By James Vassilopoulos
Is the ACTU's living wage case a salvation for the growing number of working poor, or is it merely a public relations stunt to make the ACTU appear relevant to workers?
The ACTU has lodged a claim before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), to be processed over three stages over a three years, which is designed to benefit low paid workers and those who have not received wage increases through enterprise bargaining.
The claim involves:
- the phased increase to a minimum wage of $12 per hour for ordinary hours of work;
- three staged safety net increases in award rates of pay of $20 each for workers who have received no increases through enterprise bargaining; and
- addressing issues of income security and standard hours of work.
Stage one of the claim is for the minimum hourly rate for "ordinary time work" to be increased to $10 per hour. Workers who have not received increases under enterprise bargaining will get a further $20. So, for example, the wage of a manufacturing process worker (classification C14) with no enterprise bargaining agreement would increase from $349.80 to $380, or 8.8%. For workers with an enterprise bargaining agreement the increase would be less. The wage relativities in minimum rates awards, including those for juniors and trainees, would be maintained.
Stage two of the claim involves an increase to $418 per week, plus $20 for those who received no increases under enterprise bargaining, and a statement of principle to protect part-time and casual workers.
Stage three would take the minimum wage up to $12 per hour or $456 per week. It also includes proposals for a shorter working week and for job sharing.
The stated criteria for setting the claim rates include fair market rates, the needs of households, and that "all workers should be entitled to a decent standard of living". It implicitly acknowledges many losses in wages and conditions under the 13 years of the ACTU-ALP's Accord, stating, for example, that "the major change in the mode of employment is the rapid growth in part-time and casual work" (which the trade union leaderships did nothing to resist) and noting the "dispersion in earnings between low-wage workers and other earnings" and the "decline in the real value of award rates of pay". The question should be asked: Why didn't the ACTU launch this claim while federal Labor was in office (under which workers lost 17-28% in real wages)?
The deadline for written submissions for the claim is November 27 and public hearings open on December 4. A judgment is expected sometime next February or March.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry attempted to delay the claim during hearings in August. It argues that the wage increases would cost jobs, that the increases are not just for the low paid but for all awards, and that it would "kill the economy stone dead". It seems odd that private employers would be concerned about job losses when their primary concern is maximising profits.
Superficially, the living wage claim appears bold and significant. A restaurant worker on a wage of $407.80 per week could, after three years, potentially receive $532.22, a 30% increase. But the claim has severe limitations.
First, it is almost certain that at least 60% of the work force will not directly benefit from the claim (reports in Sydney Morning Herald indicate it may only benefit 25% of workers). This is because the claim only applies to "ordinary hours of work", not part-time or casual workers, who now comprise about 50% of the work force. Furthermore, at least 25% of workplaces now have some individual contracts outside of the award. These workers will not receive the wage increase.
Secondly, many workers receive over-award payments — any increase in the minimum award rate will not affect them. A worker who earns $80 over the Level 1 Graphic Arts Award, for example, will only receive a $27 wage increase over three years.
Third, enterprise bargaining agreements cover more than 70% of federal awards. All workers covered by such agreements will get a much reduced wage increase.
The claim states that there should be a statement of principle for part-time workers so that they are not discriminated against. This is believed to include part-timers maintaining their penalty rates. How much force the statement of principle will carry, however, is unclear. Certainly, there has been little action by the union movement to transform part-time work into full-time work, and casual work in permanent work. Likewise, there has been no move to regulate casual employment to guarantee hours for casual workers, or to set clear limits on the proportion of part-timers in any workplace.
At the same time as part-time work (and part-time wages) are at an all-time high, a staggering 37% of full-time employees in Australia work for 49 hours or more per week. An all-union campaign to reduce the working week to 32 hours, with no loss in pay, is desperately needed. Such a campaign could and should be coupled with one to create permanent, full-time work, and to increase the hourly rate of pay for casuals.
It remains to be seen if unions will use the living wage claim in the AIRC to conduct determined membership based campaigns — joint campaigns, strikes and rallies — to get the wage increases. To date, only one very small action at the AIRC in Victoria has been held. These grassroots struggles will become even more decisive as the Liberals begin to stack the AIRC.
The living wage claim is a step in the right direction, but its limitations are especially clear when it is examined alongside the defeats that the unions will suffer with the passing of the Coalition's industrial relations bill. In itself, the claim it is too little too late to reverse the cuts to workers' living standards. Only if the rank and file memberships of the unions are mobilised and united in an uncompromising campaign in defence of their right to decent wages and working conditions can the wages of all workers — full-time and part-time, casual and permanent, low paid and better paid — be defended and increased.