By Jonathan Singer
Industrial relations minister Peter Reith is preparing a "third wave" of federal anti-union legislation even before parliament has finished dealing with his "second wave".
The second wave legislation to amend the federal Workplace Relations Act has "the smell of death about it", industrial relations academic Ron McCallum said in a submission to the Senate inquiry on the bill on October 26, according to the October 27 Sydney Morning Herald.
McCallum's words are premature, because the Australian Democrats have not indicated that they will reject the bill, though they oppose parts of it.
"If passed in full, the 1999 reform bill would significantly reduce the powers, standing and independence of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and reduce the capacity of unions to protect the rights of their members", Democrats industrial relations spokesperson Senator Andrew Murray said on October 21. He told the October 25 Australian Financial Review he was not going to negotiate with the government to secure passage of the bill.
The same Australian Financial Review report indicated that the Democrats will support Reith's "third wave" of anti-union laws.
A departmental working group was recently set up to formulate the third wave. It would change the constitutional basis of federal industrial relations laws.
At present, industrial laws are based on the constitutional provision for "conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one state".
The new basis would be the constitutional power to legislate for corporations. Reith also wants the states to give up their industrial relations powers so that a unified national system would be created.
Changes in industrial relations laws through the 1990s, starting with the federal Labor government's introduction of enterprise bargaining, have prepared the way for this change.
Reith opened the government's political campaign for the "third wave" in a speech to the National Press Club back on March 24 in which he complained that the existing law had created a situation in which union officials are "immunise[d] from being accountable to the rule of civil law for the economic consequences" of union activities.
"Unions rope unwilling employers and employees into disputes and federal award regulation ... The rights of workers distinct from unions [are] a distant consideration", he whinged. He denied that unions' activities are mainly on behalf of members, and at their initiative.
"A system based on the corporations power would focus more on employers and employees", Reith said. In other words, employees would face their bosses as individuals, not collectively.
He denied that this would lead to deregulation of working conditions, claiming that federal awards would apply to all corporations — but of course the government has already stripped back awards.
Reith held out the carrot that this could extend a conditions "safety net" to workers not presently covered by awards. "This is an objective the Democrats in the Senate could find very appealing", he suggested.
However, Reith admitted that the plan is for awards to be decreed "by an industrial tribunal, but not arising from a union-initiated log of claims". So a government-appointed judge would prescribe conditions for employees, who would have the same individual right as their boss to hire a barrister to present their case.
In a July 14 speech to business executives, Reith outlined his idea of reducing unions to little more than businesses: "Unions are ultimately part of the service industry. They compete in the market for labour representation, and they must be subject to market disciplines." He cited as an example of a "progressive" union the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers (APESMA).
APESMA's (appointed) director of industrial relations, Bruce Nadenbusch, rejected Reith's praise as a "poisoned chalice".
Leaders of some unions have in recent months turned rather sharply towards an "organising model", encouraging union activism in the workplace rather than service provision.
Many union members are also moving against the government's demand that unions adapt to enterprise negotiations and more direct employer-employee relations; this is exemplified by the election of the Workers First team in the Victorian branch of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union.
There is a huge gulf between the government's conception of the role of its favoured corporate "unions" and unions' traditional role of organising workers' collective action through membership participation and control.
The government wants unions restricted to being legal representatives for workers engaged in contract negotiations; workers will probably be denied the right to take industrial action because the corporations power does not recognise disputes. The government's aim is to destroy any legal support for collective organisation.
The Democrats' take on the third wave is just a small-l liberal version that emphasises extending award coverage. Murray proposed "a pro-active government-funded Employee Ombudsman's office to pursue awards for workers" — a government substitute for unions. Like the federal government, the Democrats do not support the right of workers to organise.
Labor state governments are potential obstacles to the third wave because of Labor's defence of the unions' participation in the arbitration system. However, Reith is trying to exploit previous expressions of support for a nationally unified industrial relations system by Labor leaders to break down opposition.