     |
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
           Shipping Stevedoring Port Services Hydrocarbons Diving  Sep-Oct 2008       |
|
Submission to ALP IR Task ForceBy Tom McDonald - Retired National Secretary BWIU (CFMEU) & Vice President ACTU For many decades Australian workers were protected by strong labour laws and an independent Industrial Relations court and by industrial awards. Through the award system unions were able to achieve increases in wages and improvements in conditions of employment. Under the system all employees including new employees had to be paid no less than the award wage and its conditions of employment. This is no longer the case. Under Howard's new laws the employer can require a new employee to sign an Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) that provides a wage rate and conditions of employment much less than prescribed by the award. If the new employee refuses to sign the AWA the employer can refuse to employ the worker. And, under certain conditions, their unemployment benefits can be withheld. Employers have also developed a range of tactics to exploit the new laws that enable them to force existing employees out of the award or an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement and into an AWA that abolishes many conditions of employment. John Howard's new IR laws are designed to give employers a monopoly of power over employees.
Outlaw pattern bargaining which has been the vehicle through which all major improvements in national conditions of employment have been achieved (see Role of Unions); Give employers a monopoly of power at the workplace by abolishing various rights of workers and by seriously restricting the access of unions to the workforce; And Howard wants a IR system that will give governments and employers a free rein to further cut wages and to further erode conditions of employment whenever the Australian economy goes into an economic recession. Family/Recreation Time Threatened Workers and their unions have over the years campaigned for shorter hours and increased leisure and family time. With the assistance of Labor Governments and the Industrial Relations Commission (court) the standard hours of work have been reduced to 38 hours per week and the working week from 6 to five days and annual leave has been increased to four weeks per year. Employers have opposed these changes and have wanted work to be performed at times that suited their interests and business needs. The Industrial Relations Commission and the trade unions have been flexible where the general community has required (needed) various services such as medical, health, caring, transport, policing, recreational, shopping, catering and other services provided over extended hours and in some case 24 hours per day over 365 days. Civilised System Over decades a civilized system evolved that was able to cater for all these competing needs. For example the system called "spread of hours" that are contained in awards set boundaries within which ordinary hours of work were to be performed. Generally speaking ordinary hours of work had to be performed eight hour per day Monday to Friday between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. with all hours worked outside these boundaries being paid for at penalty, overtime or shift rates of pay. These provisions sought to protect family and recreation time while at the same time they catered for the general community and employer needs. In essence it meant that work should not be required to be performed outside the spread of hours unless it was essential and where this was the case workers should be compensated for the intrusion of work into family time via the payment of penalty, overtime or shift work payments. For example the steel industry (BHP) operates 365 days per year to maximize production and plant utilization through a shift work system. These payments acted as a financial deterrent designed to limit the unnecessary intrusion of work into family and recreational time. The system that has served Australia well will be dismantled if the Howard Government has its way. This is being cunningly done by having AWAs supercede awards as they do not have to provide for overtime or shift work rates and AWAs can require employees to work their normal 38 hours at any time of the day, night, or on weekends or public holidays. Where this happens it will undermine family life and increase the stress that families are currently under and this will lead to a range of other social problems. You Be The Judge Howard is seeking to replace our award and collective agreements (EBAs) system with individual contracts (AWAs) that allow employers to cut back award entitlements to only five protected items. A Labor Government would outlaw AWAs and phase out existing AWAs in favour of collective agreements or award standards and it will increase protected items from five to ten plus other rights and entitlements. This chart compares AWAs with awards and EBAs :
Concealing the Truth About AWAs A report recently issued by the Government's Employment Advocates Office (EAO) showed how AWAs are being used by employers to lower wages and abolish conditions of employment. The Howard Government has now decided that no further EAO reports will be made available to the general public. The report shows that on average:
About Trade Unions John Howard and the Business Council of Australia would have workers believe that they are their friends and that trade unions are not necessary. If this was really the case why is it that conservative governments and employer organizations always opposed applications by trade unions to the IRC for wage increases and for improvements in conditions of employment for Australian workers. They opposed reductions in working hours to 48; opposed them going to 44, to 40 and then to 38 hours per week. They opposed a shorter working week and RDOs. They opposed increasing annual leave from one to two weeks, then three, then to four. They opposed equal pay for women. They opposed full daylight training for apprentices. They opposed full pay for workers compensation. They opposed superannuation for all workers. They opposed safety issues such as the banning asbestosis, silicosis and lead based paints. The list goes on and on. Corporate Behaviour Corporations are increasingly being driven by self-interest, greed and profit maximization. This has been expressed in many forms. They have:
And the list goes on and on. Criticism by the Howard Government of the activities of trade unions falls into insignificance when compared with the behaviour of corporations and when it comes to protecting and improving the wages and conditions of employment, unlike employers, unions have a proud record . Howard's Fear Argument Conservative governments and employer organizations have consistently opposed the efforts of trade unions to improve workers wages and conditions. Their opposition to the unions have always been based on the fear argument e.g. that granting of these reforms would undermine the economy and create unemployment when the real objective was to protect profits. History shows that these doomsday predictions never eventuated. To the contrary the Australian economy continued to grow from being a rural economy in the early 20th Century to a highly industrial economy of today. Today these same "fear" arguments are being used to justify changing the laws that allow employers to abolish many of these long-held hard-won conditions of employment. Workers have had to unite and struggle to achieve advances and now they will have to do the same if they want their children to enjoy these standards on entering the workforce. ****************************************************Howards IR reforms must be defeated******************************************************* Back to MUA Elections |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
    |
This page: http://mua.org.au/MUAElections/TomsIR.html Site proudly designed and engineered by Social Change Online |
© 2001 Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) |