Work Law Policies

Work Law Policies Introduction Industrial relations and work policies are crucial factors of economic growth and development for a capitalist nation. Australia, being a capitalist nation, is one of the developed countries that have been in labour crisis for a long time. The involved stakeholders have been striving to unveil the best work policies and industrial relations that would bring a lasting solution to the citizens.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on Work Law Policies specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Unfortunately, the political regimes have ascended into power by using these mysteries as stepping stones, whereby, the ruling government fails to deliver the best policies, thus giving a clear path for the opposition who seem to have what the citizens have yearned for a long time. In 2007, the Rudd-led opposition party had a renowned mantra for campaigning in the federal election of Australia. There was a heated debate in th e entire nation concerning the existing industrial relations and working policies that were seen to have deprived employees of their rights, and had been introduced by the Howard’s ruling government. The public was tried of the working policies and industrial relations and it felt inferior to the government and employers who denied them labour rights as required by the international labour rights. According to the international industrial relations organisation, the work policies and industrial relations must adhere to three factors, which include efficiency, equity, and voice (Wooden â€Å"Industrial Relations Reform† 244). Looking into these factors; firstly, the efficiency of a policy is determined by factors that include streamlined enforcement of regulations, reasonable employees’ benefits, and effective training programs. Secondly, the ability of a policy to enhance equity is determined by its ability to advocate for the rights of employees in relation to living wages and salaries, safety at the workplaces, health insurance, non-discrimination policies, discipline and dismissal policies, and work to family balancing. Finally, the ability of a policy to promote the voice of employees is determined by its position to allow employees to join labour unions at will, participate in the decision-making processes, and enjoy the freedom to air their grievances without the fear of victimisation. These factors form the basis for judging the validity and efficiency of such policies in a country.Advertising Looking for research paper on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More This paper compares and contrasts the â€Å"Forward with Fairness† (2005) with â€Å"Work Choices: A New Workplace Relations System† (2005) with regard to their adherence to efficiency, equity, and voice. However, it is important to note that the Forward and Fairness policy was intr oduced as a political agenda aimed at counteracting the Work Choices and thus it seems more efficient though it could not have been implemented without hitches that are discussed in this paper. Work Choices: A New Workplace Relations System In 2005, John Howard, the then Australian Prime minister, together with his political affiliates argued that Work Choices was a modernised and simplified method of regulating work and industrial relations in Australia. Howard’s Work Choices received criticisms that were beyond reasonable doubts, since the majority of Australians felt the need to have workplaces that guaranteed fairness and freedom to employees. The government had failed to ensure that employees had such rights at the workplaces, and the citizens were longing for a change of government in the next federal election (Rudd and Gillard 20). In 2005, the Australians were in full support of the implementation of the Work Choices for it promised better working conditions and hence improved living standards. However, this anticipation did not materialise due to various factors that lied in the relations between the government and employers. The government could not have implemented the policies because of the lobby activists that operated from within and the great influence of employers in the economic growth and development of the country. Hence, the problem was in the poor leadership that considered the interests of a few and ignored the needs of the vast majority. Looking into the components of the Work Choices, the first was â€Å"New protections of minimum wages and conditions† (Wooden â€Å"Implications of Work Choices† 108). Howard and his affiliates promised to look into the needs of Australian employees in relation to protection and wages at the work place (Kramp 52).Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on Work Law Policies specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More This clause was supposed to be implemented by setting up an independent body to look into the employees’ wages and salaries in an effort to promote their living standards. The independent body was supposed to set up policies that defined the minimum wages that could be given to different qualification standards in the country (Lye and McDonald 34). Secondly, it was supposed to set up standards for safety net, through which the government would set the minimum set of conditions for employment. Those conditions included maximum working hours in a day for an employee, the right to have an annual leave and its minimum duration, and the right to have a personal leave based on personal affairs such as sickness and parental care leave. Those minimum conditions were passed into law and were implemented by the Fair Pay Commission. The commission noted that all labour agreements concerning the salaries and wages between the employer and the employee should meet those minimum conditions. In additi on, Work Choices stipulated that the maximum number of working hours in a week should not exceed thirty-eight, in excess of which overtime pay must be offered as per the number of excess hours. Concerning the annual leave, the employee has a right to have a payable annual leave of at least four weeks and five weeks for shift workers. However, the Fair Pay Commission noted that an employee has a right to cash out a leave and the employer had no right under the law to force an employee to do so or to refuse to do so if the employer wishes. Concerning the personal leave, an employee has at least ten days of paid personal leave in twelve months that is cumulative, but a compulsory compassionate leave of two days to care for the ill and attending funerals of the loved ones. If the compassionate leave occurs after exhausting the twelve days of both compassionate and personal leave, an employee may be given an additional two unpaid days in the case of an emergency leave. In the case of a p arental leave, an employee has a right to take up to fifty-two days of unpaid leave in the case of birth or adopting a child, but both parents cannot take leave exceeding one week in the case of birth or else three weeks for adopting a child. In the case of casual employees, an eligible employee for this policy should have served for at least twelve months continuously under one employer.Advertising Looking for research paper on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More In addition to the first component of the Work Choices, it also offered for ‘The Protection against Unlawful Termination’ from a workplace. Work Choices promised Australians that it would continue to protect employees against unlawful termination from their working places regardless of the size of businesses where they are employed. However, there were definitions of unlawful termination and according to Work Choice; unlawful termination is the dismissal of an employee from the workplace because of temporary absenteeism at workplace duet o injuries or illness, or willingness to join a trade union. Others include acting on behalf of other employees like in the case of airing their grievances, participating in proceedings that would tarnish the image of an employer, dismissal based on gender, race, disability, or any other form of discrimination, and refusal to negotiate with an employer. In the case of unlawful dismissal, the Work Choices stipulated that employees were e ligible to a compensation of at least $4000. Looking, into the above first component of the Work Choices, it emphasised on all the three factors that a good working policy must adhere to, which include efficiency, equity, and voice. The second influential policy for the Work Choice was the ‘Awards’. The policy stipulated that workers would remain eligible to their awards regardless of their coverage by workplace agreements. In addition, it defined the awarding conditions of an employee under which an employee is fully eligible to receive the award from the employer. Those conditions included long service leaves such as annual and parental leaves, but other conditions that had been included in other jurisdictions were removed and they included superannuation, notice on termination of employment, and jury service. However, under the awards, there were some removable elements from the awarding offer and they included traineeships, independent contractors, and labour hired workers for they served under temporary labour agreements. By considering the above policies of Work Choices, Australians were anxious of attaining a simpler and fairer labour system that would have boosted their living standards. Howard and his affiliates promised to protect the rights of both the employer and the employee by introducing an office of the workplace rights, which would have the mandate of ensuring that the protection of the two parties is guaranteed. This office would also ensure that both the employee and the employer meet their obligations and impose penalties on the offender in the case of breaches of the agreement (Watson 169). In addition, Howard promised that the office of work choices would ensure that both the employees and employers know their rights by offering civic education. However, the new policy would not interfere with the role of the existing Australian Industrial Relations Commission that deals with dispute resolutions at the work place. Work Choic es was believed to concentrate on introducing mechanisms that would boost cooperation between employees and their employers. In so doing, there had to be a transitional stage that is often filled with reluctance and disputes, but it left the issues of dispute resolutions amongst the employees and their employers. This gap could have resulted to minor conflicts that are easily solvable ending up in the industrial courts due to lack of undefined dispute resolution mechanism, which would pose great risks to the employees serving under unfaithful employers. Forward and Fairness Interestingly, forward and fairness is an improvement of Work Choice resulting from the gaps that were left in the drafting and implementing stages of the Work Choices policy. The policy was developed in 2007 under the watch of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard who were members of parliament belonging to the Labour Party that was then the Australian official opposition in Howard’s government. According to Rudd and Gillard (16), Work Choices failed to achieve fairness and flexibility at workplaces and it had resulted in the creation of imbalances in the workplaces for two years that it had been in existence. Howard’s government came under much criticism due to failure to deliver much of its promises that had initially adhered to efficiency, equity, and voice. For instance, under the Australian Workplace Agreements, many employees had lost penalties in cases where employers were found to have unlawfully dismissed them, it failed to emphasise on the payments of overtimes, shift allowances, and other awards that had been promised to the citizens before the introduction of the Work Choices. Forward and Fairness promised Australians that it would reverse the situation once the Labour Party ascended into power after the 2007 federal elections. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard put more emphasis on their ability to introduce fairer and more flexible policies in the Australian industrial relatio ns and a smooth transition from the Work Choices laws. Mr. Howard did not apply a smooth transition mechanism in his introduction for the Work Choices, but instead he did a rapid transition that resulted in the abolition of some labour institutions, thus giving rise to crises in the country’s labour sector. During the transition in 2006, many citizens lost their jobs as employers were afraid of retaining their contracts (Befort 11). The haste transition had adverse effects to the entire implementation process due to reaction from the opposition and the affected citizens. In addition, some employers got an opportunity to act unlawfully by dismissing contractual workers based on expired contracts and as a result, there were numerous disputes in the industrial courts, which overwhelmed the government. This scenario led to the dismissal of cases that lacked enough evidences and in most cases benefiting the unfaithful employers. Therefore, Rudd and Gillard had learnt from the mist akes of their counterparts and opted to apply a transition mechanism that would not allow for negative reaction from the employers, employees, and the public. In addition, the Work Choices also seemed to have created an imbalance between the employer and employees by inflexible pay arrangements. For instance, the pay arrangement did not specify the employees’ pay limit for eligibility, which exposed the employer to financial risks. Hence, they specified the upper limit of eligibility to be $100,000 and above, where employee earning less than that amount was eligible for the awarding system (Ryan 206). According to Cooper (289), after a successful ascension into power, Rudd and Gillard made a smooth transition that took more than twelve months. By 2009, there had been a great change in the manner in which industrial regulations were conducted in Australia. It is interesting to note that in the transition plan, they had considered the need for employers, who were bound to the o ld order of Australian Workplace Arrangement, to be given enough time to adapt to the new system before its complete abolition, which would be effected after twelve months. That period was necessary for both the employees and employers since it was enough to change the mentality and get prepared to comply with new regulations (Cooper 290). In addition, the Labour government under the leadership of Kevin Rudd assured the citizens of Australia that it would ensure that they have strong and fair safety net of balanced industrial relations and effective award protection. In addition, employees would not be in a position to get into working conditions that undermined the safety net, as had been the case in the Howard’s regime. He promised to ensure that collective enterprise bargaining would be his tool for attaining the desired flexibility between the employees and the employers (Baird, Hancock, and Isaac 89). In conclusion, it is evident that Forward with Fairness Policy was an improvement of the Work Choices. Upon the drafting of the Work Choices implementation plan in 2005, Australians were happy to have a promising future in relation to the improvement of the work place relations, but due to poor implementation strategy, this goal never materialised. Hence, judging the Work Choices by the nature of its appearance in the implementation plan, it was valid in the sense that it adhered to efficiency, equity, and voice. On the other hand, Forward with Fairness is a better policy than the Work Choices since it was founded with consideration to the mistakes that had been made in the implementation process of the former policy. Rudd and Gillard had noted that the failure of the Work Choices hinged on poor implementation strategy that did not consider the transition process needed for adaptation to the new industrial policies by both employers and employees. Hence, they adopted the title ‘Forward with Fairness’, and they achieved the desired results . Baird, Marian, Keith Hancock, and Joel Isaac. Work and Employment Relations:  Ã‚  An Era of Change, Sydney: The Federation Press, 2011. Print. Befort, Stephen 2009, Invisible Hands, Invisible Objectives: Bringing Workplace  Law and Public Policy into Focus. PDF File. 26 Sep. 2013. www.ilera-directory.org/15thworldcongress/files//Thur_W4_BUDD.pdf. Cooper, Rae. â€Å"Forward Labour with Fairness? Industrial Relations under in 2008.†Ã‚  Journal of industrial relations 51.3 (2009): 285–296. Print. Kramp, Ole. Minimum Wage Legislation in Australia, Germany† GRIN Verlag, 2009. Print. Lye, Jenny, and Ian McDonald. â€Å"The Effectiveness of Incomes Policies, Enterprise Bargaining and Inflation Targeting in Australia.† Australian Economic Papers 43.1 (2007):21-38. Print. Rudd, Kelvin, and Julia Gillard 2007, Forward with Fairness Policy Implementation  Plan.PDF File. 26 Sep. 2013. www.airc.gov.au/kirbyarchives/2009exhibn /documents/070428FWF.pdf‎. R yan, Mathew. â€Å"Workplace Relations Reform, Prosperity, and Fairness.† Australian  Economic Review 38.5 (2009): 201-210. Print. Watson, Ian. â€Å"Minimum Wages and Employment.† The Australian Economic Review  Ã‚  37.1 (2008):166-172. Print. Wooden, Mark. â€Å"Implications of Work Choices Legislation.† Agenda 13.2 (2006): 99- 116. Print. Wooden, Mark. â€Å"Industrial Relations Reform in Australia: Causes, Consequences and Prospects.† The Australian Economic Review 34.8 (2001): 243-262. Print.