The challenge for the Prime Minister in his snap reform summit this week will be to overcome the doctrinaire positions of many of the stakeholders. The biggest problem will be what appears to be the denialism of business groups about industrial relations, as seen in their responses to the Productivity Commission’s draft report on industrial relations reform.
The responses of groups like the Business Council, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry ignore the commission’s sober conclusions that Australia has an effective, flexible workplace relations system. Indeed, the Reserve Bank recently observed that the flexibility of our industrial relations laws, in allowing a trade-off between lower wages growth and higher employment, had played a key role in enabling the economy to navigate the end of the mining investment boom.
None of that matters to employer groups. They want to cut back awards, curb rises in the minimum wage, slash penalty rates in hospitality and retail and extend those cuts to all industries, and further limit the power of unions and employees to bargain with employers. Some even oppose recently established protections against workplace bullying.
Their position is not evidence-based. There is no evidence that minimum wages reduce employment. Meanwhile, we do have evidence that productivity growth under the Fair Work Act has outstripped growth under WorkChoices, and that wage cuts damage the very household demand they depend on.
Instead, their objections are based on ideology and naked self-interest — a desire to penalise workers for the direct benefit of the bottom line of businesses. And they’re not acting in the national interest.
Evidence-based policy doesn’t seem to be at the top of agile Newmals priority list if his new position on emissions is anything to go by.. at least he sacked the combover.. can we try some trickle up economics for a while..
News Flash “Their position is not evidence-based. .. their objections are based on ideology and naked self-interest ” and meanwhile, water continues to flow downhill.
Sometimes it seems employers & their toadies would like to stop even the crumbs falling from their groaning tables.
Not much of this stands up to scrutiny.
It is true that driving down wages is not smart economics because of its destruction of spending power in the community. This is so well established as a principle of economics that only the ignorant and stupid wouldn’t know it. I do not believe the BCA has, “A desire to penalise workers for the direct benefit of the bottom line of businesses”. This is straightforward class warfare on Crikey’s part.
As I read it, they want to reduce penalty rates on Sundays to encourage business that close for the day due to penalty rates to open and boost employment. They may be incorrect of course and it may not have that effect but your moralising ad hominem attack is pretty ignorant.
The other glaring inaccuracy in this editorial is your contention that the Fair Work Act was better at boosting productivity than Workchoices. When mines are closing weekly and tens of thousands of mining workers are losing their jobs, it focuses everybody’s mind, including Unions, on the measures needed for business survival. The GFC and the end of the mining boom had far more impact on labour productivity than a Union friendly piece of legislation that happened to be in force at the time.
Great stenography from OneHand, despite his eponymous handicap – “reduce penalty rates on Sundays to encourage business that close for the day due to penalty rates to open and boost employment“.
Given that this demand comes primarily (and most vociferously) from suppliers of the dreaded latte it is demonstrably mendacious.
Anyone in that particular drug trade knows, they do more business AND make higher profits on the weekend – when the usual wage slaves are able to linger longer and maybe even splash out on a $5 slice of mudcake.
Well why do so many of them not open then if Sunday is so profitable?