(2007), "Workplace changes, but for the better?", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 56 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm.2007.07956dab.002Download as .RIS
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2007, Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Workplace changes, but for the better?
In Australia, the Labor party has been criticisng the federal government’s workplace changes, releasing a paper setting out how it says the reforms fail Australia’s economy and people.
Opposition industrial relations spokesman Stephen Smith and treasury spokesman Wayne Swan accused the government of failing to present a coherent argument in support of the changes, several months after the WorkChoices laws took effect.
Mr Smith and Mr Swan say the system the government introduced has no history of improving productivity in other countries, where similar models have been used.
They argue that Labor’s preferred model, based on enterprise bargaining rather than individual contracts, would foster productivity improvements and economic growth while providing security for employees.
“By shifting away from collective agreements, reducing employment security and seeking to cut the minimum wage in real terms, the government’s industrial relations changes upset the balance of Australia’s IR system,” the paper said.
“The government’s changes are based on a view that the only way Australia can compete internationally is by slashing wages and conditions.”
The opposition spokesmen say removing the no-disadvantage test, limiting of the range of issues that can be covered by an employment agreement and making it easier to move workers off collective agreements are designed to shift the balance in favour of employers.