Page 3107 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 24 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The issue with this proposal is that there is no obligation on the employer party in these negotiations to actively engage in negotiations on terms and conditions. This is the most worrying part. If an agreement is not reached after 30 days, even in circumstances where negotiations have not been undertaken in good faith, an employer can take their proposal directly to the Fair Work Commission for approval. It also allows employers to block out any unions that they do not want participating.
This is not negotiation, because the employer has no incentive to negotiate at all. It will potentially create a culture where important conditions like penalty rates and overtime pay to their workers will be denied. This will result in an increased number of hardworking families struggling to make ends meet. It will provide employers with the ability to offer two options to workers: take it or leave it. This is not an outcome or a position I want any Canberran to end up in. The sorts of workers who will be most affected by these changes will be people already in low paid industries such as those in the aged care or cleaning sectors.
While speaking here today I would like to acknowledge the extensive work that Ms Berry has done for these sections of the workforce through her career working for United Voice. I would also like to note the continued support she demonstrates for these sectors and commend her for this.
Along with issues surrounding greenfields agreements, I am also concerned about the effects the proposed changes will have to individual flexibility agreements. The federal Labor Party introduced IFAs in 2009. This is due to the fact that, if they are applied appropriately, they can be of benefit to both the employer and the employee. When they were first implemented the then Labor government ensured that low paid and vulnerable workers had the bottom line of their budget protected through the inclusion of sufficient safeguards in the legislation.
An example of an IFA which benefits both employer and employee could be that an employee is permitted to have a couple of hours off a week at the employee’s request to undertake study which will improve both their own skills and employability and the positive impact that they have being an employee of the company. In return, the employee might agree to undertake an extra hour of work out of hours. This sort of trade-off, depending on the circumstances of the employee, can be seen as of “relative insignificance” or “proportionate” as stipulated by the current legislation.
This protection is slyly removed through the wording of this amendment through the removal of “relative insignificance” and “proportionate” which leaves employees open to exploitation through examples such as this: an employer offers a newly employed employee a reduction of their hourly wage as a trade-off for three meals a day that they serve at the restaurant where the employee works. The value of the meals provided by the business is very little per day, but the reduction of wages equates to, say, $35 a day. The employer offers this: take it or leave it. The question is: is this a fair trade-off for the employee? It is not of “relative insignificance”, and under the proposed legislation this will not matter. As we have heard from Ms Berry, pizza will not pay the rent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video