BY ANTHONY BENBOW
PERTH — The Western Australian Labor government has finally unveiled its draft industrial relations legislation — and what a reaction. The bosses are screaming, the Liberal/National Coalition opposition is foaming at the mouth and the West Australian is running scathing editorials and headlines. So, if the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Coalition and the West Australian all hate it, the legislation must be good, right? If only.
The proposed laws remove some of the harsher provisions of the anti-union laws that were introduced by the previous Coalition state government, However, they leave the harshest aspect — individual workplace agreements — intact.
In February 2001, the Coalition government led by Richard Court was defeated by Labor as a result of growing popular discontent at its gross mismanagement and the reduction in jobs, services and living standards. Labor campaigned strongly on "workplace reform". Quick changes were promised to help low-paid workers and those on individual workplace agreements.
Nearly 12 months down the track, Labor's minister for consumer and employment protection John Kobelke has released a large and complicated bill. Kobelke stated that the Labor government's aim is to "promote collective bargaining and establish the primacy of collective agreements over individual agreements".
The draft laws would repeal the requirement for secret ballots before strikes and remove penalties for unions seeking federal award coverage. Major restrictions on union officials' right to visit work sites, whether there are members on the job or not, would be lifted (however 24 hours notice would be required and only officials registered to enter workplaces by the WA Industrial Relations Commission can do so).
The WA Industrial Relations Commission will also be given more powers, including the right to make enterprise orders where bargaining fails.
Unions win back the right to collect dues by payroll deduction and also the right to make political donations.
The bill "abolishes" individual workplace agreements (WPAs), but replaces them with Employer-Employee Agreements (EEAs) which are essentially the same thing. Unions are most unhappy with the draft laws in this regard.
Kobelke claims there are substantial differences between WPAs and EEAs. But Helen Creed, secretary of the WA Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union identified the fatal flaw in both: "Employers are unashamedly using individual agreements to reduce workers' wages and conditions. Threats are made ('sign or you don't start') to coerce workers into signing away their collective rights. These threats are taking place but are very difficult to prove."
Unions WA secretary Stephanie Mayman echoes that view: "We seek to introduce fairness into these laws. The draft bill does not go far enough in that those workers less able to protect themselves will most likely remain on individual contracts."
But when asked if the ALP has broken yet another election promise, Creed didn't think so: "The ALP promised these EEAs in the election campaign. Unions stated at the time stated that we do not support that measure, and we will continue to campaign against it".
Creed blames the flaws of the proposed bill on the departmental staff who drafted it. They served under the previous government and have become used to a "workplace-agreement culture", she said.
WA Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union (electrical division) secretary Bill Game more accurately outlined the draft's origins: "The ALP has made some moves to fix some things, but they want to keep individual agreements. Before the election, they were saying that the ALP will get rid of individual agreements... Union officials at a meeting before the election were saying, 'Vote ALP to solve all your problems'. When I spoke, I went through Labor's record and said you can't trust them and it struck a chord. Next thing, I had all these unions officials telling me that they weren't ALP members, but whenever they open their mouths the ALP line comes out!
"Is the ALP a party that represents the interests of workers? No, it is no longer that, and that means any union officials who keep stick to the 'Labor is the answer' line are really of very limited value to their members."
Game has a point. The "campaign" against individual agreements so far has been limited to discussions with the ALP to change the draft bill or holding discussions with the Greens (WA) to amend the bill when it comes before parliament. The government requires the Greens' votes to pass the bill. In addition, in December Greens MLC Dee Margetts introduced a private member's bill to repeal all of the previous Coalition government's anti-union laws. This bill will be considered by parliament in February.
Commenting on the Labor government's draft bill, Margetts said she was "disappointed with government's efforts". While in most ways, Labor's bill "is better than the previous legislation, in one or two areas it is potentially worse. For instance, the power to stop some unionists entering workplaces".
Margetts says the Greens MPs will consult with unions and others before deciding their level of support for the draft bill. "The Greens recognise that small business is the engine of jobs growth, but squeezing wages and conditions does not help small business. The spending power of ordinary people is key to the success of small business, if wages are too marginal the whole thing crashes", she said.
When asked how the union movement in WA would respond if negotiations with Labor and the lobbying of the Greens failed to win the necessary changes to the bill, Creed and Mayman were both unwilling to comment.
Game was more forthcoming, but pointed to the inadequacy of the existing trade union leaderships in leading a campaign to defeat individual agreements. "It is possible to get rid of individual agreements. But we not only can't rely on the ALP to campaign on this. We can't even rely on the bulk of the union hierarchy!"
From Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly, January 30, 2002.
Visit the