The Opposition is slowly adding detail to its industrial relations policy. Despite John Howard’s long-standing belief in radical reform, it is becoming more like a me-too policy with each detail. On Thursday the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations, Peter Reith, announced the Opposition would have a “”no disadvantage” test when awards are converted to enterprise awards, just like the Government. However, it appears that though the name is the same, they mean different things. The Government’s “”no-disadvantage” means the overall package for each worker will be at least as good after the first enterprise-bargain award as before it. The Opposition’s “”no disadvantage” means that a set of basic conditions will be set down which cannot be “”bargained” away … such as basic pay, holidays and parental leave.
The Opposition is picking a path between much needed-economic reform and not frightening the large number of voters who are subject to awards. The label “”no disadvantage” is at least superficially attractive to voters, but a more accurate description would be “”safety net”.
The Government is equally guilty of mis-labelling. It is nonsense to call the present system enterprise bargaining. The process almost always involves union officials who do not work at the enterprise negotiating the bargain. These officials are usually looking at the effect the bargain might have on other members outside the enterprise. Coupled with the no-disadvantage rule, little has changed. Many new enterprise bargains carry all the stiflingly detailed clauses about allowances, hours, special rates and the like that made the previous system so cumbersome.
Genuine enterprise bargaining can only take place if workers can bargain without interference from union head office or a requirement that union approval be given to any bargain registered as is required now. And it certainly cannot happen while there is a 10,000-minimum-membership requirement.
However, employees are likely to be suspicious of change unless managements show they can treat individual employees who do the bargaining with respect and fairness after the event. With the history of industrial-relations aggravation in Australia this is likely to take a long time. Employees seek outside help because they fear reprisals or feel uncomfortable if they engage in the bargaining process themselves. Legal safeguards against discrimination will help; it is up to employers to demonstrate goodwill. Ultimately, genuine enterprise bargaining will better for Australia, because employers and employees who depend on the success of the enterprise (rather than union officials who depend on collection of dues) are in the best position to work out what is best for them.
Mr Howard appears to recognise … unlike John Hewson … that it is a long road. If he wins power that road will be made more difficult by the Senate and perhaps by constitutional difficulties because the Federal industrial relations law is predicated upon an interstate element which to date has largely been satisfied by multi-state union membership. Ironically he may have to rely on the foreign affairs power and international labor conventions to enact his system.