Victorian Trades Hall Council. The voice of Victorian workers since 1856.

• Inside Trades Hall
•  > Secretary's Report
•  > 2008 Archives

THE STRUGGLE FOR A FAIR IR SYSTEM CONTINUES…

In a recent editorial the AFR lamented, under the heading “No time for draconian laws”, announced moves to more government regulation.

On initial reading of that headline a normal person could have thought the AFR had finally seen the light and was agreeing Australian workers didn’t deserve to have their ability to win a fair price for their labour, restricted any further.   Not the case.

The AFR was staying true to form and was actually criticising proposals that financial market activity was to be forced to face stricter disclosure requirements.  Updated rules on transparency with respect to speculative investments being asset backed, was also complained about.

According to the AFR, there should be one rule for big business and another rule for workers.

There have been numerous AFR editorials in recent years (especially during the Howard years) calling for draconian laws to be imposed on how workers collectively bargain for wages and conditions.

The debate of how Rudd’s new IR laws will look is hotting up in 2008 as the federal government develops its ‘substantive’ IR bill – the draft to be available in the second half of the year.

This debate is currently characterised by employer associations, pushing back hard against the election promises in 2007 – that Work Choices in particular and Howard’s IR legacy in general will be “ripped up” and “put in the rubbish bin”.  

Recently, the AFR has given a lot of space on its printed pages to conservative commentators, telling Julia Gillard should frame her IR bill.

Former Liberal MP, Michael Baume, is particularly vocal about what is going on:

“[Recently]…the unions pre-election TV advertising campaign was resumed with the aim of resisting any prospect of the government diluting its promised winding-back of the Howard IR reforms as a result of pressure from employers”.

“The objective of the government is almost unachievable.   It must both convince the unions that its new IR regime meets the expectations of unionists who spent millions of dollars electing it, while at the same time ensuring that the ACCI and AIG believe they have rescued the key elements of Work Choices that the private sector now regards as holy writ.”

“If the end of Work Choices and the replacement of the …ABCC only means changes that are more cosmetic than substantive the union movement is unlikely to accept it without a fight.”

The above quotes are both perceptive and timely.   The YR@W campaign has to go up a few more notches. There is a lot at stake and a lot to lose.

Michael Baume’s comments reveal that the campaign for fair and genuine IR laws is far from over.