On the Workplace Relations Act previously know as WorkChoices

What a joke to replace unfair dismissal laws and the no disadvantage test with a ‘fairness test’ – how 1984! Don’t they know that prevention is better than cure?

Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) and the power disparity between most workers and employers....

Now, you might think it would be in an employer's interests to make his employee's happy, just as it's in a general's interests to keep his soldiers alive, but sometimes the interests of the company are considered more important than a single worker’s pay or a single soldier’s life, aren’t they? People who have interests that are divergent to yours can’t be responsible for your interests. You don’t have to be Spock to figure that out.

If you don’t have a union then you are on your own in a very unequal fight – he who controls the pay-packet controls the strings. How many people: can’t be replaced; are in high demand; and can ask whatever in the way of remuneration? If you can’t say yes to these things then you have no bargaining power. (And let’s face it, even if you do have these things they may not be the coin of the day – you may simply be replaced by someone younger and cuter.)

Unions don’t have a lot of power. A union gives you access to people who know the law and where you stand. It gives you people that you’ve paid to look after your interests as you travel along the employment road. Hopefully they will sort things before the issue becomes one for a court. In extreme circumstances it gives the power of the strike, which is really the only power employees will ever have, so don’t disrespect it or think of it as something horrible that evil people do.

The government has gone to a lot of effort to sully the image of unions (and ok sometimes they don’t help themselves – who hasn’t met that disreputable union rep who spends all his time in the TAB and do they all smoke?). Like Unions, the government is supposed to be working for us, but often it seems they are working for business interests or for the ‘sake of the economy’ – which may be true, but it’s not in our personal interests as workers. Like the employer, the government can’t be trusted with our interests when theirs are divergent.

Having a drop in our expectations might suit a government that wants more people to take up the less-pleasant jobs. The other option is getting employers to change their expectations. Employers are the people who give campaign money – who do you think will have to change their expectations?

Ok – another example. Think about the way people do their tax. No one pays more than they have to. Without checks and balances in the system people look for the thing that best suits them. If they can get away with something they will. Same for employers. Same for employees too, but the difference is the power inequity and the thing at issue. For employers it’s money, for employees it’s livelihood.