, slow, and inconvenient - but justice is neither cheap or easy. I have no intention of tolerating police with the power to try and convict on sight, and the same goes for IR justice. I doubt Hockey's claims that "Fair Work Australia" will be a biased pro-union hit squad, but even if that was the case, I'd mourne the loss of an actual independent arbitrator no less.

And Sharan Burrow from the ACTU, the plan does not "make a lot of sense". "Working Australians will be well served by a one-stop shop that is geographically accessible and less legalistic".

Legalistic? LEGALISTIC?! Nuzzling away towards a parliamentary pension much, Sharan? I am steamed.

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.