Do you realise, in just the six months it’s been in office, the Albanese government has passed 61 bills, covering most of what it promised to do at the May election?
Just last week it passed the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill and the controversial Secure Jobs, Better Pay bill. According to Anthony Albanese, the latter involved “the biggest workplace reforms since the 1970s” and its passing made last Friday “a huge day for working Australians”.
Sorry, this government’s degree of effort and expedition far exceeds anything achieved by its predecessor and some of its measures are truly memorable, but its industrial relations changes are nothing like that monumental.
For one thing, Albanese has yet to act on his promises to regulate the gig economy, act decisively to reduce wage theft and reduce the use of casuals and labour-hire companies.
But it’s not just Albanese who’s been laying it on too thick. Indeed, the prize for the biggest storm-in-a-teacup of the year must surely go to the Secure Jobs, Better Pay bill. Its passing was certainly “controversial” – the enormous fuss made by the various employer groups made sure of that – but the degree of controversy generated is an unreliable guide to the likely threat – or promise – from the changes made.
Two fearless predictions. First, the changes won’t be nearly as bad as the lobbyists’ scaremongering claimed. But equally, they won’t have nearly as much effect on the jobs and pay of “working Australians” as the government wants us to believe.
The employer groups’ repeated claims that the government’s efforts to increase the scope for “multi-employer bargaining” would lead to widespread strikes and job losses seems intended to bamboozle those not old enough to remember industrial relations when they really were red in tooth and claw.
Strike action peaked in the 1970s, when the number of strikes averaged 2370 a year, with total days of work lost averaging 3.1 million a year, and days lost per 1000 workers averaging 540. As in all the rich countries, strike action has declined markedly since then, with the 2010s seeing only 200 strikes per year, costing 145,000 days lost, or 14 days per 1000 workers.
The notion that Albanese’s modest changes will return us to anything remotely approaching the 1970s is risible.
In those days, when inflation was far higher than it is now, our long-gone system of compulsory arbitration had the perverse effect of encouraging many quite short strikes. These days, old IR hands know that if a strike lasts more than a day or two it’s a sign the union has lost. It will then take years for whatever small pay rise the workers end up getting to make up for the many days’ pay they lost.
Ask yourself this: how are widespread strikes supposed to lead directly to widespread job losses? They don’t. They lead to some workers losing their jobs only because the majority who don’t lose their jobs are getting wage rises so big that employers genuinely can’t afford them. It’s not a reasoned argument, it’s an attempt to frighten the unthinking.
What employers really fear is a move from bargaining at the level of the individual business or enterprise to bargaining at an industry-wide level, which would make it easier for the unions to achieve pay rises in businesses with few union members.
Although industry-wide bargaining remains outlawed by the Fair Work Act, the employer groups have chosen to pretend that the government’s cautious extension of access to multi-enterprise bargaining is pretty much the same thing.
Nonsense. As Adelaide University’s Professor Andrew Stewart explains, the new provision for “single- (or common-) interest” multi-employer bargaining is hedged about with limitations and protections. Unions will not be able to rope in small businesses employing fewer than 20 workers. Larger employers can only be included without their consent if a majority of their workers wants to bargain.
Access to this form of bargaining must be approved by the Fair Work Commission, which will permit employers to participate only if they are sufficiently “comparable” to the other employers. An employer with an existing single-enterprise agreement won’t be able to switch to a multi-employer agreement.
But those employers included in such bargaining will be required to bargain in “good faith” – be genuinely committed to reaching an agreement, and unions will be permitted to strike – provided this is approved by a secret ballot of employees.
A significant change is that, when either single- or multi-enterprise bargaining becomes intractable, the commission will resolve the dispute by arbitration.
The other new provision for “supported bargaining” of multi-employer agreements is aimed at helping low-paid workers in strongly female industries such as childcare and aged care. This is likely to produce some significant pay rises. Why? Because the “support” will come from the third party that will end up covering the cost of the pay rise – the federal government.
Apart from that, the low union membership in most of the relevant enterprises says there’ll be few strikes and few big pay rises.
