Dead, Buried and Cremated.... and Resurrected?

And on the third electoral cycle WorkChoices will be raised again.

Since the days of Bob Hawke, every Australian government has made a radical change to the dynamic of the nation's employment relations system. Hawke and Keating oversaw  the Accords, Rudd and Gillard introduced Fair Work Australia and Howard fell on his own sword to implement his neo-liberal WorkChoices legislation. WorkChoices was an amendment to the 1996 Workplace Relations Act which sought to further individualise the employment relations system by encouraging individual bargaining agreements and giving businesses far more flexibility in hiring and firing. Wen the law was met with vitriol from many workers in 2006 and is pointed to as a major factor behind the electoral defeat of the Liberal Party in 2007. So now that the Liberals are back in office, could we see a shift in the current 'Third Way' regime of Fair Work Australia towards a more neo-liberal approach?

Tony Abbott, a member of Howard's executive during the WorkChoices era, has been very quick to deny any claims that the controversial policy will make a return under his Prime Ministership. During the 2010 election, the first campaign with Abbott serving as Opposition Leader, Abbott went as far as to say that WorkChoices were 'dead, buried and cremated'. In the same interview Abbott went so far as to say that 'we have no plans, no plans whatsoever to make any changes to the legislation. Not now. Not ever'. 

Tony signing a 'contract' in 2010 to confirm he would not bring back WorkChoices

Interview and photo can be found at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbott-signs-contract-on-work-choices-but-muddles-message-on-workplace-laws/story-fn59niix-1225893906267

If 24 hours is a long time in politics, then three years is an eternity. So it is of little surprise that Tony's position on making changes to the Fair Work Act shifted significantly by the time the next election rolled around. Abbott claimed that his party would 'retain and improve the Fair Work Act'. So what exactly does "improving" entail Tony? There has been rumours that the newly elected government would remove protection for workers to strike over an enterprise bargaining dispute with an employer. This is an example of the landscape of the employment relations system shifting away from the more employee friendly Fair Work regime towards greater power to big businesses. 

Source of quote: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3755847.htm   

In my unqualified opinion, it would take someone of incredible stupidity to reintroduce WorkChoices after it was so resoundly rejected by the Australian people in 2007. Despite popular opinion, I do not think Abbott is a 'dumb' politician (sharing different beliefs to you does not automatically make them 'dumb') and has in the past rrecognizedthat it would be unfair to reintroduce the amendments after the result of the 2007 election. Could Tony and his boys introduce elements of the 2006 law however? Definitely. Will they? Probably. Should they? That's an argument for another time. But to sumarise the answer to the question I pondered in the question: will WorkChoices be reintroduced to Australia? No.

Blog Post 2: The European Union Strikes Back

29/8/14

In my ideal world, the invisible hand of the market would be the sole actor in the global economy. No tariffs, no trade blocs, no government intervention. However, it's more than clear that we are not living in a perfect world (until my album reaches #1 on the charts I refuse to believe otherwise) and some real obstacles are in place for the purchase power of the people to change economic trends. The buddying up of governments and multi-national corporations acts as a sort of Bizarro Robin Hood if you will.

Bizarro Robin Hood doesn't actually exist, but Bizarro Superman does

So if free market economics is not an option, what other style of economics (yes I'm talking about economics not employment relations, but I'll try and link it back to our unit at the end) has the capacity to fairly distribute income? As much as I like to think the neo-liberal practices of the United States is a system that comes relatively close to free market capitalism and therefore MUST create relatively equal income distribution... it doesn't at all. As the article below outlines, the American system could learn a lot from the social market system of economics (AND employment relations) that is in place in the European Union.

What America can learn from Europe about income inequality 

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/18/what_america_can_learn_from_europe_about_income_inequality_partner/ 

In the article the philosophies of both parties towards their respective workforce are compared. Whilst the United States have kept their Laissez-Fair style of economic and employment relations policy which (in the short term at least) has resulted in stronger economic growth than the EU, in the long term (if they can sort out the Euro Crisis business) the European workforce is sitting pretty. 

The EU has a very strict coordinated economy which has particular emphasis on increasing the human capital of its people. In 1998, the average European worker over took their American counterparts in terms of skillfulness in  the workplace. Such an undertaking of training is a long-term move which benefits both employee and employer: wage rates tend to go up the more skillful the worker and the more skillful the worker  the more productive the business is for the boss. That may seem too simple, heck too even a too-good-to-be-true theory, but in the last decade it really has come off. Wage rates for Europeans are $10 an hour more than in the US and productivity in Europe is... much slower than America's. Errr woops!

Why Europe lags the US in productivity

http://www.forbes.com/2010/10/25/europe-european-union-eu-productivity-lag-leadership-managing-mckinsey.html 

This article, whilst four years old, does give a good outline as to why the United States still out-steps European productivity. The crux of the piece is that the economic barriers the EU has set up restricts Europe's ability to increase it's productivity through the horrors of international compeition. However, these are the very same barriers that help create a worker's paradise of sorts in the Euro Zone (unless you're Greek, Italian or Irish, then getting a job is very hard). High tarriffs result in overseas goods becoming more expensive, meaninig local businesses can afford to pay their employees more. This is the conundrum of policy makers: how can we create a system that benefits employees AND employers?

If  5 time NBA Champion Kobe Bryant doesn't know the answer, no one does!

To sum up my post (which at this point resembles the sloppiest of a dog's breakfast) there are many things the EU gets right in terms of creating an economic system where people can earn a good wage and enjoy a good life. However, especially in these tough economic times,they must also look to increase their productivity if they want to reach their optimum economic potential. 

Blog Entry 1: Neo-Liberalism Policies in Practice

15/08/2014

As I'm sure many of you have experienced at one stage or another in your life, it isn't always easy to:
a) land a nice job
b) make enough money from said job.

I'm currently scouring the job market for a gig that fulfils both a) and b) with little success, and according to the article in the link bellow, achieving b) could become more difficult.

Penalty rates need to change, says Abbott government minister

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/penalty-rates-need-to-change-says-abbott-government-minister-20140812-102zi8.html

According to this article, which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on August 12 2014, the Abbott government is looking to 'lower penalty rates paid to millions of workers on Sundays and public holidays'. Said penalty rates reward casual employees double pay, which the Assistant Infrastructure Minister Jamie Briggs has labelled as unfair on small businesses. In the article, Briggs stated that: "we cannot go on in a society where we are charging people on a day which is a normal operating day, double what you would on any other”.


These claims by the current government underline the shift away from the "Third Way" philosophy held by the previous government, who via the Fair Work Commission established the double pay penalty rate scheme, towards a more neo-liberal way of governing employment relation laws. The major reason underlined by Briggs in the article behind why the penalty rates needed to be lowered was that the current level cripples the competitiveness of Australian businesses, particularly those of the small variety.
So why is it so uncompetitive for Aussie businesses to hand out a little bit more cash money on Sunday's and public holidays? After all the casually employed or often the ones who need it most, uni students! Well, according to the graphic below, Australia has one of the highest minimum wages in the world. The high cost of labour in Australia is one of the key hinderences to Australia's international competitiveness, hence why neo-liberal employment relations policies such as scrapping double pay penalty rates are particularly in vogue at the moment.



  

Source: http://visual.ly/real-hourly-minimum-wages-around-world

So as I drop my resume around town next week, I will be doing so with a heavy heart in the knowledge that the forces of competition are denying me the opportunity to earn $48 an hour for stocking shelves at the IGA on a bleary eyed Sunday morning.

 

Welcome Note

Welcome to my blog!
I hope you find my posts informative AND entertaining!