By James Vassilopoulos
Last October, federal industrial relations minister Peter Reith quietly tabled a report in parliament titled Enterprise Bargaining 1995. The report, written by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), was not highly publicised — probably because it clearly reveals that workers, particularly women, young and part-time workers, lose out badly under enterprise bargaining.
This most comprehensive and thorough report ever done on the spread and impact of enterprise bargaining demonstrates that it increases inequality.
Surveys were completed by 19,000 workers in 2001 workplaces employing more than 20 workers. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 4000 managers and 1088 union delegates. Other information was drawn from the DIR's workplace agreement database.
Enterprise bargaining came into being in 1990 with the signing of Accord Mark VI between the Labor federal government and the ACTU. It is the negotiation of wages and conditions on an enterprise-by-enterprise or workplace-by-workplace basis.
In the mid-1980s, enterprise bargaining was seen by many unions as a nasty policy of the "new right". Five years later, the ALP had introduced it, and all unions had accepted it.
Enterprise bargaining undermines solidarity by replacing national wage cases and industry-wide campaigns with single enterprise agreements. Negotiations are more centred on the ability of an individual company to pay and often involve trading-off conditions for pay increases. In the report, 55% of managers said that wage increases in their companies were tied to productivity increases.
The next logical step from enterprise bargaining is individual contracts: if workers can bargain on an enterprise or workplace basis, why not on an individual basis? The ALP first brought in individual contracts in the form of "enterprise flexibility agreements".
Sixty-eight per cent of the workers surveyed for the report were employed in enterprise bargaining workplaces (50% of the workplaces surveyed). Another quarter of the workplaces surveyed had some workers covered by individual contracts. The workplaces most likely to bargain were large, had a union presence, were covered by an industrial award and were part of the public service.
Findings
The report paints a picture of a work force that has to work harder, is more stressed and has difficulty balancing family and work demands.
Fifty-eight per cent of workers reported putting more effort into their jobs, many reporting significant intensification of effort. Only 4% said that their work effort had declined. Half of workers said they felt more stressed. Sixty-four per cent reported that the range of tasks they perform has increased. Many workers felt more dissatisfied with their working lives.
It is often claimed that enterprise bargaining increases the flexibility of workers, allowing them to improve their family lives. The figures show otherwise. Flexibility in responding to work made it harder to meet family demands: 26% of workers surveyed were dissatisfied with the balance between family and work; 36% said that they used leave without pay to care for sick family members; and 46% used their holiday leave for that purpose.
We are meant to be living in an era of caring and sharing managers who consult with their "colleagues". Yet satisfaction with management had dropped amongst 42% of the workers surveyed. One-third of the work force said they were rarely consulted about workplace changes.
The facts show that it is getting harder for workers. If these problems were taken up and dealt with collectively, they could form the basis of a renewal of the workers' movement.
Growth of inequality
Deregulation of the labour market in the form of enterprise bargaining or individual contracts leaves vulnerable workers like women, part-time and young workers in a worse position. But if the workplace is organised, quite large wage increases can be achieved without trade-offs through enterprise bargaining.
The average increase in wages through enterprise bargaining was 4.5% in 1995. Those who relied on the Industrial Relations Commission got an annual $8 a week safety net increase, a 2% wage increase for the lowest paid. This difference builds up over a number of years. The workers who rely on the safety net increase are women, young people and casual workers concentrated in small white collar workplaces.
The report found that under enterprise bargaining women workers received a smaller increase in average weekly earnings, that the ratio of male to female workers worsened for women, that women were more disadvantaged in terms of trade-offs and less likely to get wage increases than men. (See box.)