Organised labour
Organised labour has a significant institutional presence: the broad acceptance of the importance of trade unions and the ethos of the fair go which they enshrine. One of the core reasons why the 2014 Budget was so soundly rejected was the broad acceptance in the community of these principles of fairness. This broad acceptance of the importance of unions is also evident in survey research. The 2005 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes (AuSSA) found that 88 per cent of union members believed that ‘Without trade unions, the working conditions of employees would be much worse than they are’. Among a group called ‘unrepresented workers’—those not in a union but who would like to be—the figure was slightly higher at 89 per cent. Finally, even among a group called ‘satisfied non-members’—those not in a union and not wanting to be—some 46 per cent agreed with this sentiment.747
The role of unions in the industrial relations system is multifaceted: We are advocates, we are enforcers, we are negotiators. Most importantly, and pervading all of that, we are the democratic voice of workers. This means that our goals also extend beyond those that the system is presently capable of delivering, and it is why (as regulation theory would predict) we engage in the broader political process in pursuit of reform. This can be seen in our position on labour supply issues (such as the proper regulation of temporary overseas workers) as well as labour demand issues (such as industry and innovation policy) and the socialisation of risk through the tax and transfer system.
Our role within the confines of the industrial relations system as it stands is critical, because we are fundamental to the two vehicles by which it gives effect to its central purposes: the setting of minimum standards and collectivism. Without a strong organised labour movement, policy makers are forced to devote more public resources to try and replicate what organised labour does in order to make the system appear objectively fair. A case in point is the “fairness test”, during WorkChoices - under which the Public Service was effectively asked to re-draft agreements which had been designed to be made with little or no union involvement and ascribe dollar values based on their views about what were fair trades as between labour, capital and the minimum standards. Replication of the role of organised labour is not possible (as the electoral consequences of the example bear out). This is not only because of cost, it is also because the State can never truly adopt the partisan position necessary to fully express workers’ aspirations. The legitimate role of the State’s market intervention is limited to giving effect to the first principles discussed in chapter 1 by setting the rules (such as the NES, good faith bargaining requirements and employment protections), providing the tools for the contest (such as protected action and the civil penalty framework), and supplying an independent umpire.
This is why it is so concerning to us that limits on collective action highlighted in this submission, such those that relate to protected action ballots, multi entity bargaining and the collective participation rights of contractors and labour hire workers, remain features of our system. If a balanced contest – a fair system – is what is desired, these limits must be addressed. Failing to do so amounts to placing arbitrary limits on the application of the first principles upon which the system is built, if not outright rejection of them.
ADDRESS
ACTU
365 Queen Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
PHONE
1300 486 466
WEB
actu.org.au
D No: 20/2015
Dostları ilə paylaş: |