Liam Mitchell
A central thrust of Prime Minister John Howard's planned new workplace laws will be to ensure employers can more easily lower their labour costs by forcing workers onto individual contracts, or Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) as they are officially called.
The Howard government introduced AWAs to take workers off collective agreements. Although not the first form of individual contract, AWAs have taken contract conditions out of common law, with all the legal implications this brought.
Individualising work conditions means that workers lose their collective strength. Even when conditions in an AWA or other form of individual contract are initially better than the collective agreement, the loss of strength involved means that conditions and real wage levels will deteriorate over time. Not surprisingly, AWAs did not originally have a high take-up rate.
Collective agreements, whether union or non-union, are based on the award system, itself the result of decades of struggle by unions winning through collective strength.
AWAs are currently subject to a "no disadvantage test", meaning they should not add up to less than award conditions for the worker when converted to a monetary value. Under this "test", an employer could increase the pay rate while taking away conditions listed in the award, as long as the compensating amount was enough to cover the loss of conditions.
The Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA) has the role of checking whether an AWA meets the no disadvantage test. It has rejected a number of AWAs where the agreement was blatantly discriminatory. However, many AWAs have got through this test that have resulted in workers losing out on conditions and pay.
Howard's proposed new laws will take away this test and allow virtual open slather on conditions. Only five conditions will need to be in an AWA under the new laws — the pay rate, a 38-hour week, eight days' sick leave, four-weeks' annual leave and unpaid parental leave.
A government-appointed commission would set the minimum wage. Employers may also be able to cash in up to two weeks' annual leave, according to statements made by federal treasurer Peter Costello. The loss of penalty rates, which have been targeted by employers, would make the 38-hour week meaningless.
With any work conditions not in those five points able to legally be taken away, companies will have free rein to reduce labour costs. Some workers are already on AWAs that have taken away overtime and shift penalty rates, meaning workers doing night or weekend shifts get the same as on a weekday shift.
Public holiday penalty rates are also under threat. When incoming Family First Senator Steven Fielding voiced concerns that public holidays would not exist under the laws, he was arguing that employers could take these holidays off workers. While a boss cannot decree the end of Christmas, they could force their workers to work on a public holiday, while avoiding paying penalty rates.
It is not clear to what extent an AWA would be able to override Occupational Health and Safety provisions under Howard's new laws.
Howard claims that AWAs give workers better pay and conditions than collective agreements. The statistics tell a totally different story. In a survey recently published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, employees on collective (mainly union) agreements were 80 cents an hour better off than those on AWAs, despite managers being on six-figure salaries being included in the AWAs category.
On the OEA website, there are a number of model AWAs for employers to use. These AWAs do not, however, maintain wages and conditions. An agreement for a "paint hand" suggests an hourly rate of $17.50 to compensate for lost penalty rates. Under an enterprise agreement, a painter can earn up to $21.49 an hour, not including penalty rates and allowances!
Howard is saying that AWAs are all about choice for the worker. But the choice has been, in many cases, a choice of sign an AWA under less pay and conditions or forget about your job. This dismissal would certainly be illegal if a boss is open and honest about the reasons, but employers are using sneakier ways to get around the law.
In May this year, 18 young workers at Appaloosa Holdings, a stationary warehouse at Banksmeadow in Sydney's south-east, were told their jobs were being transferred to notoriously anti-union labour-hire firm EL Blue and they would be required to sign an AWA. They were given five days to sign.
The new agreement meant they would be put on a seven day roster and be available to be sent anywhere at any time. They would also have lost a lot of conditions. The companies refused to talk to the National Union of Workers (NUW) and on the deadline for signing the AWA, told the workers who hadn't signed not to turn up the following morning.
Workers at supermarket chain Aldi are also not being given a choice. At the Minchinbury store, when workers on AWAs that expired in March 2004 were told they had to sign new AWAs, a number were concerned at the loss of conditions in the new agreement, including no guarantee of a wage rise in the next three years. These workers were told that a refusal to sign the agreement would mean they would be locked out until they signed.
When the NUW tried to talk to the workers, including their members, management refused them entry into the store. Workers were dragged into the office individually and harassed about union membership. The shop delegate was suspended for talking to other workers about the union after the company said it refused to recognise any union delegate.
From Green Left Weekly, August 3, 2005.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.