The Guardian 5 April, 2006
IR laws:
bosses prepare for class war
From now on, there "can be no doubt employers will be in a better bargaining position", Spiro Mellos, a partner in the commercial law firm Baker & McKenzie told an Employers’ Forum in Sydney on March 28. And just in case his audience had not heard the first time, he made the point again: in the longer term the Howard Government’s WorkChoices legislation "will put employers in a far stronger bargaining position". What Mellos and other employers had to say about the legislation is in sharp contrast to the line from the Howard Government that the new laws are "fairer" and "provide better balance in the workplace".
The Employers’ Forum, titled "Ensuring Compliance and Managing Change in the Workplace", was organised by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA), one of Australia’s leading right-wing think tanks that brings together government representatives, employers and academics.
Over 150 employer representatives, many of them human relations or personnel officers, were there to learn "how to successfully implement compliance, avoid potential disputes/conflict and successfully manage transition to the new IR framework". In other words, how they could use the Howard Government’s new laws to exploit labour to their best advantage.
Participants heard a range of approaches from senior management at Boral, Westpac, Optus, Qantas and the Australian Industry Group — representing manufacturing employers. They were joined by the Employment Advocate Peter McIlwain (Office of Employment Advocate) and Jonathan Hamberger (former Employment Advocate), now Senior Deputy President of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
Nigel Ward, General Manager Employee Relations with the Boral Group, also confirmed Mellos’s assessment: WorkChoices means a "more pro-employer bargaining cycle" and gives the company an opportunity to look at contracting out. Boral has 500 operating sites in Australia and 11,000 employees and is largely unionised.
According to Ward, Boral signed off on contracts prior to the legislation being passed, preferring to be a "fast follower than a trail blazer", not wishing his company to be part of "horrendous news items". He spoke of the passivity of the unions so far and in the future a swing towards individual bargaining and growth in the use of common law jurisdiction.
Boral reflects the thinking of a number of larger businesses that wish to keep out of the limelight and see the changes introduced gradually to the point where they become irreversible.
Westpac on the other hand, when it saw the changes coming, called off its enterprise bargaining negotiations; clearly preferring to negotiate in the new environment.
Paul Leaver, General Manager of Employment Relations at Optus, said his company has acted aggressively against trade unions since it was set up in 1994. "We have a non-industrialised workplace … low rate of unionisation. It works", Leaver said, proudly. "It’s one that I will fight very hard to maintain."
Optus saw the changes coming, too, and started to push them through before the legislation was up and running, to be "ahead of the game". He spoke about moving aggressively, gaining a 12-page agreement which says "the company can do what it wishes". "Very nice", he said. "Really, the document allows almost anything to be done."
Optus, which has promoted a "Yes", "trust us" culture with its workforce, has one agreement for 7,000 people and will be looking at the imposition of AWAs (Australian Workplace Agreements — the Government’s individual employment contracts).
When questioned about his reference to horrendous news items, the Boral speaker said he expected to see "horror stories" as some employers took advantage of the new laws. This could include people being "displaced from jobs" or "quietly convinced" to sign new, less generous agreements, he said.
These horror stories have been coming thick and fast.
And while many employers cannot wait to use the new laws, it seems that a number of the larger corporations are not in a rush to maximise the full potential of the legislation. They are soberly considering the political situation, the impact of the ACTU’s media campaign and do not want to risk any setbacks until they are confident they can go on the offensive against their workers with impunity. They have clearly been unnerved by the accusations in the ACTU TV ads warning that workers will lose pay, conditions and jobs under the new regime.
They also have their eyes on the next round of legislation and the stripping, merging and rationalisation of awards to come later this year.
For examples of how workers are being "displaced from jobs" or "quietly convinced" to sign less generous agreements,
WorkChoices: Week 1
"Your services are no longer required ... "
"I had a job where I could walk to work…" said Walke, a widow with 20 years service at a doctors’ practice in Moorebank, Sydney’s west. "I wanted to talk to the employer but I didn’t even get the opportunity. I was given the new conditions on Wednesday and, about 12.15 today [Thursday March 30] I was sacked by the office manager."
The doctors had waited until the new legislation was in force to drop new, non-negotiated terms of employment on three receptionists. They were insisting that Walke make herself available for duties at their Cabramatta operation. No way could she walk there, nor could she drive there — she shared a car with her TAFE-student daughter.
"I feel I have been unfairly dismissed because I have done nothing wrong. Why should all my conditions change, after 20 years, without any discussion?" A week earlier, and her union could have challenged her sacking under unfair dismissal legislation.
Emily Connor was sacked Wednesday last week from her job at the Blinky Bill Early Childhood Centre in Gowrie. Emily was just called in by her employer for a meeting and told: "Your services are no longer required and you have ten minutes to leave the premises." She had worked at the centre for nearly five years and is a sole parent with an 18-month-old child. She was given no warning, no reasons and has no right of appeal under the new laws.
When Emily asked to finish her shift and be able to farewell the children she was refused. Instead, the boss threatened to bring in the police if she did not leave. Her boss refused to allow her to have union representation at the meeting.
Do more for less
This week 29 workers at the Cowra Abattoir in NSW were sacked. They will be paid their legal entitlements and invited to re-apply for 20 (not 29) jobs on new individual contracts that involve pay cuts of up to $180 a week and the loss of current performance bonuses.
Some had worked for the company for more than 12 years. They were handed a letter simply stating: "your services are no longer required" and "consequently you are terminated forthwith".
The 20 who are re-employed will have to increase their workload by almost 50 per cent, and for their effort will be paid up to $180 a week less!
Who knows what else will be in their contracts — they will be secret with severe penalties for anyone revealing their contents.
A hotel house-keeper on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast was sacked from her full-time job at Ramada Pelican Waters at Caloundra and put on the hotel’s roster as a casual.
Two photo-lab workers in Sydney and told to leave at the end of their shift.
A catering manager was sacked from a sports club in regional Tasmania after ten years service on the Monday morning (March 27), just hours after the new IR laws came into operation.
And so the list continues, as employers test the boundaries of the new legislation and use it to heighten their exploitation of workers.
Impact on workers
Why were these workers so brutally sacked?
In the case of the abattoirs it appears pretty obvious that the employer is doing what corporations and governments call "increasing productivity and efficiency" — two workers doing the work of three, and being paid less for their extra effort. A classic method of increasing profits, inherent to the capitalist system!
The employer has set up a neat scenario to have workers competing with each other for too few jobs. Being in rural Australia, there are few alternative opportunities for employment.
The abattoir case has proved rather embarrassing for the government. But what about the many other similar cases that don’t make the news, where perhaps there is not a union delegate to report it to a union or workers are too scared to say anything?
Why was the hotel employee sacked and placed on a roster as a casual? It is not difficult to find possible reasons: reduce wages, avoid paying sick leave and annual leave, make her compete for work with other workers in a race to the bottom, create a climate of intimidation with total control over what hours (if any) are worked. No work, no pay!
As for some of the other examples we can only speculate as to why:
A cheaper, less qualified or less senior worker?
Reduce wages and conditions by simply replacing a worker on an award or enterprise agreement by someone on the minimum wage and legislated conditions?
De-unionise the workplace?
Younger more sexy looking receptionist?
The worker has had an injury?
Just don’t like the worker on purely personal grounds?
The worker takes a day a month off with menstrual problems?
The worker refused to work unpaid overtime?
Racial or religious grounds?
Discovers an employee is gay?
There is no requirement in a workplace with 100 or fewer employees for any reason to be given. There is no right of appeal as before. The only avenue open is through the costly, time-consuming and uncertain court system or through the various equal opportunity bodies.
On paper there is protection against sacking or discrimination on a number of grounds such as union membership, race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. In practice, if the employer says nothing, or in workplaces of more than 100 employees claims "operational" reasons, then it becomes extremely difficult for workers to access those legislative rights.
Impact beyond workers
The impact of the new laws extends far beyond the workers. Loss of income, job insecurity, long unpredictable hours or the loss of a job take their toll on families and local communities as well as the worker directly involved. The morale and health of workers suffer.
Children are victims. Who is going to pick them up after school? Can the childcare centre accept your child at a few hours notice with no certainty as to when the child will be collected? Loss of income places financial stress on families; children have to go without. It becomes impossible to be a reliable member of any sporting team, dance group, or other community organisation.
Rural and regional Australia, where relatively small communities are dependent on one or two industries, e.g. an abattoir or coal mine, sackings and lower wages see local businesses struggling for survival or even going under.
In some respects the ruthless behaviour of employers in examples given above is not new. It is a feature of capitalism. What is new is the various laws and regulations that curbed the most extreme actions and offered workers some form of justice (by no means adequate, but better than nothing) have gone. They have been replaced by a system that removes the regulations inhibiting employers and places horrendous restrictions on what workers and trade unions can do to defend themselves.
These employers are just the first cabs off the rank, testing the boundaries of their new found freedoms.
The lawyers will have a field day with the constitutional and other challenges in the pipeline. For example, in South Australia where two apprentices were arbitrarily sacked in breach of state legislation, the unions are taking it to court.
It will take five to ten years for the new laws to have their full impact. The Government’s aim is gradual and irreversible change. Many employers will follow that path, bit by bit moving off awards and collective agreements onto individual contracts, reducing wages and de-unionising workplaces.
There is one force that can halt and reverse this process and that is the actions of the trade union movement in alliance with the wider community.