Quo vadis Australia's workers?

By Dewi Anggraeni

MELBOURNE (JP): Since the 1930s Great Depression, Australia's workers have not really lived on the edge. There have been protective fences and, down below, safety nets. Some say it was the 1930s Depression that jolted Australia to build this workers' world.

This world however, was not created overnight. In fact, the groundwork had been laid even before the Depression. Not long after federation, the Federal Arbitration Court was established in 1904, to have power over federal awards and industrial disputes extending beyond one state.

This was followed in 1907 by the fixing of the basic wage, which was based on the minimum wage needed by a worker to support a family in a frugal condition. The amount, it was decided in 1920, was to be adjusted quarterly.

With the beginning of economic prosperity in 1940, followed by the postwar boom, the basis of the minimum wage, the consumer price index (CPI), kept widening, later to include even health insurance premiums and house mortgage repayments.

Australia's workers, it seems, have solid legal protection. The Industrial Relations Act 1971 and subsequent amendments not only guarantee a minimum wage with a higher rate for overtime, but also other benefits like 4 weeks paid leave, maternity leave, sick leave and employer's compulsory contribution to superannuation, to mention a few.

Expectations were so high that much was made of the recession, where real wages fell by over 9 percent in 1982/1983.

Industrial relations, however, involve two parties. Things can only be good for workers if employers can afford paying them. In times of economic tightness in the 1980s, there was a significant reduction in the number of employers able to afford the costs of employing workers.

And since countries in the region were increasingly opening their doors to foreign investors, embracing the concept and practice of market economy, some Australian companies took their businesses offshore in search of cheaper labor and lower production costs.

If the country's economy was going to improve for everyone, the trade unions would have to come to the party. So, an agreement was reached in 1988, that the principle of national wage awards had to be restructured. Wage rises since then are linked to review of efficiency and productivity enhancement.

In the early 1990s, Australia became increasingly aware of the rapid growth in other countries in the region and that Australia was fast losing its leading edge. Thus, further restructure was necessary. After rejecting the concept of enterprise bargaining -- agreements between individual companies and their own workers, the Industrial Relations Commission finally allowed it in 1991.

This was later strengthened in the Industrial Relations Reform Act 1994, which provides a better framework for enterprise bargaining and draws a clear line between industrial awards and enterprise agreements. Provisions have been included to allow wider flexibility for workplace agreements.

The downside of this trend for trade unionism is that it provides an alternative mechanism for bargaining in nonunion or lightly unionized companies. Workers became less and less dependent on their trade unions, especially when they are not completely unprotected without them.

A safety net has been provided by the commission in the form of a guaranteed wage increase of AU$8.00 per week annually from December 1993. The government's legislative reforms cover minimum wages, equal remuneration and employment protection.

This government's policy in regards to wages looks set, in the path of making negotiations at enterprise level, to be more attractive to employer and employee alike.

It is obvious that those who are going to benefit from this trend are the highly and specifically skilled, often young, budding executives. They are oozing with self-confidence and self-knowledge and adept at negotiating their ways into the realm of high income and high living.

At the other end of the spectrum, those who have been conditioned all their working life to rely on their trade unions, are feeling increasingly unsure and insecure. These people are relatively untrained in the art of negotiation, so they still need Big Brother to look after their welfare. If Big Brother is going to be their trade union, then it needs to be a great deal more politically aware, astute and wise, so as not to be irrelevant and easily sidestepped.

If the government is keen on assuming the role of Big Brother, then let us hope it has the wisdom to spot and tread the fine balance between pressing political and economic demands and the good of its workers.