In December last year, minister for employment Eric Abetz and Treasurer Joe Hockey announced the terms of reference for an inquiry into Australia’s workplace relations framework by the Productivity Commission that was established by John Howard’s Coalition government in 1998.
In a paper released in January, the Productivity Commission indicated that what was up for grabs were the minimum wage, penalty rates, unfair dismissal laws and the role of unions in collective bargaining.
If the 33-page submission by Qantas that was released on March 26 is any guide, unions are in for a hard time defending what little rights they have to effectively represent workers and to take protected strike action.
In 2011, Qantas took the extraordinary step of grounding its operations around the globe, leaving thousands of passengers stranded, during enterprise bargaining negotiations with two of the airline’s unions, the Transport Workers Union and the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association.
Rather than bargain in good faith on the predominant claim by the two unions for job security, Qantas instead thought it would be good idea to put the future of the airline and its entire workforce in jeopardy by grounding the fleet.
What the company seems to have learnt from the experience is that its right to act recklessly should be given pre-eminence over its responsibility to negotiate with unions.
During the course of the 2011 dispute, the two Qantas unions, acting within the statutory provisions of the Fair Work Act, notified work stoppages, which they later cancelled. On some occasions at least, these cancellations came at the request of the transport minister and the Fair Work Commission.
Qantas has proposed to the Productivity Commission that what it calls the “defensive action” it took when notified of work stoppages — essentially rescheduling flights — should allow it to deduct 25% of workers’ weekly pay, even if the protected action is just for a symbolic one minute.
They also want to limit the rights of unions to publicly talk about any future industrial action and to effectively prohibit unions from seeking security of employment.
The inquiry will bring down its report in November. When Abetz and Hockey released the terms of reference, it came with a promise that if there was a good case for “sensible and fair” changes, the Coalition would seek a mandate for them at the next federal election, due in 2016.
This is a recognition that the Howard government went beyond the pale with its Work Choices legislation that allowed for the ruthless exploitation of lower-paid workers and lost it government in 2007 as a consequence.
In the two years preceding the 2007 elections, the ACTU ran a dual campaign against Work Choices that involved mainstream advertising calling for the election of an ALP government and a grassroots campaign in the community called Your Rights at Work.
The advertising campaign came at a cost of more than $60 million in direct and indirect support. What the unions got in return was the totally inadequate Fair Work Act that is now subject to review.
A multi-million dollar advertising campaign might well be beyond the union movement in the lead-up to the 2016 election — but a community campaign certainly isn’t. All it needs is a commitment to prioritise workers’ rights above everything else. The union movement would do well to get on the front foot before the Productivity Commission brings down its all too predictable report.
Like the article? Subscribe to Green Left now! You can also like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.