New name for same old unfair IR laws: Millions miss out on ‘fairness test’
FACTsheet
The Howard Government has dropped the name ‘WorkChoices’ but has kept the same old unfair IR laws.
New changes to the laws called the ‘fairness test’ are not about protecting workers.
They are a political stunt and Treasurer Peter Costello has even refused to guarantee that the Government will not ‘repeal or water down the fairness test’ if it wins the upcoming federal election (6 May 2007, Ch9 Sunday program).
The ‘fairness test’ does not guarantee workers get full financial compensation for the losing their penalty rates, overtime pay, public holiday pay, annual leave loading, or other award conditions they lose under the Federal Government’s industrial relations laws.A
A clear choice for working families at the next electionLabor’s industrial relations policy is a positive alternative to the Howard Government’s extreme and unfair WorkChoices regime.
The Labor policy provides for:
• remedies for unfair dismissal.
• a new independent umpire.
• a strong safety net of minimum standards and award entitlements.
• abolition of AWAs and a fair system of collective bargaining.
• There are around 2.5 million workers who will not benefit from the ‘test’ because they are on already-registered AWAs & Agreements or earn more than $75,000 a year.
• Workers with family responsibilities are particularly at risk. Employees whose availability to work is restricted due to family responsibilities or other personal circumstances have no guaranteed entitlement to penalty rates or shift pay under the ‘fairness test’.
• Non-monetary compensation can be offered to workers in exchange for losing their penalty rates or overtime pay under these changes. And in some cases, workers in country areas or young workers may also not receive proper financial compensation.
The so-called ‘fairness test’ is full of loopholes:
Just like the Government’s decision to stop using the name ‘WorkChoices’ for its IR laws this ‘fairness test’ is nothing more than a cover-up and working families will see right through it.
The fact is that the Howard Government’s IR changes do not adequately protect workers from losing penalty rates, shift allowances, overtime loadings or other award conditions.
Howard’s IR laws: a step backwards for fairness
The Howard Government’s new ‘fairness test’ is inferior to the previous ‘no disadvantage test’ in key ways:
1. No role for independent umpire (AIRC)
The new ‘fairness test’ provides no role for the independent umpire to scrutinise AWAs. Under the new system, individual workers who are dissatisfied with the compensation they receive for losing their penalty rates, overtime and other award conditions have nowhere to go.
2. Fewer workers are protected
Around 2.5 million workers are not covered by the new ‘fairness test’ and receive no protection.
3. A limited set of award conditions are taken into account
The new ‘fairness test’ does not take into account all award conditions when determining if the AWA individual contract is ‘fair’.
Redundancy pay, paid maternity leave, and a say on rosters for workers were previously taken into account in the ‘no disadvantage test’ but are now not protected and can be abolished with no compensation to workers.
4. AWAs are not checked before they apply to workers’ wages and conditions
Under the new system, AWAs are checked only after they start to apply. This means that workers lose their award conditions first, and then the ‘fairness test’ is applied later.
With the ‘no disadvantage test’, workers agreements were tested first to ensure workers were not disadvantaged. Only then, did the agreement start.
DO NOT RESTORE workers’ rights to protection from unfair dismissal;
DO NOT GUARANTEE that negotiations over work conditions will result in workers being financially better off than they would have been under their award;
DO NOT ENSURE workers have a right to collectively bargain where that is what the majority in a workplace want; and
DO NOT ADDRESS the fundamental power imbalance between large corporations and an individual workers when negotiating AWA Individual contracts.
Just like the Government’s decision to stop using the name ‘WorkChoices’ for its IR laws this ‘fairness test’ is nothing more than a cover-up and working families will see right through it.
The fact is that the Howard Government’s IR changes do not adequately protect workers from losing penalty rates, shift allowances, overtime loadings or other award conditions.
Workers’ Help Line
1300 362 223 www.rightsatwork.com.au
Printed and authorised by Sharan Burrow, Level 6, 365 Queen St Melbourne VIC 3000
{mxc}