By Melanie Sjoberg and Jennifer Thompson
The appalling alliance between the small business-minded Democrats and the free marketeer Liberals will bring significant changes to working conditions and ordinary people's ability to organise.
The Democrats have proclaimed their deal with the Liberals as a major victory because "the final bill will not be as bad as Reith wanted". In reality, the Democrats have backed down on several key commitments. A briefing at the SA United Trades and Labour Council was informed that Democrat Senator and industrial relations spokesperson Andrew Murray was "apologetic that he couldn't get more changes through".
The ACTU supports the deal to the extent that they don't believe the Democrats will shift further. The ACTU's strategy, therefore, is to ensure that there is "clarity on the meaning of the amendments".
Tellingly, employer organisations, while not saying so publicly, are rather pleased with the amendments which have made the bill, from their point of view, more workable. In the November 4 Business Review Weekly Nicholas Way explains why bosses are "far from upset with the concessions, ostensibly achieved on behalf of unions", mentioning their concern over wages growth through enterprise bargaining, especially after the restraining effect of the Accord between the ACTU and Labor was removed.
According to Way, employers are hoping that a retained role for the Industrial Relations Commission will both put a brake on claims (like the current 15% over two years being pursued by the metalworkers' union), and enable disputes to be "settled" rather than result in prolonged strikes. The employers have also welcomed the Coalition's backtracking on its proposal to repeal the "conveniently belong" clause which gave the baton to selected unions — often after a cosy chat between that union and the employer — to cover a workplace.
Union officials expect the "debate" on the bill to commence this week and be completed within two weeks. The Labor Party can now safely do a lot of left posturing, putting forward hundreds of amendments without fear that they will be adopted.
The Greens have indicated that they "fundamentally oppose" the bill. "Further deregulation of industrial relations and the move to individual contracts is designed to please corporate Australia by creating 'greater flexibility in the workplace'", said Greens (WA) Senator Dee Margetts. She noted, however, that: "Enterprise agreements were the Labor Party's 'reforms'. Evidence is mounting that second or third round enterprise agreements, once workers were lured off awards, are putting greater pressure on workers' basic pay and conditions."
The Victorian TAFE Students and Apprentices Network condemned the agreement, saying it would cut apprentices and trainees wages. VTSAN coordinator Maurice Sibelle said it made a "mockery [SA Democrat Senator] Natasha Stott-Despoja's claim that the Democrats represent young people". Sibelle called on the Democrats to oppose the provisions to allow wages to be deducted for time spent in training.
Australian Workplace Agreements — the ability for employers to offer individual contracts — will proceed. While they must be approved by the Employee Advocate, (who will have little time to do a serious analysis of the no-disadvantage test), the deal does not require AWA's to comply with minimum conditions.
The deal also states that in relation to apprenticeships or traineeships, the legislation will allow the "no disadvantage test" to be met, even if the pay rates are less than the full-time rate. Sibelle said this exemption could mean severe wage reductions: "The Wage Guarantee offers us no consolation. In some cases, the stipulated minimum rates are less than half of the existing award rates. Thanks to the Democrats, a final year apprentice chef, for example, will now only be entitled to $195 per week instead of $411."
Where someone is entering a new job, the legislation reduces from 14 to five days the time an employee has to receive and consider an AWA. This is supposed to enable the worker to move into the job quickly, but the logical outcome is that long-term unemployed or young first-job seekers are likely to take whatever is on offer under threat of the position going to the next in line.
According to the Democrats, unions' right to represent workers has been preserved. The reality is that it will be very limited. A union will need authorisation from workers, not dissimilar to existing SA legislation which requires unions to obtain a signed authority from every member before it can participate in the enterprise bargaining process.
Unions' right of entry to a workplace has also been protected, according to the Democrat publicity. In fact, union officers must obtain a permit to visit members or workers eligible to become members. The permit is renewable every three years and must be shown on request to the employer.
The 24-hours notice required from unions wishing to enter a work site has serious implications if workers are subject to victimisation or dangerous safety conditions. If a union suspects a breach of award conditions, the employer is only required to demonstrate compliance at the employer's office and during office hours, and only if the union already has members in the workplace. Union officers won't be able to investigate breaches of AWAs.
The Democrats are heralding the protection of paid rates awards as another victory. But all federal awards will be stripped back to 20 minimum conditions (the Liberals proposed 18), putting the definition of a paid rates award immediately under threat. The minimum conditions safety net is now starting from a much lower base. It is also unclear if a paid rates award will continue if it has been the safety net underpinning a Certified Agreement. According to Way, paid rates awards may be retained by employers who've found them useful to curb industrial activity.
The Liberals have also won on the reintroduction of penalties for most secondary boycotts. The Democrats have inserted a savings clause enabling secondary boycotts for environmental or consumer protection in some instances, but they have agreed to repeal the 72-hour cooling-off period before an employer can sue unions for secondary boycott action.
Worse is the deliberate Coalition attack, supported by the Democrats, on the maritime and other unions involved in export industries, with a ban on boycotts that hinder international trade and commerce. Maritime Union officials have told the media that they won't rule out industrial action to protect their right to strike, and Brisbane organiser Bob Carnegie told Green Left Weekly that the union "wouldn't be broken by any legislation". Maritime Union joint national secretary John Coombs said that, not only would the law ban action against exploitation of international seafarers on "ships of shame", but also general industrial action.
The Transport Workers Union national secretary, John Allan, said the ban would also force the TWU — covering international air cargo and truck drivers delivering containers to the waterfront — to take a militant stand.
Any belief that more lobbying is going to provide much needed job and conditions' security is an illusion. WA CFMEU branch secretary Bill Ethel told Green Left that workers had "got as far as we can with negotiations" and that a strategically planned industrial action campaign was needed to put maximum pressure on the government's corporate supporters.
The passing of this legislation will ensure that it is harder, yet even more necessary to organise and resist exploitation on the job. Only through collective action will most of us be able to defend the conditions that currently exist, let alone make gains for future generations. n