Trade Unions and Their Relevance Today in Australia - Case Study Example

Trade Unions and their Relevance Today Student’s name: Instructor’s name: Course code: Date of submission: Introduction A trade union according to Allan & Peetz (1999) is an organization that consist the membership of the employees and the union leaders working in an organization, industry or state in order to help champion their interests. This is a very important practice in workplace as it helps address the concerns of the members and more especially when the members feel that their concerns are not addressed adequately by the employers. Trade unions for long time even before the era of industrialization have played a great role in trying to protect the rights of the employees from very aggressive employers who in many occasions seek to exploit them. However, with change in times, trade unions role has continued to change bringing into question the question of whether they are really relevant in the modern industrialized world. This is because in the past view decades the trade unions have pushed for major reforms in the work relations which have ensured the protection of employees’ rights at workplace. However, of greater concern is the issue of productivity and role of trade unions in that. From this perspective, this article will critically evaluate the role of trade unions and determine if they are actually relevant today or not and this will be done in reference to the case of Australia. The role of trade unions in Australia In the recent past, there has been so much debate on the role of trade unions in Australia. This is signified by the declining number of memberships in the trade unions. In the past four decades, the Australian based trade unions have haemorrhaged so many members. For instance, during the 1970s about a half of the employees in Australia were unionized. By the year 2000, only a quarter of the workers in Australia belonged to trade unions. However, in 2001 the absolute number of membership rose but with the declining density. According to Crosby (2005) a number of factor such as change in the economic situation, labor market, legislative and regulatory environment, job characteristics and employer strategies as well workers attitudes are top reasons as to why the changing trends in membership in the trade unions are being witnessed. Having established this important background about the trade unions in Australia, someone could easily ask if for sure the trade unions continue to hold the grip or not. To answer this question and to be able the facts about trade unions, there is need to consider the intervention of the government Australia through the legislations it has enacted about industrial relations and in particular ‘The Work Choices Legislation Act 2005.’ During Howard’s Government, ‘The Work Choice Act’ came into force. This act brought about many serious changes into the industrial relations and in particular the regulation of the employment conditions. This reform was actually sketched by the Prime Minister of Australia with the aiming of ensuring control over the industrial relations between the employers and their employees (Barry & Wailes, 2004). This Act was not a ‘stand alone’ but it was actually a build up from the Work Relations Act of 1996. This Act as a matter of fact has generated some sharp criticism from trade union movements in particular. However, this IS contrary with the employers’ view. As the name of name of the Act suggests, ‘Work Choices’ both the employer and employee have the right to enter or not to enter into an employment relationship based on the agreed terms (Rae and Greg, 2002). This idea and the whole Act was actually informed the concept of productivity which is key to the economic growth of the country. This greatly undermines the role of trade unions from almost all aspects since the employment relationships are anchored in the law and that the employment relationship is individual and not as a group (Allan & Peetz, 1999). According to the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), this Act actually places the workers in a worse position than before. This is because the unemployed will have no choice but rather enter into an employment relationship which its terms have been set by the employer. This is because the potential employee will have limited choices except accepting the proposals made by the potential employers irrespective of what terms they establish (Balnave and Maconachie, 2009). This is a practice that is turning out to be a very common practice in the industrialized world where productivity and sustainability have become major issues. “The aim of the government of Australia in enacting the new workplace law was mainly to help boost the profits made by big businesses at the expense of the rights and the working standards of the employees (Fiona, 2013).” This is according to the President of ACTU, Mrs. Sharam Burrow who goes further to assert that, “the new employment relationship laws, are more likely to hurt the most vulnerable employees by reducing both their job security and the living standards of their families (Muir, 2008).” This is because it will no longer be easy for the workers to get decent working terms and pay to help them meet the needs of their families. Now, having established this and what the new law is doing to the industrial relations and in particular the workers, one could wonder what is the next step for the employees who are now more exposed to the brutality and the arrogance of the employers (Balnave and Maconachie, 2009). This to my view could lead to the conclusion that the role of the trade unions has not changed but it is the source of the unfairness that has changed and which is the government. This is because the government and the political class have chosen to take control of the industrial relations by enacting the laws that seem to favour the employers most. This because from the overview if the law, it is almost clear that the government’s main concerns is productivity, profitability and economic growth. This is the position that is being shared by a large number of the industrial relations academics in the country. This is because they tend to perceive that if the government is left to enact some laws without involving the key stakeholders, it will not be easy to address various interests (Peetz et al, 2007). For instance, during the submission of the Work Choices Bill to the Senate Inquiry, various academic groups such as Australian Industrial Relations, Labour Market and Legal held that the law will not have any direct benefit in terms of productivity through minimum wage and employment growth as claimed but instead will hurt the most the international labor standards by propagating the employers’ powers of creating hazardous working environment for the Australians. They also continued to argue that such laws will go as far as promoting inequality and undue disadvantage of the most vulnerable workers. According to Business Weekly Review (BWR) of July 24th 2013, what is being witnessed in Australia at the moment is as a result of the politics that are playing around the industrial relations. This is because different politicians try to implement what they promise during campaigns. This is because the political leaders and who want to climb to power during the political campaigns tend to meet the executives of different companies and make certain promises to them. According to the BWR (2013), the Labor Government which enacted the new laws on industrial relations met with 330 executives prior to their election and promised to enact laws that will favor their businesses. What this implies is that the governments of the day try to trade-friendly with the executives based on the political support they get from them (Allan & Peetz 1999). This as a matter of fact is subjecting the workers into a worse situation that it was before. From this reasoning therefore, it is becoming absolutely important to note that the role of trade unions is even becoming intense only that now it will be pressurizing the employers to provide good working conditions but the government. This is because politics seem to dominate very much in the industrial relations today. As already mentioned, the principle aim of the Work Choices Act of 2005 is to try and individualize the employment relations by ensuring that as a corollary, the role of the trade unions and industrial tribunals are marginalized. This is a different case with other countries like New Zealand during the 1991 reforms where the legislation did sweep away completely the previous systems but instead chose to allow some elements of the old systems of arbitration remain even though with diminished scope and significance (Findlay & McKinlay 2003). This is because unlike in the case of Australia, in New Zealand the role of tribunals was considered important because it was specific on what issues to deal with and the law that was very wide could satisfactorily address. Some of the most important elements of the laws that warrantee the change of tactic by the trade unions include: employers flexibility, determination of the employment conditions, and organization of industrial action and exposure of the employees to unfair dismissal. To start with, unlike before, with the enactment of the new industrial relations laws, the employers has so much flexibility in terms of setting the terms and conditions upon which to enter into agreement with the potential workers (Balnave and Maconachie, 2009). Now the problem with this kind of element of the new law on industrial relations arises when it becomes statutory minimum conditions which must be made. In other words, the law does not address the awards except the minimum wage. In such a case, much responsibility is left to the employer to determine the work terms and conditions. In this case therefore, the role of the trade unions is very important in pushing the change of the legislation so that both the employer and workers have role to play in determining the work terms and conditions as opposed to providing adversarial powers to the employers (Crosby, 2005). In addition to this, the trade unions in the contemporary workplace are recommended because it can take part as a key stakeholder with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) in determining the acceptable employment conditions and ways of resolving various industrial disputes. This is important in ensuring that the employers do not take advantage of the same provision to do what is favorable only unto them. Further, there is also an aspect of trade unions entering workplaces and organize for any industrial action (Findlay & McKinlay, 2003). This is because the government is perfect in addressing industrial relation something many workers do not agree with. In this case therefore, the trade unions are expected to take the lead in entering workplace and organize industrial actions whenever they feel their members are aggrieved by the new laws. Finally, it’s the law that stipulates the circumstances under which a worker can be dismissed. It is believed to only fair if the workers’ representatives are allowed to take part in forming the dismissal laws (Erickson et al, 2002). This is particularly important in making sure that the government through the AIRC does not compromise with the employers at the expense of the workers. Conclusion This article was aimed at exploring the concept of industrial relations today and the role of trade unions. This was done in the context of Australia. What has emerged from the discussion is that despite the changing times in the workplace, the trade unions continue to play a central role in ensuring the workers’ rights are protected. For instance, in the case of Australia despite the enactment of The Workers’ Choice Act 2005, it is perceived by various groups that the trade unions still have a role to play in championing the rights of their members. The only difference from the traditional system, is that the trade unions of today can direct their pressure to the government not only to involving them in making laws that are favorable but also in ensuring that the government good laws that uphold the workers’ rights. In general therefore, the trade unions have the mandate of presenting the workers’ grievance in all levels. References Allan, C & Peetz, D. 1999, "More Tasks, Less Secure, Working Harder: Three Dimensions of Labour Utilisation." Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(4): 519-535. Balnave, B and Maconachie, S. 2009, Employment Relations in Australia, John Wiley & Sons, Australia. Barry, M. & Wailes, N. 2004, "Contrasting systems? 100 years of arbitration in Australian and New Zealand." Journal of Industrial Relations, 46 (4): 430-447. Crosby, M. 2005, Power at work: Rebuilding the Australian union movement. Sydney, Federation Press. Erickson, C. L., Fisk, C. L., Milkman, R. Mitchell, D. J. B & Wong, K. 2002, "Justice for janitors in Los Angeles: Lessons from three rounds of negotiations." British Journal of Industrial Relations, 40 (3): 543-67. Findlay, P. & McKinlay, A. 2003, "Union organising in 'big blue's' backyard." Industrial Relations Journal, 34 (1): 52-66. Fiona, S. 2013, Calling ‘time’ on the IR wars: Why playing politics is getting us nowhere, Business Weekly Review, 24 July 2013, accessed on May 3rd 2014, available online: http://www.brw.com.au/p/leadership/calling_time_getting_the_nowhere_wgW4otsqG3e UvZsW0aBNlK Muir, K. 2008, Worth Fighting For: Inside the Your Rights at Work Campaign. Sydney, University of NSW Press. Peetz, D., Pocock, B & Houghton, C. 2007, "Organisers' Roles Transformed? Australian Union Organisers and the Shift to an Organising Approach." Journal of Industrial Relations, 49(2). Rae, C and Greg, P. 2002, Trade union organising & labour history, EVATT Foundation, Labour History, No. 82, Nov. 2002, accessed on May 3rd 2014, available online: http://evatt.org.au/papers/trade-union-organising-labour-history.html. Read More