Work Choices…about 5 years too early

I was reading with interest about the protest march in Sydney recently regarding the Work Choices legislation. Even Morris Iemma, the Premier of NSW participated (strictly for political reasons I think). He knows he is on a winner with this one. There is no doubt that there are a lot of people in Australia who feel threatened by these change to industrial relations. Unions are particularly worried about the changes as the legislation severely limits their power to call strikes etc. That was why Morris was there (Labour party man that he is).

But as for me, I’m not quite sure of the fuss really. Work Choices strips workers of some of their entitlements its true. Things like penalty rates and overtime can all be removed from Workplace agreements and Individual contracts. Employers in businesses of 100 employees or less can sack people purely for "operational reasons" and are immune from the unfair dismissal laws (apart from discrimination in regards to age, sex, sexual orientation etc). All potentially look bad for the worker on paper.

As an IT worker for the last 9 or so years, I have been governed by a Workplace Agreement for most of that time for my conditions. I have always had to negotiate pay rises and conditions with my employer, and have had no problems doing so. I have also had to deal with the potential bogeyman of sub continent out sourcing of my work. Some will say I have been lucky so far in still having a job. But I have never needed a union, nor felt the lack of one. I believe my skills and experience speak for themselves.

And unfortunately the nature of Unions has changed dramatically. Since the basic rights of the worker have been enshrined in law, they have been more committed to political activism than protecting the worker. Where is the Union fight for maternity Leave and Paternity Leave? Where is the work/life balance fight? Most of these initiatives have come from business themselves rather than any protracted Union fight. You are more likely to see the ACTU at an environmental rally than a fight for women’s pay equality.

An argument for unions is that in jobs where huge amounts of skills are not required, union power is the only power available. A person manning a checkout in a department store has a lot less clout at the negotiating table than an I.T professional. And it is a valid argument. Still, no one wants to be a checkout person all his or her life. This is a time where skills are the most important part of employment. If you don’t have them, you have go and get them.

But from an economic viewpoint, I think the reason for the legislation is due to employee shortages and the aging of the workforce. Businesses know that soon they will have to compete heavily for the best and most skilled workers (especially if they want younger workers). This will mean that the power will be with employee rather than the employer. What John Howard (the Prime Minister) and his business cronies want is to level the playing field a little, maybe a little earlier than they had to. If employers can sack workers for operational reasons and reduce pay and overtime, they believe that this will keep employees in check and keep a lid on workers demands for pay rises, even as their potential value to business increases.

Howard is a master opportunist. I believe he thought that these changes had to go in at some stage in the near future, and decided that it would be easier to do so while the Federal Coalition had control over both houses of parliament. It is a fairly good idea. When you are strong, do the unpopular things.

And it is not just employers who benefit. While employee wages will go up under Work Choices (due to the increased value of the employee), they will not go up exorbitantly (as they might have under the existing awards). Wages under control = inflation under control. If inflation is under control, so are interest rates (as the Reserve Bank wants low inflation above all else). Also, if labour costs are under control, the prices of goods and services will also be fairly static. Which is good for the consumer. Ie You and me.

The government governs for all, including business. Just because a policy is pro-industry, does not mean it is bad for the worker. A good economy with high employment, low prices for goods, benefits us all.