A LEADING commentator in the fields of industrial relations and human resources has cautioned employers to carefully consider their options when voting at the next Federal election.
Consultant Leigh Bernhardt, a one-time advisor appointed to the Business Council of Australia Employee Relations Advisory Committee, has taken a swipe at Opposition employment minister Julia Gillard and the proposed return to collective bargaining should Labor win the next election.
Mr Bernhardt says employers and employees have a safety-net system in place under the existing Work Choices legislation
and a return to the old system is a major step backwards for current IR laws in Australia.
"The real fear
for business is the return of collective bargaining. Industry unions will remove the flexibility of business, particularly small business," says Mr Bernhardt.
"The position adopted by the Federal Labor Party on the roll back of the Awe's (Australian Workplace Agreements) is akin to the fable of the Emperor's new clothes. There are currently tens of thousands of employees and contractors who have successfully negotiated Awash and/or contracts which have contributed to
the current business environment of low unemployment and sustained growth.
"The majority of employers want to build their business, improve profitability and efficiency and to build the best possible labor force they can. The implications that Labor's proposed amendments to the IR Laws will have on business will be to stifle growth and reduce overall productivity and efficiency. What are you going to do with people with five-year AWAs who have been working on a composite hourly rate of pay to suit the circumstances of their industry/workplace? Return them to the award rate?"
Mr Bernhardt says current AWA agreements range in duration from one to five years and can be adapted and or re-negotiated to suit the circumstances of the business or industry directly between the employer and their workforce.
"The union-dominated, industry-based collective bargaining system favoured by Julia Gillard and the ACTU is a major step backwards," he says.
"Some of these employment arrangements currently provide for flexible working hours and arrangements and increased hourly rates well in excess of the minimum standards. It is ridiculous to contemplate legislatively reversing these agreements to revert to a centralised and regimented wages system based on the lowest common denominator, not linked to the productivity or efficiency of the business or industry and one that provides no ability to small business to influence the outcomes."
Mr Bernhardt's primary concern is that the Labor Party is yet to release 'definitive details' in relation to the mechanisms to effect this reversion and the abolition of AWAs.
"In my view, it remains an ideological position aimed at reinstating the power of the trade union movement, who have lost relevance and influence under the present system, where business acumen and skills are required to negotiate mutually beneficial outcomes in workplace specific agreements, as opposed to award and industry-based maintenance of standard provisions and collective bargaining," says Mr Bernhardt.
"The IR unrest at the moment is all at the top. Industry and business is powering forward and becoming more flexible and competitive in local and international markets, despite the protestations of the union movement.
"The bottom line remains that another new or amended 2000 pages of IR law will not resolve the theoretical differences that exist between the parties, but it could well upset the achievements which have been made and destroy the economic potential of the next five to 10 years in this country."
Mr Bernhardt says the debate on IR is not about economics, but about 'control, structure and the attempted resurrection of an obsolete and restrictive union presence'.
Federal employment minister Joe Hockey recently visited the Gold Coast to discuss IR laws. Speaking to a breakfast of business leaders, Mr Hockey likened current debate over IR laws to the 1998 election on tax reform (GST).
"Taking IR backwards is a mistake," he said.
"This is not a fear campaign, it's a reality. It's a comprehensive campaign by the unions in Australia, so they can change IR. It's a parallel campaign to the 1998 election on tax reform (GST).
"WorkChoices has made industrial relations flexible. Unemployment is currently 4.2 per cent and we can get it even lower. With a strong economy, you empower families, businesses and most importantly, you empower the nation."
The Federal Government's latest legislation on IR was recently passed in the senate. The introduction of the new fairness test for collective and AWAs means employees will receive fair compensation if they trade off conditions such as penalty rates or public-holiday pay.
"I have made it clear the starting point for fair compensation will be full monetary compensation," says Mr Hockey.
"If the employer and employee agree to non-monetary compensation, such as child care or a parking space then it will need to be given an assignable value that will be assessed by the Workplace Authority.
"If Labor and the union bosses were serious about helping working Australians, they would support the introduction of the fairness test very similar to the previous no-disadvantage test. But Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have put politics and ideology before a commonsense measure that will deliver higher wages and more jobs for working Australian families."
Ms Gillard's office had not returned calls seeking a comment when Gold Coast Business News went to print.
)
)
