Work Choices and Forward with Fairness Industrial Relations Policies - Essay Example

Name : xxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxx Title : EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS Tutor : xxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxx @2009 Work Choices and Forward with Fairness industrial relations policies. Introduction With the changing working conditions all over the world it is then necessary to put in place policies that regulate the work places and regulations. It should be understood that various policies and regulations play a vital role in the work choices made. Every worker desires to have job security, good working conditions and better pay .Somehow the dynamic altering labour market dictates the employment relations in most of the sectors. Governments influence the laws that govern the employment relations in any labour market. It is therefore necessary for any policy making entity to consider the consolidation of government bodies and the constitution. Work choices need not only consider the needs of the employer but also those of the employees. This is for the reason that most of the time employees are prone to be on the receiving end where they lack the power to control their work eventualities, while the employers are advantaged in terms of decision making. Various policies thereby come in handy in establishing an environment that is conducive for both of the parties. Work choices play a major role in promoting harmony between the two parties. It should be noted that in every labour market there are labour unions that are mainly for the needs of the employees and the employers (Balnave 2009). It should be noted that the Australian government has made efforts on the employment relations in terms of the act on work choices. Though the constitutional part of the Australian government seems to be a bit exclusive; it really does not include issues that deal with employment relations as directly and sternly as it should. It thus becomes challenging for the policy making bodies to bring the two main bodies involved in employment to an agreement of complicated matters. The work choices act may also be a bit complex to understand for the people who are not literate or informed in terms of employment relations and certain policies and regulations. It is somehow logical if matters related to the labour and employment relations were left to the employer and the employee, but it also comes out that it is necessary for the existence of an outside party to over look their relationships (Waring 2006). In relation to work choices and the fairness and forward employment policies it should be said that the work choices mainly focus on issues affecting the employees and their employers. The work choices therefore look at the work place with an intention of offering a bargaining platform for both parties. The work choices thereby advocate for protection of the public interests and deal with any industrial action. It should however be noted that even if there exists phrases that are regulatory in nature, the same phrases contain clauses that are a little bit contradictory. For instance in a case where the regulation promotes involvement in employment relations in a work place , while at the same time it advocates for free arrangements between the parties. This thereby breaks the essence of regulations in cases of such loopholes. The Work Choices Act entails issues such as public interests (Michelson 2006). Public interests in relation to industrial and work relations involves taking of permissible industrial action and at the same time making an effort of protecting the public from the action. Similarly, it should be noted that the legislation mainly works at championing the rights of the interior parties involved directly in the work place. The work choices act should be viewed as rhetoric in the sense that while on one hand it advocates for the rights of the main parties involved in a work environment it also on the other hand deals with the rights of the ‘outsiders’. A policy which is for the idea of ‘insiders’ making their own judgements in relation to the work environment is somehow contrary to the one that stands for the idea of helping the ‘outsiders’ ; the general public . The needs of the general public mainly call for regulations by third parties. Based on the conflict of interests between the ‘insiders’ and the ‘outsiders the Work Choices Act somehow becomes very long and hectic. The work choices act mainly makes up Australia’s regulations in relation to industrial relations. The Act of Work Choices mainly involves the differentiation of the agreements made between the various parties involved in the employment relations both in the work area and outside. The agreements are mainly Australian work based agreements, collective non-union employee agreements, collective union agreements, Greenfield employer agreements and Greenfield union agreements (Balnave 2009). The Australian Workplace Agreement mainly involves an agreement made between the employer and an individual employee. While on the other hand a Greenfield agreement is mainly prepared by a new business. A union Greenfield can be defined as an agreement that involves consultation with unions, while for the side of the employer the Greenfield agreement involves the agreement with oneself; the employer makes an agreement with himself. The Act states that any agreement should be made before employment of an individual who will be subject to such an agreement. It should be noted that when an employer makes an agreement with himself there is a likelihood of him defying the norms of reason accepted by a society. It should be understood that under the Australian constitution, it is not allowed for workers to carry out an industrial action during the course of an agreement. This thereby acts a disadvantage in case the agreement is unfair on the employee. It should be noted that, though the legal part of the constitution protects the ‘outsiders’ it on the other hand over looks the needs and problems faced by a section of the ‘insiders’. The Act is thus not fully fair on the part of the employees. The employee can thus be said to be the person suppressed and harshly subjected to the agreements this is because the employee is most of the time left with no choice but to abide by the rules and regulations. It is also evident that it is somehow hard for the employees to seek a platform for negotiations during the term of an agreement. In a situation where one party determines the conditions of employment, for instance where the employer makes the agreement conditions this gives him the upper hand on the negotiation platform hence disadvantaging the other party involved in the agreement. The AWA is made up of a chain of command of industrial bodies; the AWA comes first above the other agreements. The Australian Act’s performance is mainly pegged to the Australian constitution corporations’ power instead of the arbitration power and conciliation which since the ancient times has been the foundation of the federal employment relations legislations. The Act helps the federal government to work with the systems of the state industrial relations in reducing the role and the importance of the AIRC (Michelson 2006). The responsibility of the AIRC is thereby taken up by the AFPC. As per the prime minister the Act is mainly meant to encourage the ‘insiders’ to take responsibility in coming up with employment conditions and at the same time determine wages by themselves. A contradiction comes up when the concerns of the ‘outsiders’ are brought up; this comes about from the legislation which qualifies the behaviour and activities of the ‘insiders’. The Act therefore gives restrictions on both the manner in which negotiations are carried out and the content in consideration. The Act’s provisions are mainly in support of the employers this is evident by the fact that they are given the authority to determine the employment conditions and the wages. Based on this complex legislation system it clearly comes out that there is tension between the ‘outsiders’ and the ‘insiders’ this can be solved by the Australian government considering reforms in terms of the employment relations (Mark 2009). The reforms will be meant to bring about fairness to all the parties involved. Any government should understand that the parties involved in the labour market have different needs therefore the need for laws and regulations that cater for the needs of each party. Issues such as competition premiums and worker premiums and working conditions should be seriously addressed. It should be realized that the state has a major role to play in the development of employment relations of its people. It is the states role to promote and diffuse labour ideas and activities so as to make changes in the labour market. The government should consider shaping the labour sector by the use of the arbitral system and through the fostering of modernized labour practices this is by the use of a variety of activities in government departments. The government should consider the private sector as a creative and innovative employer by the fact that they promote productivity and efficiency in the labour market. Since the Act is mainly empowers the federal government it should consider using the power in internal affairs which include industrial relations for the purpose of success in the labour market. Since as per the Act the state enjoys the privilege of making the AIRC perform anything it desires, the state should therefore use the privilege effectively by addressing the needs of the ‘outsiders’ and the ‘insiders’ in relation to the workplace and the agreements (Flemin 2004). The Act works at abolishing the industrial relations of the state but on the other hand it advocates for the continuation of the legislation of the state which encompasses issues such as workers compensation, leaves and holidays (Belnave, Brown, Maconachie, & Stone 2002). By the Act abolishing the systems of the state the Act entails plans that involve the state workers and federal workers. The Act does not include workers who are in the informal sector such as business men, sole traders and farmers. The being of the non corporate employees has an implication that the state has a responsibility of maintaining the industrial relations of the state. The Act also plays the role of determining the conditions and minimum terms of employment. The work choices included in the Act include: annual leave, parental leave, casual loadings, basic pay and maximum working hours. Policies should consider the various needs of the workers, the needs such as reasonable minimum wages and consideration of economic factors such as inflation and productivity. The state should also consider achieving a greater level of employment so as to meet the needs of the ‘outsiders’. The AIRC also works at determining other matters that affect employees the matters include: rest breaks, incentives, monetary allowances, penalty rates and outworker conditions (Lansbury 2002). The aspect of making agreement mainly involves the employers and employees making decisions at the workplace on their own. The reforms on agreement making mainly focus on facilitating and promoting plans on work relations at the work place. The government emphasizes on the freedom and non rigidity in the workplace so as the employees and the employers get to have a plat form for negotiation on various matters of concern (Belnave, Brown, Maconachie, & Stone 2002). The Act is considered to be offering a favourable work place that allows the involved parties to have the freedom of choice such that the employer and the employee can decide what is best for each of them. The aspect of employer and employee freedom in decision making is mainly based on the assumptions that there is an existence of bargaining power between the negotiating parties and the fact that there is no need for intrusion by an outside party. Though from another angle on the issue of the freedom of the parties involved in the workplace comes out n a complex way based on the fact that the employer tends to have more power than the employee who is subjected to ideas of the employer (Cole 2007). The constitution somehow works at protecting the employee by offering regulations that safeguard them from their employers. For instance the section (123) asks the employer respect his obligations to the employee for a time period of twelve months in case of a transfer of business to another person. On the other hand the employers are allowed to end an employee’s working term based on genuine reasons. Section (112(5 C) specifies the reasons that are considered to be genuine in the Australian government. The reasons may include: technological, economical, structural or any other reasons that are based on the nature of the employer’s entity. A person is allowed to end a collective agreement after the agreement has expired and after giving a notice of ninety days to the other parties involved in the agreement. If the employer intends to end the agreement without the consent of the employees as per the terms of the employment contract then the conditions and terms are replaced or the case is taken up by the AFPCS, this is as per section (103 M) of the Australian constitution (Rose 2004). On the other hand the fairness legislation considers employment agreements that are individualised and transitional. It should also be understood that agreements are not the only regulating entities in influencing the relationships at the place of work. The collective union agreements offer the highest wages. While the work choices established a plan of setting a fixed wage, the fairness legislation considers the offering of reasonable salaries which are reasonable for both the employer and the employee; the fairness legislation thereby comes out as the best option. The fairness legislation considers the enacting of regulations that encourage negotiation of working conditions (Lansbury & Kitay 1997). The fairness legislation made reforms that looked at almost most of the issues that affected all the parties involved. The reforms included: a better system of setting the lowest wages, introduction of fair pay and standard conditions to help the workers during the bargaining process. The issue of the simplification of the process of making the agreements was also addressed. Conclusion It can be concluded that the fairness legislation addressed most of the needs of the parties involved in the labour market in relation to the work choices Act. This is as per the considerations, regulation and recommendations made by both of the sides, in that the fairness legislation does not favour one side while disadvantaging the other. Bibliography Balnave, N., 2009, Employment relations in Australia, Austria, John Wiley & Sons Australia. Belnave, N, Brown, J, Maconachie, G & Stone, R., 2002, forthcoming, Employment relations in Australia, 2nd edn, Wiley, Brisbane. Cole, K., 2007, Workplace relations in Australia, Pearson, Frenchs Forest. Flemin, L., 2004, Excel HSC Business Studies, Pascal Press, Birmingham. Rose, E., 2004, Employment relations Financial Times, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Lansbury R. & Kitay J., 1997, Changing employment relations in Australia. Oxford University Press, London. Lansbury, R. D., 2002, Working futures: the changing nature of work and employment. The Federation Press. Minnesota. Mark, B., 2009, Advances Aust Employment Relations, McGraw-Hill Australia, Austria. Michelson, G., 2006, Rethinking work: time, space and discourse. United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press. Waring, P. A., 2006, Evolving Employment Relations: Industry Studies from Australia. McGraw-Hill Australia, New Jersey. Read More