Workers Rights, Employment Relations - Assignment Example

Name Institution Professor Course Date Introduction Introduction of developments by Australian conservative Government has raised arguments on the impact the same has had on society as a whole but more particularly on employment. Supporters of the reforms have portrayed optimism such that they have associated the remarkable economic changes to it. On the other hand, the opponents tend to argue otherwise as they have actually declared the said reforms as having delayed developments especially in terms of greatly diminishing power held by labour unions (Hartman, 2005). In order to comprehend the two sides of arguments, it is important to understand what exactly the policies of ‘Work Choices’ are as well as the resultant reforms. As a matter of fact, ‘Work Choices’ came up as a modification of an earlier formulated Act designed for workplace relations. This Act was in itself put forth with the sole intention of working against labour unions such that their operational powers were greatly reduced as workers rights became restricted accordingly. In this case, it is very clear reforms were tailored made in order to favour employers and adversely affect workers (Henman, 2002). Discussion of argument that the reforms of ‘Work Choices’ actually reflected powerful changes in Australian society or have tried to turn back the clock to a time long past According to (Woodward, 2005), the government in its support of reforms supported by Work Choices assures provision of an operational system that is fairer in nature as compared to the former labour Act. In addition to this, the government also identifies Work Choices capability to positively impact the manner in which workers relate to their employers. This reinforced relation is to be characterized by considerably increased cooperation in decision making matters and is in turn expected to result to even stronger economic developments. With this respect, opponents of this amended labour Act aimed at improving work relations have argued that the government have only provided the theory part of these reforms but have failed in provision of directives through which to achieve and uphold the mentioned productivity (Landt & Pech, 2000). It is therefore necessary to consider the impact Work Choices has had on rights upheld by workers as well as on the newly formulated employment agreement. Work Choices coverage This particular Act that was passed in 2005 December is now recognised for its interest in zeroing in the influence of corporations as provisioned by the constitution. In this case, a particular category of employers automatically qualifies and are covered by the newly formulated industrial relations arrangement. This category of employers includes those that have considerably significant financial activities and this by its own qualifies them to be termed as constitutional corporations. Other parties that fit in this category are workers as well as employers that are commonwealth members and its associated authorities. On other hand, there are is a group of workers that are very unfortunate to be excluded in considerably benefiting from the Act including persons working in businesses that are more or less unincorporated, the sole proprietors and partnerships as well as employees of state government. From the observation of required aspects of qualifications, it is very clear that a large number of Australians are left out in benefiting from the Act. It is therefore estimated that at least 85% of employees are directly impacted and are now suffering the consequences particularly related to the impact the Act has had on their unions. Workers’ Rights Supporters of the Act have common interests among the most popular ones being economic development and reinforcement of companies’ bargaining power. The argument is in this case based in the notion that the new Act enables implementation of a co-operative perspective that is expected to work best for employers and their workers. The main aspects of consideration are flexibility and the right of choice for both parties whereby they are expected to find a middle ground that work fairly for them. However, contrary to the expectations of majority of Australian workers’ the act has turned out to weaken their bargaining position. This is better explained by the consideration that laws that previously protected employees were removed to pave way for unfavourable ones. Such laws include aspects that discouraged unfair dismissal taking place in companies with employees that do not exceed one hundred persons. In addition to this, the Act provisions’ are found to considerably reduce power initially found in organised labour. The new Act puts forth restrictions towards union rights associated with workplace entry, business decision making and in the very critical arrangement that collectively joins them in industrial strikes as they fight for their rights. In return Australian government have come up with a more or less similar agreement designed for Australian Workplace per say well known as AWA. In accordance to the government, this particular agreement prospect is mainly to ensure execution of fair as well as functional dynamics to Australian workplaces and therefore expects workers to cease their unions’ membership to join AWA (Pusey, 2003). Employment Relations The newly passed Act greatly impacts on employment contract such that AWA has been considerably empowered in terms of its decision making regarding industrial action. In this respect, contrary to the previous employment contract, AWA in conjunction with employment Advocate Organization otherwise known as OEA is not subject to approval in its operations therefore making it operational from the very day of its initiation. Moreover, AWA is not subject to no-disadvantage check or test also known as NDT together with its provisions. Application of these exemptions within Australian workplace has seen AWA’s position considerably empowered such that the only agreements that it does not overrule are those operating multi-businesses. These workplace agreement in designed in such a manner that they involve a number of employers whereby their approval by OEA is regulated by its placing by public interest assessment. However although this may be seen as a means of escape from the unfavourable conditions laid down by AWA, a considerably good section of employees have had a chance to benefit from this particular agreement. The argument is that OEA does not honour its part of agreement with regard to its commitment to offering required protection to employees since it fails to make systematic assessments of their agreement against those of public interest assessment. The government in support of the newly formulated employment contract argues that it provides a better and manageable platform of controlling industrial action hence making it easy to improve on economic development. However, it has resulted to adverse effects including sideling of awards which has been replaced by Australian remuneration and Classification gauge also known as APCS. This new kind of scaling has introduced a new standard coined as ‘fair pay’ whereby workers are entirely authorized by their AWAs. In this kind of remuneration standard, a good number of workers are left without a suitable classification scale whereby those employees under Work Choices tend to only enjoy minimum wage as stipulated by federal government. Work Reforms In line with the new Act of Work Choices, Australian Government has been found to disseminate critical information in support of its mandate towards considerable implementation of the new workplace policies. It has put forth and categorised policies in five main reform components including payments. Australian Government has shown interest in formulating some tailor-made payment categories namely Newstart primary as well as Incapacitated whereby single parents with their youngest child (ren) having attained eight years as well as the physically challenged applying after 1st July 2006. The new payment policy is expected to include unemployment remuneration that offers consideration of additional allowances as well as supplements. Among the proposed benefits as attached to the new payment policy include pharmaceutical allowances as well as transport allowances and pensioner Card. An estimate of about 20% of persons applying for pension reversed for physically challenged otherwise known as DSP will benefit from Newstart Incapacitated. However, although the general outlook of the provision seems like a better offer to Australian society the government if found to considerably increase its savings. On other hand, the criteria for DSP membership have also become more rigorous as compared to its earlier indications. Newstart’s income test is expected to be characterised by some higher level of generosity in terms of fortnight earning prior to reductions of amounts earned above the set standard. Newstart beneficiaries are currently allowed to make an earning of at least sixty two dollars in every fortnight prior to their benefits reductions. However, even with the new standards, sole parents tend not to benefit as expected as they foresee their earnings subject to reductions in terms of their private earnings allowed prior to extra income reductions. In this respect, comparing the functional payment for Parenting to newly formulated Newstart plan, there is an estimated difference of about forty five dollars in every fortnight. It therefore would be rational to put forth an assumption that this income plan will eventually increase government saving considerably. Obligations forms the second reform components characteristic of Australian government Act well known as ‘Work Choices’. This particular element in itself is expected to offer extension to the standard of mutual obligation particularly to single parents with their youngest child (ren) above six years old. The extended obligation principle is also expected to incorporate persons with Newstart Incapacitated membership particularly those who are in a position to work between fifteen and twenty nine hours weekly. Compliance forms the third reform policy element and it has been utilised by Australian government to denote a penalty arrangement that is designed to ‘discipline’ welfare beneficiaries for the infringements. In this particular case, the government have found it in order to replace the previously used term ‘breaching’ with one that is more or less lenient; ‘suspension’. In the new reform policy, payment of persons that fail to show up for interviews is to be suspended in contrary to the previous practice whereby their payment was withheld for a consideration period. The suspended payments are then expected to be reinstated once the candidate complies accordingly. Services expansion form the forth element for Work choices reforms. Australian government strategy regarding economic development in relation to “Work Choices” plans to add to its funding dedicated towards Job Network. In this case, there will be concentration in increasing positions for new services which will in turn provide jobs to a considerably good number of jobseekers. There is an estimated twenty thousand positions to be availed within disability employment sector and an additional forty one thousand rehabilitation positions. Other areas expected to benefit from the anticipated government funding include vocational education that are to be increased by about twelve thousand positions. Literacy programs are also benefiting from the same funding with at least three thousand more positions to be provisioned. Australian Government depicts this as an avenue for expanding the workforce, empowering its citizens financially as well as eventually increasing its revenue through taxation. In the endeavours to offer contribution in the overall social economic development, Australian Government plans to dedicate at least forty one million dollars towards the expansion of subsidisation of wages as well as adjustment of workplace related systems. In addition to funding, the government also plans to engage itself in campaign directed towards inspiring employers to make considerations particularly in hiring persons who are physically challenged. Application of reforms in Work Choices support The government having put forth its well formulated strategies, it expects Australian Society to benefit from what it regards as ‘fair’ remuneration. This kind of remuneration package comes with a set standard of conditions that the government argues is as a result of agreement between workers and their employers. Employers from substantial businesses as well as corporations have shown considerable support to the fore mentioned reforms. For instance, Australian Industrial Chamber has been found to come out clearly and openly to applaud the government policies. However, these corporations have taken this as a good basis for what they would call future plans to increase their profits accordingly during Howard government operation. As a matter of fact, these employers have shown interest in wanting to pressurize the government regarding sheer abolition of right upheld by workers in remedying unfair dismissal. In addition to these, employers would prefer a situation where workers have no right to get annual leave for the full four weeks. In this case, the government have increased its level of cooperation with employers as their main objective is to get back up for their policies. The argument Australian government has is that as much as Work Choices program may seem unpopular with a large number of workers, it a well-founded assurance for future social economic prosperity for the entire country. In this case, it implies that although the provisioned workplace conditions might seem a bit rigid they still form a proper package whereby basic conditions are legally protected. However, even with the corporations support, the government is convinced that it also requires workers to have faith in these policies and have therefore become rigorous in its campaigns directed to selling the policies in order to convince citizens that all will be well if not now in future (Wolters, 2009). Welfare reform correlation with Work Choices Gramberg (2006) asserts that, in order to get a proper understanding of the consequences of aforementioned reforms, it is necessary to consider the manner in which the Act relates to reforms. It occurs that these two legislation provisions come together once an individual leaves employment for whatever reasons. In such a case, where one fails to secure employment they would regard as suitable as well as fair considering the remuneration, application to CentreLink for sustenance becomes the only viable option as they still seek for their desired jobs. It is critical to have in mind that Work Choices provisions do not allow workers the choice of awards to that offered by AWA. On the contrary workers are limited to choice of accepting or declining the offer which is in this case in favour of employer’s terms. In addition to these tough conditions, the jobseeker has to be well versed with the consequences of receiving a dismissal from their employers particularly for misconduct as this comes with its share of suffering in terms of non-payment for at least eight weeks. In this case the said job seeker is expected to accept what the government describes as ‘suitable work’. It is important to note that it is also the government not the jobseeker that has the mandate of describing what ‘suitable work’ entails in this particular job. Therefore, the amended workplace Act is now found to describe work that is unsuitable as that which does not meet provisioned minimum conditions as per the Australian considerable fair remuneration standards (Varma, 2008). An explanation of these workplace definitions is that employment of whatever form can be offered to qualified jobseekers and they should accept if it at least meets what legislation has put forth as minimum conditions. However, any objection on the part of jobseekers is followed by the mentioned payment suspension. Legislative interface implications Legislative implications are in this case best explained in terms of the impact Work Choices provisions have on entire labour market as well as in identity of directly and indirectly affected parties. (Oorschot, 2008) implies that labour market effects as expected from the reforms are astounding having in mind that is has been made legal for one to work for at least twelve dollars per hour with the agony of minimal income. This negative impact definitely passes for objection of reforms put forth by ‘Work Choices’ as this by itself is more or less found to result to some considerable level of economic stagnation particularly labour market. Australians will now find it difficult to leave their jobs without surety of their next move even when their current positions do not offer them their expected level of satisfaction. This kind of sacrifice is aimed at preserving their already existing payment conditions since they are clearly not assured of even the basic pay of income support in case they decline positions offered thereafter (Schneider, 2010). According to (Arup, 2006), employment term reconstruction is a very important point that requires proper understanding in relation to the provisioned reforms. It is in this case very clear that the subject is to be redefined in order to fit in that which is considered ‘suitable work’. Currently, employment have attained a new description as work varies from paid casual, fulltime to voluntary work also inclusive of taking care of dependants. In this case while workers find it very undesirable, the government argues that its objective is to discourage the earlier assumption of job done full time as the ideal employment and on the other hand encourage part time workers as they are now covered by Workplace Act (Keating, 2000). Unions’ disempowerment is also a critical legislative implication and it has been used mostly by non-supporters of the amended workplace Act. This is because Work Choices has been considered as a dangerous weapon utilised by the government in weakening these unions’ efficiency in their capability to protect their members rights pertaining the remuneration as well as healthy working conditions (Heery, 2008). The disempowerment of unions is implemented more or less indirectly in such a way that workers are not banned from becoming members but the limitations accorded existing unions renders the entire membership meaningless. Currently, unions’ agreements are only to be negotiated with respect to Work Choices provisions and for members only (Stewart, 2009). Conclusion Considering understanding of amended Workplace Act well known as work Choices, it is possible to come up with informed conclusions of the support as well as objection the same has cultivated. As earlier mentioned Work Choices policies as well as reforms have not favoured workers and their employers in a more or less similar manner (Hollier, 2000). Employers particularly those of substantial corporations have been considerably favoured by the reforms as they are accorded greater mandate towards formulating payment conditions. On the other hand, workers are left with limited choices of workplace conditions as they are even ‘disciplined’ for declining offers that are thereby defined as ‘suitable employment’. According to (Craven, 2003), the government has shown support of its reforms by terming them as means through which to attain simplified governance arrangement and in turn provisioning greater individual choice. However, the said new arrangements have turned out to be considerably complicated as well as rigid for individuals. In this respect, negotiation power has suffered great limitation especially with consideration of the workers unions’ disempowerment whereby employees are now not in a position to air their views as strongly as they previously did and in unison (Sharpe, 2008). The government is therefore considered to be formulating policies without having proper considerations and research. This level of unpreparedness by the government have resulted to some level of uncertainty making it difficult for citizens to have faith in the eventuality of provisioned policies thereby cultivating minimal support by employees (Leira, 2002). References Briggs, C., & Buchanan, J. (2005). Work, Commerce and the Law: A New Australian Model? Australian Economic Review, 38(2), 182-191. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 8462.2005.00365.x Carr, B. (2005). The things Australia got right. Parliamentarian, 86(2), 9-11. Gollan, P. J. (2009). Australian industrial relations reform in perspective: Beyond work choices and future prospects under the Fair Work Act 2009. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 47(3), 260-269. Doi: 10.1177/1038411109106858, Gupta, R. (2003). Pension Reforms in India: Unresolved Issues and Policy Choices. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 28(1), 11. Hall, R. (2008). The Politics of Industrial Relations in Australia in 2007. Journal of Industrial Relations, 50(3), 371-382. Henman, P. (2002). ‘Deconstructing welfare dependency: The case of Australian welfare Hollier, N. (2000). Ruling Australia: The Power, Privilege & Politics of the New Ruling Class. Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing July, Sydney. Keating, P. (2000). Engagement: Australia Faces the Asia-Pacific. Sydney: Macmillan Kramp, O. (2009). Minimum Wage Legislation in Australia. NY: GRIN Verlag Larsen, C. (2008). The political logic of labour market reforms and popular images of target groups. Journal of European Social Policy, 18(1), 50-63. Leira. A. (2002). Working Parents and the Welfare State: Family Change and Policy Reform in Scandinavia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liou, K., & Korosec, R. (2009). Implementing organizational reform strategies in state governments. Public Administration Quarterly, 33(3), 429-452. Lyons, M., & Smith, M. (2008). Gender pay equity, wage fixation and industrial relations reform in Australia: One step forward and two steps backwards? Employee Relations, 30(1), 4-19. Macali, L. (2006). Contemporary Disability Employment Policy in Australia: How Can It Best Support Transitions from Welfare to Work? Australian Bulletin of Labour, 32(3), 227-239. McClelland, A. (2002). Mutual obligation and the welfare responsibilities of government. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 37(3), 209-224. Oorschot, W. (2008). Culture and Welfare State: Values and Social Policy in Comparative Perspective. NY: Edward Elgar Publishing Piracha, A. (2010). The NSW (Australia) Planning Reforms and their Implications for Planning Education and Natural and Built Environment. Local Economy (Routledge), 25(3), 240-250. Doi: 10.1080/02690941003784291 Schneider, B. (2010). Workplace Flexibility: Realigning 20th-Century Jobs for a 21st- Century Workforce. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Sharpe, M. (2008). The Times Will Suit Them: Postmodern Conservatism in Australia. UK: Allen & Unwin, Shi, E. (2008). Redundancy pay in Australia-- before and after work choices. Labor Law Journal, 59(1), 47-68. Smyth, P. (2008). Closing the Gap? The Role of Wage, Welfare and Industry Policy in Promoting Social Inclusion. Journal of Industrial Relations, 50(4), 647-663. Steane, P. (2008). Public Management Reforms in Australia and New Zealand. Public Management Review, 10(4), 453-465. Doi: 10.1080/14719030802263863 Varma, A. (2008). Global Performance Management: A Global Perspective. Melbourne: Taylor & Francis Wolters, R. (2009). The Labor Relations Process. NY: Cengage Learning Woodward, D. (2005). Australia Unsettled: The Legacy of ‘Neo-liberalism’. Sydney: Pearson Education Australia Read More