The Work Choice and wokr process control

Author: Iloka Benneth Chiemelie
Published: 27th April 2017

Introduction

The Howard’s Government brought the Work Choice legislation into law, and it came into effect in March 2006, with substantial changes having been made to on how employment conditions and industrial relations are regulated[1].

The agenda of the government was original sketch by the PM during an address to the parliament on the 26^th of May 2005 with a comprehensive outline of the details presented in an information booklet that was released on the 9^th of October within the same year[2]. Following a controversial and expensive advertisement campaign, which was rigorously by unsuccessfully challenged by the ACTU and ALP (see Combet v Commonwealth (2005) 80 ALJR 247), the huge but shadily drafted Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choice) Bill 2005 was brought forward to the Parliament on 2^nd November 2005[3].

The government took advantage of its numbers in the Senate to push forward a brief and large token into an inquiry on the bill that contained 687 pages as held by the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee. Nonetheless, in the course of several dates that were truncated in nature within the upper house, the government made introduction of 337 of its own amendments, majority of which were designed to offer necessary correction measure or to offer minor improvements to expression, but in some cases did address to certain issues that were highlighted during the inquiry. The Bill was accorded royal assent on the 14^th of December 2005 and also passed into law[4].

The legislation

It should be noted that the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 wasn’t actually a “stand alone” new statute, as it did offer substantial changes to the existing Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the WR Act). Some part of the provisions were made on assent, but the vast majority of it were proclaimed to operate from 27^th of March 2006[5], a date that has been largely referred to as what follows the date of the commencement or the transition date[6].

On that exact day, three new regulations were also put into operations. The Workplace Relations Regulations 1996 was completely replaced by the Workplace Relations Regulations 2006 (the WR Regs), and it covered numerous vital issues, both in their transitional and substantive forms. Since it came into law in 2006, the Act has already been amended on four different occasions[7].

The much compressed Workplace Relations (Registration and Accountability of Organisations) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No 1) effected certain changes to the Workplace Relations (Registration and Accountability of Organisations) Regulations 2003. Finally, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2006 (No 1) made significant adjustments to 58 diverse federal Acts or Regulations, and also minor changes to the WR Act itself[8].

The major changes in the amendment

In line with early expectations, the main objective of Work Choice reform is to customize the employment relations, as an effect, trade unions and industrial tribunals will be relegated. Dissimilar with the New Zealand reform of 1991, this new legislation did no drop off the past system of regulation as some parts of the old arbitration systems have been retained, although they have been diminished greatly in both scope and meaning. Major inclusions are:

·         Employers are offered greater flexibility when it comes to terms and conditions that they ca adopt for employment, as workplace agreement is now supported by statutory minimum conditions and not wards[9];

·         The role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) has been significantly reduced when it comes to determining the conditions for employment and resolving issues of industrial disputes[10];

·         The amendment has made it more difficult for unions to penetrate workplaces or organize industrial actions[11]; and

·         It has reduced employers’ exposure to unfair dismals claims[12].

The Work Choice Act also applied the objective of the government that features “movement towards” an independent, national system of regulation. This has bene made possible through expansion of the federal system in order to accommodate all financial, trading and international corporations, and by ensuring that the employers are not subjected to State agreements or awards, or other forms of employment law obtainable within the state.

However, one major thing that the amendment did not do is to simplify the legislation[13]. As noted, the amended WR is actually longer than the previous one. Both the Act and associated regulations now cover over 1700 pages. It now has new terminologies, acronyms and does feature high force agencies in the form of the Australian Fair Pay Commission, to go with the Australian Building and Construction Commission which was separately established by the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth).

To the employer, there is no doubting the fact that such is a win. Considering that the business of every business is business, corporations are expected to make profit irrespective of the circumstances that surround their business operation sphere. The shareholders does not care about all these issues as what they desire is a significant return on their investments. This is clearly understandable as there would be no business without these investors and no room to employment. Thus, subjecting these employers to unnecessary pressure as is the case of employment tribunal and trade unions what the government does not want. There are numerous reasons why the government is seeing protection of employers as:

·         Such protection will serve as an encouragement for the investors that their investments will be protected in the sense that external forces (such as trade union) will not be allowed to effect negative influence on their business process[14]. Effectively, these investors will be more willing to pump more funds into varied industries and the consequences of which is continued growth of the Australian GDP.

·         Due to the continued protection from government and increased desire of these investors to pump more funds into varied corporations, there would be higher demand for more workforce, which will effectively help in enhancing overall level of employment in the country[15].

·         With more people employed, the spending power of Australian residents will be increase significantly and it will help boost other businesses, attracting more sales for corporations, more performance for corporations, higher tax revenue for the government, and overall flamboyancy in the Australian economy[16].

Neo-institutionalism and work choice act

The first neo-institutional argument was formulated by John Meyer and his colleagues over three decades ago. Propositions made by the new orientation is that formal structure of corporations does not only reflect technical demands and dependencies on resources; but is also shaped by institutional forces that include rational myths, public opinions, educational systems, expertise and the law[17]. The core idea that corporations are deeply part of a social and political sphere does suggest that the practice and structures of the company cannot normally be used as a reflection or response to rules, believes and conventions that are established within the company[18]. In the case of Work Choice as discussed above, neo-intuitionalism raises questions as to:

·         This new law will make employers more of autocratic lords can partners in the business management process. A corporation is made up of stakeholders that work together towards a common goal[19]. The employee might be forced into undertaking tasks that confide with their individual freedom and rights. They could be used beyond the value that the company is willing to offer. What of the issues of unfair dismissal?  

·         The above issue could result to higher turnover rate on the side of the employees as they constantly change organizations in search of new breed where their competence and skills will be dully welcomed and appreciated[20].

·         With employees either changing corporations or unwilling to work due to high depression and pressure for their workplace, productivity will be affected negatively, bring about a resulting consequence, in terms of negative performance of the Australian GDP. How will business function and generate the funds if employees are no longer willing to work or committed to their work due to high pressure and experienced depression from the work process[21].

As in answer to these question, neo-intuitionalism does present the view that corporations that have proper inbuilt employee relations will not take advantage of the change sin policies as they will continue to adopt necessary measures to keep their employees happy. Thus, corporations that push for such advantage are those that are actually not committed to employee relations in the first place.

Conclusion

Essentially, it is clear that the new amendments have given corporations much control over the work process, which is very significant when it comes business related decision making process. As such, these companies are now willing to go about their businesses are they please, investing more money, creating more jobs and helping enhance overall GDP of the Australian economy. However, it has belittled the need for employee relations as these corporations can take advantage of the provisions in the amendments to use employees as a tool for meeting their (sometimes selfish) business objectives; instead of considering them as an important stakeholder in the company. Thus, there could be high level of depression and turnover rate, which could negatively impact on productivity of corporations in Australia and overall returns for shareholders as well as negative impact on the Australian GDP. Thu, it is concluded in this case that the government should seek to establish a balance between all stakeholders in the corporate setting – with special focus on the balance of employee relations.

---

[1] The Work Choices Legislation: An Overview. Online: http://www.federationpress.com.au/pdf/WorkChoicesOverviewDec06.pdf

[2] ibid

[3] Federal Register of Legislation. Online: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2005B00181/Explanatory%20Memorandum/Text

[4] ibid

[5] The Work Choices Legislation: An Overview. Online: http://www.federationpress.com.au/pdf/WorkChoicesOverviewDec06.pdf

[6] ibid

[7] ibid

[8] ibid

[9] ibid

[10] ibid

[11] ibid

[12] ibid

[13] ibid

[14] Beer M, Spector B, Lawrence PR, Quinn Mills D and Walton R (1984) Managing Human Assets. New

York: Free Press.

[15] Kersley B, Alpin C, Forth J, Bryson A, Bewley H, Dix G and Oxenbridge S (2005) Inside the Workplace:

First Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS 2004). London: DTI.

[16] Mowday RT, Steers RM and Porter LW (1982) Employee–Organisation Linkages: The Psychology of

Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover. New York: Academic Press.

[17] Walter W. Powell. The New Institutionalism to appear in The International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies. (2007). Sage Publishers

[18] ibid

[19] Schein E (1988) Organisational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

[20] ibid

[21] ibid