8 minute read
Work Employment Relations
Introduction
Over the past years, the Australian employment relations as a whole have been witnessing gradual changes following the influence of successive governments and authorities over the matter. As the main regulator in the industry, subsequent governments have been playing a major role in determining how employers and their employees should literally relate with each other. In particular, the Liberal-National Coalition that took office in 1996 instituted most reforms that sought to limit the powers of the trade unions and, instead, allow employers to enter into direct negotiations with their employees. This paper will discuss in detail the aspect of work employment relations in Australia, and in particular, focus on the negative influence resulting from the state’s direct involvement in the employment relations.
Advertisement
Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from acemyhomework.com
The Longitudinal Labour Regulation
Government’s involvement in work employment relations mainly occurs in the form of regulations being instituted throughout the sector. Longitudinal labour relations, in particular, cover five areas of labour contracting apart from the standard relationship, regulation of working duration or time, regulation of dismissals form duty, as well as the regulation of representation and participation of employees at the workplace, and regulation of industrial action. The Australian government’s intervention in work employment relations particularly through the longitudinal labour regulations has reduced economic efficiency in general the. This is particularly so due to the fact that several imperfections between employers on the one hand and their employees on the other have remained unattended (Chapman 1997, p. 89).
The regulations by the government have brought about a somewhat complex regulatory approach to different forms of employment, especially for employees working on casual terms, agency workers, and those employed on fixed-term contracts. For instance, although casual employees are entitled to almost similar treatment with their counterparts employed on full time basis, there are less protection mechanisms in terms of legal structures against redundancies or unfair dismissal. The Workplace Relations Act of 1996 which was introduced by the government further saw these groups of workers being exposed to unfair treatment (Fenwick 2006, p. 86). In 2009, however, the Fair Work Act attempted to cushion casual workers from the adverse effects of the previous regulations by, among other things, relaxing restrictions that had been imposed on unions to negotiate unfair dismissal and site rates (Murray 2006, p. 343).
Regulation on Work Duration
Although the government has strongly protected, through regulation, such matters as public holidays, overtime premiums, and leave entitlements, there is very little regulation on the amount of time which Australians are expected to work. The workplace agreements have extensively been used by employers to gain flexibility both in determining employee compensation for non-standard hours worked, and in the scheduling of working time. In 2006, the Work Choices regime abolished ‘no-disadvantage test’ for agreements entered in the workplace, thus providing room for employers to negotiate overtime removal and other penalty rates. This was done by the employers without paying compensation to the affected workers (Rathmell 2008, p. 26). The no-disadvantage test’s reintroduction which culminated in the adoption of a ‘fairness test’ in 2007 have since restored the previous position advocated for by the pre-Work Choices. However, the Work Choices initiative that prohibits employers from requesting their workers to work for additional time beyond certain hours limits the potential of effectiveness when it comes to controlling long durations of work (Briggs 2005, p. 112).
Regulation of Dismissal
The labour government, through its legislation of 1993, positively regulated the dismissal of employees by instituting a uniform scheme that gave precedence to procedural as well as substantive safeguards (Fenwick 2006). However, the regulations by the government only had modest implications and results because of the relatively low standards that were put in place to govern on such matters as mandated notice periods, selection for redundancy, and formal dismissal notification. Dismissal protection mechanisms were lessened in 1996 when the government reduced the legal requirements needed to be observed in order to undertake substantive as well as procedural legitimacy in dismissing employees. Although later regulations corrected this anomaly, the government’s involvement in this aspect particularly allowed employees to enjoy powers unfairly and decide single-handedly on dismissals. Coming at a time when union had been significantly weakened, employees were at the mercies of their employers and had no redress mechanisms to present their cases.
Employee Representation
The overall employee representation within work places has grown less in significance over the years owing to the government’s involvement in work employment relations. Elements of collective labour, such as union recognition as well as bargaining rights have since been either abolished by regulations, or their capacities lessened as a result. The Workplace Relations Act of 1996 which particularly removed or curtailed workers from enjoying some of the union benefits that had existed before also excluded some of the representation rights that employees enjoyed from awards. The Work Choices legislation further weakened the mandate of trade unions by imposing restrictions on the organisational rights of trade unions. The negative effect of this move by the government has seen protection of workers decline to very low levels. Although the re-election of the Labour government in 2007 has seen much improvement in this area, the introduction of new legislation that appears to provide a new lease of life to the trade unions has failed to gain the right momentum to restore the rights to pre-1996 conditions (Stewart 2006, p. 51). The involvement of the government in either abolishing the trade unions and the subsequent efforts to reinstate them are affecting the overall operations of the labour sector.
Many employers had gotten used to dealing with their workers on an individual basis prior to the 2007 election that brought the Labour government into power and thus the new attempts to reinstate powerful collective bargaining system only disturbs the balance that had existed before. It also becomes difficult for employers and management to plan for the future about their employment policies due to the evident competition that the matter is eliciting in the political arena.
Industrial Action
There has been a sharp incline in protection for employers against employees instituting industrial action in Australia. The Howard government particularly instituted limitations which made it difficult for workers to take part in industrial action. Although this appears to be a positive indicator that the government has reigned on the adverse effects which often result whenever industrial actions are experienced, there is enough evidence that workers’ rights have been curtailed by these requirements. The regulation gives maximum protection to the employers to an extent that they do not consider, in most instances, the rights of their workers.
The balance in this situation needs to be maintained in order that workers can still feel they have the full commitment to work for their employers (Mitchell & Scherer 1993, p. 77).
The Government Reforms
Through the Workplace Relations Act of 1996, the government initiated a radical decentralisation of the general industrial relations in Australia by literally transferring the employment negotiation and bargaining to the enterprise level. These changes gave broader support for the non-union agreements on the one hand while at the same time lessening the previous roles of the Australian Relations Commission, AIRC. In implementing the new changes through the Act, the Australian Workplace Agreements, abbreviated as AWA sought to provide employers and their employees a new framework through which they could enter negotiations and agree
On The Terms Of Employment Without Involving The Union
bodies.
The AWAs have particularly played a limited role, as compared to the collective bargaining agreement, in improving working conditions and advocating for better compensation for the workers. The government targets to regulate the workplace through the use of AWAs by effectively curbing on the collective voice which trade unions are synonymous with. The government’s move has only shifted the balance of employment relations in favour of employers who now enjoy immense influence and power during negotiation agreements. The individualistic form of employment introduced through the AWAs has created low trust as well as low commitment on the part of employees as the work relations gradually appear to give the employers all the advantages and powers (Mitchell & Scherer 1993, p. 85).
The Coalition government also weakened the roles played by such labour market institutions as the AIRC through its advocated changes. This move has had a number of serious consequences which generally affected the industrial relations at the time. The AIRC award which existed prior to the new changes was limited to only twenty allowable matters. Some exceptions were, however, allowed such that the body could arbitrate even on some exceptional matters. As the roles of the tribunals waned progressively, union coverage was also generally weakened. Many union bodies had relied upon the arbitration system in their operations and relations with both members and employers.
Employers and management have generally taken advantage of the government’s interference with the work employment relations to initiate workplace related changes in the recent years without involving their workforce or trade unions about such plans. There have been very few innovative provisions initiated by the employers to pursue collaborative approaches that seek to acquire positive change for purposes of attaining higher productivity. To some extent, labour market deregulation as well as collective bargaining decentralisation, which resulted from the government’s move to institute changes, have facilitated non-standard employment.
Provisions in the Workplace Relations Act of 1996 mainly limit award regulation scope and encourage the decentralisation of bargaining. These conditions could have further enhanced the precarious nature and condition of non-standard employment.
As the non-standard employment practice seems to gain popularity among employers and employees alike in Australia, casual employment has equally gained preference. However, this form of employment does not provide majority of the workers with the associated protection that comes with full-time employment. It is worth pointing out that the casual employees do not enjoy the right of employment security as is the case with formal employment. The temporary employment figures in Australia are among the highest in the entire OECD particularly because of the workforce proportion that is currently employed on casual terms. Even employers are getting affected by the temporary employment system due to the disadvantages that come with it, including the lack of appropriate enterprise skills, the extra administrative costs and other related burdens, as well as the lack of enterprise commitment on the part of the casual employees. This situation has, in the long run, contributed towards the poorly balanced national economy (Hall 2006, p. 292).
Conclusion
The subsequent governments in Australia have consistently involved labour issues in their political activity as a way of gaining popularity and outwitting their competitors. However, these involvements through the introduction of legal frameworks and use of other regulatory agencies have impacted negatively on the overall work employment relations in the country. The collective bargaining has lost its mantle over the years and fewer workers are members of trade unions as compared to the situation and practice in the 1980s and early 1990s. In particular, the government has been at the forefront to weaken trade unions through the introduction of amendments that have sought to give preference to individual bargaining. These changes have exposed most employees, as employers and management in general enjoys immense powers.
Frequent dismissals and poor employment condition cases have been on the rise owing to the recurring loopholes that employers exploit to their advantage as a result of the shifting labour laws and regulations. It is prudent to point out that the government’s continued involvement in labour related issues has done more harm than good to the Australian employment sector. It is, therefore, high time that the state separates its functions from interfering with labour and influence progress.
