The Theoretical Assumptions of the Newly Elected Government in Employment Relations - Case Study Example

The Theoretical Assumptions of the Newly Elected Government the Theoretical Assumptions of the Newly Elected Government in Employment Relations Students Name: Name of the Course: Name of the Instructor: Date of Submission: The Theoretical Assumptions of the Newly Elected Government in Employment Relations Over the past decades, it has been the aim of every Australian government to establish good legislation and policies so as to improve the employment relations in the country (Shaw 2001,p.11). There are two main theories which have been used successively by the Australian government in order to govern employment relations in the country namely pluralist and unitarist theories (McDonald 2000,p.233). Ideally, it can be noted that the current coalition government has taken a more pluralist approach to employment relations in the country, marking the continuous shift from unitarism to pluralism approach to employment relations in Australia. The Fair Work Act of 2009 is the main policy document which has been established under the regime of the previous government. Looking at the act, it can be acknowledged that it exhibits various aspects of pluralism, an approach which has both positive and negative impacts on employment relations in the country. From the Fair Work Act 2009, the current coalition government based several arguments in their campaigns. The following essay will analyze the assumptions made by the newly elected coalition government with respect to employment relations in the country. Key to the campaign promises that the coalition government made during the campaigns was to increase productivity in the country (Peetz 2008, p.1). However, the means of increasing productivity made several assumptions; many of which would influence the employee relations negatively. One of the major assumptions made is that productivity would be increased if the government involved itself in the negotiations between the employers and the employees. On this point, it is important to note that the country hade made great developments in industrial relations by the upholding of collective bargaining which is a pluralist employment relations approach (Maconachie & Goodwin 2009,p.3). Under the fair work 2009, the trade unions were free to negotiate with the employers on behalf of the employees for increase in wages among other employment conditions. Under the collective bargaining clause, a trade union would have to show that they were bargaining in good faith; hence had no hidden agendas in their actions (Australian Council of Trade Unions, 2012, p.2). This made Fair Work Act 2009 to emerge as one of the best policies which had been able to streamline the industrial relations in Australia since it had the interest of the employers and the employee at heart. However, the new coalition government proposes that bargaining between the employer and the employee would only take place if the employee (trade unions) showed that they had taken the consideration of productivity in their actions. This additional clause to the employee relations policy would mean that trade unions do not represent the interests of their employee solely but have to consider the implications of their activities to the productivity of the organization (Berg 2013, p.1). The assumption of the new coalition government is that by doing so, the productivity of the concerned organizations and the entire country at large would increase (Peetz 2008, p.1). However, this would be counter productive in the long run. On this point, it is important to appreciate that such a move would have a negative impact on the employment relations. For this reason, it is automatic that the action would be counter productive. The coalition government should appreciate the fact that employee relations policies are meant to improve the relationship between the employers and the employees. In addition to this, the government should acknowledge the fact that such policies are not meant to favor either of the parties. The other assumption by the new coalition government goes in line with the dominant assumption that employees are unable to negotiate with their employers on their own best interest (Berg 2013, p.1). By so doing, it is assumed that employees are able to secure their employment positions and relationships with their employers. This assumption led to the development of policies which uphold collective bargaining. The main question was how to manage the collective bargaining activities so as to ensure that the interests of both the employees and employers are taken into consideration. Under the fair work act 2009 which was established by the previous regime, the government had maintained that the collective bargaining activity had to be done within the limits of good faith. Under the policies of the new coalition government, the government seeks to breach the good faith in the collective bargaining by introducing elements which are not in good faith themselves. From the above discussion, it can be acknowledged that another assumption of the coalition government that the employers are unable to protect themselves from the employees, hence the need to come up with policies which provide the government with the mandate to do so (Berg 2013, p.1). Ideally, it can be noted that the campaigns by the Abbott government drove at protecting the employers; hence increasing the countries productivity. However this assumption is wrong since the previous fair work act 2009 was able to protect them. As pointed earlier, the government sought to identify if collective bargaining activities were based on good will after which it gave a green light. In so doing, it was able to protect both the employer and the employee. However, the proposed policy by the new coalition government protects the employers only, hence leaving the employee at the mercy of the employers. Another assumption made by the new coalition government in their campaigns is that their proposed policies would yield to freedom in the labor market (Berg 2013, p.1). However, the policies are just but giving a blow to the union movement in Australia. According to the Abbott government, the new employment relations policy is meant to factor in productivity in collective bargaining agreements. This is a move to ensure that trade unions are given a lower bargaining power as compared to their employers. In addition to this, the proposed policy hinders the employee from fighting for his or her won rights since it is an indirect way of breaching the right of a worker to join a trade union. For this reason, the proposed policy is an act which is meant to fight off trade unions as opposed to upholding them. Contrary to the above arguments, it can also be argued that the new coalition government’s proposed policy is certain to improve the labor relations in Australia. Firstly, it can be appreciated that the proposed policy brings in a productivity bound agreement into employment relations. The past policy has been criticized of having given employees a productivity free deal (Peetz 2008, p.1). In such a deal, the employers were held at ransom by the employees since they were not obliged to factor in productivity in their collective bargaining activity. However, the proposed policies seek to ensure that employees do not impact negatively on productivity in their collective bargaining activities. Secondly, the introduction of a paid parental leave program would ensure that the employees had enough time to take care of their children during their tenure of work (Peetz 2008, p.1). On this point, it can be acknowledged that many employees are faced with the hard challenge of balancing between work and family life. On this, it can be acknowledged that most of them end up devoting too much of their life to their jobs hence neglecting their children; a phenomenon which is believed to be the major contributor to the growing devaluation of family life. However, this would change with the introduction of a paid parental leave which gives employees a chance to take care of their children from their homes within the limits of the employee relations laws. Lastly, the new government seeks to introduce clauses which ensure that workers who work for long hours for example the truck drivers have good employment conditions (Peetz 2008, p.1).. On this point, the government notes that such workers are normally convinced by salaries and wages; a factor which endangers their lives. However, this is due to change when the proposed employment relations come into place. Abbott’s government seeks to put in palace strategic measures which ensure that the interests of such workers are taken into consideration by their employers and not just salaries and wages. From the opinions of many analysts, it is seen as if this is just but smoke of the fire which is due to burn. On this, it is expected that the new coalition government will do much more than it has said; hence shedding a wake of confusion as to the commitment and ability of the new government to establish effective policies to govern employee relations in the country. In conclusion, this essay has been able to give an insight into employee relations in Australia and also the proposed turn of events if the new coalition government enacts its proposed employment relations policies. The essay has discussed several assumptions which were made by the Abbott government during its presidential campaigns. From the discussions, it has come out very strongly that the government has placed a lot focus on increasing productivity in the country; a factor which is subject to much criticism as well as applauding. The essay has identified that the government’s actions are set to hamper the union movement in the country in addition to being counterproductive contrary to its assumptions. The essay has also given counter arguments on the position taken in the essay. From the essay, it can be concluded that the proposed policies by the new coalition government needs to be scrutinized and amended so as to ensure that they uphold the objectives of good employment relations. References Australian Council of Trade Unions, 2012. The Fair Work Act; Two Years On, Australian Council of Trade Unions, pp. 1- 47 Berg, C., 2013. A Nanny State of IR Policy is the Liberal Choice, ABC, Retrieved on 23rd September 2013 from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-27/berg-industrial-relations/4914682 McDonald, J., 2000.thical is the Australia Workplace Relations Act?, pp. 232 – 241 Maconachie, G., and Goodwin, M., 2009. Enforcing minimum labour standards in Australia from 2010 : correcting or compounding problems. In: Labour, Capital and Change – Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand, 4 – 6 February, Newcastle, Australia. Peetz, D., 2008. Coalition’s productivity obsession makes for flawed IR policy, Retrieved on 23rd September 2013 from http://theconversation.com/coalitions-productivity-obsession-makes-for-flawed-ir-policy-14145 Shaw, J., 2001. The Future of Australian Industrial Relations. Australian Quarterly, Vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 11-14 Read More