Joyce tactic unlikely to be wise

Comments on Alan Kohler “An ironic Qantas victory”, 31/10/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Qantas-Leigh-Clifford-grounding-Fair-Work-Gillard--pd20111031-N5RQA?OpenDocument&src=sph&src=rot

No matter what the situations Qantas was facing, the grounding of the entire fleet with such hastiness was not a good tactic to employ.

Instead, Joyce could give a real warning that he would do such a grounding in a week or 24 hours if ....

That would have also forced the government into urgent action.

Although it is hard to predict the real long term impact on Qantas of such a drastic grounding, Qantas may have shot its own foot by it.

However, Qantas management may have taken a view that its international passenger flight business will not be profit in its current form, so the damage to that part would come anyway.

The task for Qantas is to bounce back quickly in its domestic passenger flight business.

Get the IR balance truly right

Comments on Peter Reith “With unions flexing muscles, Libs must fight back”, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/with-unions-flexing-muscles-libs-must-fight-back/story-e6frg6zo-1226010964144

Clearly Howard era's Work Choices had its own problems, as reflected in Rudd's historical win of the 2007 election. Equally, there are problems of over corrections with Gillard' new IR laws.

There should be a balance between flexibility, individual agreements, collective agreements, decent conditions and adequate protections, as well as appropriate union roles.

It is pity and regrettable that both major political parties tend to go into one of the two extremes and not be able to get the balance right. The main reasons for that to have been the case include that each party has not tried to govern for the whole nation, but instead they all become a particular special interest group.

The best strategy for them and especially the opposition coalition is to move to the centre and get the balance right and articulate in that way.

The government could also initiatives some self correction to get the balance right to avoid potential coalition attacks.

Labour laws and industrial relations

Comments on Richard Blandy “Labour laws can hurt the weak”, 18/01/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/labour-laws-can-hurt-the-weak/story-e6frg6zo-1225989811394

It would be fair to say that both the efficiency of the labour market and fairness of industrial relations are equally important and neither should be sacrificed.

A key problem with industrial relations is that employers are in much stronger positions over employees and there are significant problems with transparency in employers' decisions to show they are fair.

No industrial system is perfect, although the Gillard reregulation may have gone a bit too far in correcting the previous one.

I think a good industrial relations system should be a balance of the interests of both employers and employees, especially to ensure that the weaker is not exploited by the stronger.

Australia needs further reforms of its industrial relations system

Comments on Corin McCarthy “On the wrong track when politics drives wages policy”, 7/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26035134-5013480,00.html

While it is true that a flexible workplace and industrial relations system will benefit the economy, productivity and employment of low paid workers, to let the market completely dictate the conditions and pays of workers like treating low skilled workers as slaves is also unacceptably inhuman. There should a balance between different objectives. Business profits and human dignity are both important.

Tax credits for low income people can be part of the solution. But that should be done for lowly paid workers as opposed to others who may have worked fewer hours with high paid jobs. This is an important principle that should be incorporated into the design of tax and welfare system through the Henry tax review.

Another point is that instead of setting a compulsory bottom for the minimum pay for the lowest paid workers, the relevant agency or commission may recommend a set of indicative decent minimum wages that serve as a reference for business and workers whey they negotiate on wages and conditions.

A third point is that there should be room for individual workplace contracts alongside other forms of employment contracts. To have some safeguard for both employees as well as businesses, such contracts should be lodged with a government agency for filing and potential disputing resolutions.

Australia’s industrial relations system needs another significant change after the next federal election, notwithstanding the current rewriting of it by the Labour government following its mandate in the last election.

While Gillard is constrained by election promises, the huge amount of work in a short time and inexperience so far, the next term Labour government should provide a good platform to do more and do it in a more sensible way.

Little room for big IR changes for now

Comments on Michael Stutchbury “Gillard’s plan will shackle economy”, 3/09/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/currentaccount/index.php/theaustralian/comments/gillards_plan_will_shackle_economy/

The Rudd government got a mandate to rewrite IR laws in Australia. It seems, however, that the Gillard swing of IR has gone a little too far and will place some unnecessary constraints on the economy and employers, even though the totality of Gillard’s rewriting of the IR laws may be overwhelmingly positive for the nation as a whole.

Besides its problems in the so called award modernization, the complete abolition of individual agreements is unnecessary and will be unproductive. There should be flexibility in agreements between employers and employees. There is a place for collective bargaining, if that is employees want. There is also a place for individual agreements too, if that is also want some employees want.

The important point is employees should have choices in selecting the forms of agreements with their employers and should not be forced against their own interests and wills to do one or another forms of agreements. Whether it is employers or unions, they should not have the power to force employees to make and accept an agreement against their will and interest. IR laws should provide and protect choices for employees and also mindful of their impact on fairness to employees and employers alike, productivity and efficiency.

Politically and timing-wise, however, it is all but a little too late to make big changes to Gillard’s IR laws for this term of the Rudd government irrespective they are good or bad. Any changes are likely to be small and piecemeal in nature. People have to live with the consequences for a while. It is likely to have another round of IR changes after the next federal election, no matter which political parties will be in government.

Businesses and employers need to focus their energy and attention to the government after the next election to make the IR laws more efficient, productive and fair at the same time. The opportunities will be there and don’t let them to slip away.

Balance fairness with productivity in IR

Comments on Janet Albrechtsen “Rhetoric fails to tell whole story”, 26/08/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/rhetoric_fails_to_tell_whole_story/

For industrial relations, the most important issue is to get the balance right. Both the main political parties in Australia have strong an ideology on IR, but those relatively extreme ideologies are not the best for getting the balance right in IR between efficiency/productivity and fairness.

Howard government’s Work Choices went too far to the right and did not afford proper protections to employees, while the Rudd/Gillard Fair Work has gone to the left too far and bright collective bargains as the only means of making agreements. Both are unhelpful to having the right balance between efficiency/productivity and fairness.

The Howard government was voted out of office and its Work Choices was one of the main reasons. The Rudd government is still enjoying huge popularity, partly because the oppositions are impotent and error prong, not by its Fair Work.

While the day of reckoning may be still a long way off, there are indeed some signs that Fair Work is showing problems. The minister, Gillard, has given special treatment to the hospitality industry. What this means is that the Rudd government still has the opportunity to correct the shortcomings of its Fair Work to make it more productive.

It is up to the Rudd government to get this issue right.

Rudd and Gillard overdone to industrial relations to be both efficient and fair

Comments on Corin McCarthy “Kev07's scab flick politics”, 3/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25724259-5015664,00.html

It is always easy to attack the deficiencies of known policies and propose an alternative with unknown effects if that alternative can be dressed up as better. That is normally opposition does.

Howard did that before the 1996 election. Rudd did that in the 2007 election. They were both successful, because the public were bored with the incumbent and were looking for alternatives.

In terms of work place relations, the Rudd government had a mandate to reform the Howard unfair system. Howard just went too far. It might have been good for efficiency, but it lost the society’s value of fairness. Efficiency and fairness or equity are the two fundamental issues of the economy. They need to be balanced.

However, Rudd and Gillard do seem to have gone too far in correcting the unfairness of the Howard industrial relations system. There needs to be a place for unions. But there is also a place for individual agreements. In fact, it seems more attractive to have a dual system in the work place, so employees can choose from them, if firms are big enough.

The phasing out in a period of individual agreements can minimise the impact of Rudd / Gillard reforms, although it will not remove all the negative effects on employment as well as productivity.

It seems that the Rudd Labour government cannot see the damages of its overdone reforms to the economy and the society or will not admit them. That is a regrettable and bad for Australians. The earlier the government realise that, and the earlier it take measures to remedy them, the better it is for the economy and for Australians as a whole.