the dying unions have a wimper... Re: [LINK] Surveillance in extremis

[Deus Ex Machina]

Chris Maltby [chris at sw.oz.au] wrote:
> Whatever you think about the need for what is euphemistically called
> workplace "flexibility", it's worth observing that AWAs have been
> available for quite a few years already. There was, however, almost
> no take up of them until the new legislation removed the previous
> "no disadvantage" test that applied to them.
> 
> So, if this much lauded flexibility is both a good thing in itself,
> and has lots of valuable benefits for working people as the government
> is always saying, why did employers wait to push AWAs until they
> included the right to unilaterally cut wages and conditions and sack
> people for not agreeing?

according to whom exactly? greg combet of the dying union movement?

Steve Knott: Why workers are voting with their feet
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19962722-7583,00.html

...
"The importance of the industry to Australia's improved economic
performance and increase in living standards is significant. Of concern
to leaders in this industry is the continued politicisation and
polarisation of opinion on workplace relations matters. 

ACTU leader Greg Combet, for instance, says it's drivel to argue that
large numbers of mining industry employees are on AWAs. Never mind that,
according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, private sector union
membership has plummeted from a high of 57 per cent in 1985 to 17 per
cent this year. Union membership in the mining sector has more than
halved. 

Associated with this decline has been a marked change in regulation of
employment arrangements in the resources sector. A high proportion of
employees is now covered by direct employment arrangements with their
employer. This is in part evident through the growth in the take-up of
AWAs since their inclusion in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 in March
1997. 

Federally registered agreements cover 55,500 employees in the mining
industry. Thirty-two per cent of employees (predominantly in the coal
and construction sectors) are bound by union collective agreements. More
than two-thirds of mining employees are regulated by non-union
agreements. Sixty-oneper cent are covered by AWAs. In the hard-rock
mining sector the AWA penetration rate is closer to 80 per cent. 

The individual relationship facilitated by the AWA has made a positive
contribution to productivity in the mining industry. A real-life
comparison of the benefits of individual v collective arrangements can
be found in the Pilbara region in Western Australia. 

In the late 1990s Hamersley Iron and BHP Iron Ore were considering
merging. As part of the process the operations needed to be valued. The
due diligence team found that the Hamersley Iron operation was 20per
cent to 35 per cent more efficient than the BHP operation. 

The point of difference was that Hamersley Iron employees were engaged
on an individual basis. They had a higher commitment to business
outcomes and increased capacity to rapidly respond to changing
circumstances. At BHP, employees were faced with conflicting
instructions from the employer and the union. BHP Iron Ore has since
introduced AWAs. 

So what would happen if we lost access to AWAs? Using a conservative
productivity improvement level of 25 per cent, the loss of AWAs could
result in $6.6 billion loss in Australian exports a year. "

> And since when has increased job insecurity been good for the economy?

you are clutching at straws here.   flexibility means shifting the work
force around. isnt about job security or insecurity. its
about removing the cost to employees of getting rid of dead wood in the
organisation and removing the adverse costs to investment.  there are countless
articles on google about it, look for yourself.

even mcfarlane outgoing governor of the reserve bank just said that
flexibility was already having a positive effect on the economy.

Vic