A week after commencement of the Government’s new workplace relations laws, we’re hearing some backing away from the harsher examples of employers using them. Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews was standing firm against bosses, warning them they’ll be caught if they invent false reasons to sack employees.
John Howard has also warned employers not to be too zealous in citing “operational reasons” to justify dismissals. But he also defended the new laws:
“You don’t hear the good stories, you haven’t heard so much of the firms that say, ‘I now feel free to take a risk with two or three new employees because I know if one of them doesn’t work out, I can let him go,’
“That’s the upside of getting rid of the unfair dismissal laws and I think there’ll be more of those [stories] and that will tend to be measured over a longer period of time.
“These things always take time, you don’t get the productivity dividend in a matter of months.”
It seems to me that the government is being embarassed by some of the cowboy employers who want to take the new laws to extreme - and effectively they are telling them to pull their heads in. According to Kevin Andrews:
“I think all should take a deep breath, particularly the employers themselves, because I suspect some people believe that the union rhetoric, that this is a totally deregulated workplace, is correct, and that’s not right,” “People should educate themselves … rather than just presuming that what they read in the media is necessarily the full extent of the law.”
I think the employer groups are also giving out the same message. According to Gary Brack of Employers First, companies wanting to sack staff for operational reasons need to have genuine reasons. He said:
“If a company is trading brilliantly and their profits are massively high … then it may be difficult to substantiate this is an operational reason,”
“Plainly it’s not as wide as anything you ever wanted to think was an operational reason in the whole wide world.
“Those people who say it could mean anything to anybody plainly are wrong.”
“I think the smart money would be waiting to see other people go along and set the standards unless of course you are in very difficult circumstances.”
The message is don’t go overboard and embarass the government into watering down some of the concerns of workers and unions, when the political pressure gets too much. And political pressure is what the government has set itself up for - it will be blamed for every adverse consequence an employee suffers, and if the unions are smart, they will feed the media with hundreds or thousands of individual case studies, and create doubt in peoples’ minds - people who may think “that won’t happen to me”.
The ACTU of course is scornful of the government’s attempts to distance themselves from the actions taken by employers under the new laws. Greg Combet, ACTU secretary, said:
“I mean what these people have done is bring in laws that allow business to sack people for no reason, or if you’re a big business for an operational reason.
“You then have no protection against being unfairly sacked and the laws then allow the business community to offer people their jobs back at lower wages, like these Cowra workers.
“As soon as the laws came in, the company’s taken advantage of them and just terminated people, I mean that is what these laws allow.”
I’ve always thought that good companies need to have good, loyal employees, and they don’t get these by screwing them over. I’m also confident that in the hands of reasonable employers, the new laws no doubt remove restrictions and provide opportunities to improve their business performance. For example, who hasn’t had to work alongside some arsehole not pulling their weight, and who keeps a job because its more trouble than its worth to get rid of them? Now its a lot easier to fix those problems. What about inflexible rosters and shift arrangements that might have been ok years ago but just don’t work today? There are all sorts of good flexibilities that potentially can be gained using the new laws.
I was very comfortable with the workplace relations changes the government introduced in 1996 - as a manager in a blue collar workplace, it was great to have more power, and avoid being held to ransom by union delegates. I was comfortable with negotiating an AWA for myself. I thought those laws redressed a balance which had been too far on the side of unions. I’m concerned these new laws now have pushed the power too much in the favour of employers. As I’ve said above, with reasonable employers and employees, thats probably fine. However, there clearly are employers who are simply not reasonable and who are prepared to treat employees like shit. Hopefully, mine is not one of those … its track record since I’ve worked for them suggests not, and I expect it will continue to treat employees well. For professionals like me whose skills my employer sells, and who has reasonable choices in employment, I expect the new laws to have a fairly minor impact. The consequences are going to mainly fall on the less skilled, lower paid workers.
Update (04/04/2006): The Cowra abbatoirs at the centre of media attention last week have bowed to pressure and un-sacked their employees. It will be interesting to see where this goes. My thinking is they’ve been told to lay off the extreme use of the legislation for now. Bet you the workers will find themselves out of a job sooner or later this year.