Unions win easier access to recruit as Fair Work changes to anger business

    by: Ewin Hannan, Industrial editor
    From: The Australian
    March 08, 2013

   

UNIONS will be given greater ability to recruit non-union members in workplaces and force long-running intractable disputes with employers into arbitration under major changes to the federal workplace laws that will spark a backlash from business.     :)

Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten yesterday briefed employers and union leaders on the proposed changes to the Fair Work Act that address a series of long-standing union demands.

Sources said the changes meant that unions would be able to secure arbitration of their long-running dispute with bionic ear-maker Cochlear, which has spent six years refusing to strike a deal with unions.

Employers accused the government of trying to re-impose "compulsory arbitration" on companies and vowed to campaign against the proposals.

While the government had been expected to allow for limited arbitration of disputes at resource projects, the proposal yesterday goes further, broadening the right to arbitration of intractable disputes in the wider workforce.


Unions would also benefit from increased right-of-entry provisions that will allow them to meet employees in their lunchroom during meal breaks.     :)

The proposal has been fiercely resisted by resource employers who assert non-unionists should be allowed to take their meal breaks without potentially being harassed.

Mr Shorten will announce the changes today. Employers said they were told they could not comment publicly on the plans before today.

ACTU secretary Dave Oliver last night welcomed the proposals as "long overdue changes that will bring back some balance to the laws".     :)

As part of its final response to its Fair Work Act review panel, it is understood the government is proposing that the Fair Work Commission, on its own motion, be able to undertake conciliation of negotiations for greenfield projects. Greenfield agreements outline employment conditions on new projects before workers are employed. As was the case before the introduction of the Howard government's WorkChoices, it is possible for employers to make greenfield agreements only with unions.

Employers claim the Fair Work Act has given unions a monopoly that has driven up construction costs and led to delays in project start-up dates.

Under Mr Shorten's proposal, where negotiations for a greenfield agreement reached an impasse a union or an employer could apply to the commission for a "limited form of arbitration" to resolve the bargaining dispute.

However, Mr Shorten told the meeting yesterday that limited access to arbitration should not be restricted to greenfield projects, and it would apply to intractable disputes in workplaces where there has never been an enterprise agreement in place.

Mr Shorten is expected to argue today that the government did not support easy access to arbitration. He will argue that he does not want the system to be "gamed" by either side and therefore the proposed model would apply in very limited circumstances.

The government does not propose to implement the panel recommendation that requires an employer to "take all reasonable steps to notify all unions with eligibility to represent relevant employees". As expected, it has ruled out the making of greenfield agreements by employers unilaterally.

Under the right of entry changes, the government has accepted the panel recommendations that the Fair Work Commission be given the power to resolve disputes about frequency of visits to workplaces by union representatives. BHP Billiton has been among the firms complaining about how often unions visit its sites and disrupt operations.

It is understood Mr Shorten, a former national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, has also delivered on a long-running push by unions, including by his union successor, Paul Howes, to allow officials to meet with workers during meal and other breaks in lunch and recreation rooms.

Mr Shorten told the meeting the proposal was driven by employers and union feedback as well as his own "practical experience". Where there is no agreement between employers and unions, the government proposes that talks be in the locations where the workers that union is entitled to represent and speak with, spend their break. If right of entry is limited to meal and other breaks, the government argues entry should occur in the places where workers spend those breaks.

It is understood Mr Shorten argued that he had taken a "commonsense view, informed by experience" that some of the issues with frequency could be resolved if access to employees was meaningful, in a convenient location, and provided permit rights were not abused.

The changes also look to deal with particular logistical issues associated with accessing sites and workers on remote sites, as well as managing access on these sites.

The government argues it will provide clear rules about how entry can be facilitated and managed, including what happens with transport, whether accommodation was needed, and what should be charged for doing so.

Mr Oliver said it was in the public interest that unions and employers stuck in intractable disputes had access to arbitration. He said he believed unions would be able to seek arbitration of the Cochlear dispute if the proposal became law.

Easir access to recruit new union members.  Thank you for that Mr Shorten, well done.     :)   

As I recall back in the day when my union recruited me; first I was threatened, then my family, my personal property damaged and $600 was demanded of me. Good to see that this is being extended to more and more people.


There is a reason why most people now will not have anything to do with unions; they are thugs and thieves who use the threat of violence to extort money from people.

bugger 'EM

How people so easily forget workchoices.     :(

wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 8:47am:

How people so easily forget workchoices.     :(

And doing the same thing, from the union side, isn't any better than workchoices.

Well past time that companies who refuse to negotiate were made to arbitrate. The oldest trick in the book is to just stay on the old deal while refusing to negotiate for years.

Unions representing a group should have reasonable access to that site and its members.

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 8:35am:

As I recall back in the day when my union recruited me; first I was threatened, then my family, my personal property damaged and $600 was demanded of me. Good to see that this is being extended to more and more people. There is a reason why most people now will not have anything to do with unions; they are thugs and thieves who use the threat of violence to extort money from people. bugger 'EM

Yep, screw them.

The union threatened to close down the company I worked for as no one would join the union.

We were all paid over the award and had plenty of overtime if we wanted it (15 to 20 hours a week).

We, the workers told the union to piss off.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 8:57am:

Unions representing a group should have reasonable access to that site and its members.

Why?

Because people have a right to be in a union.     ::)

wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 9:02am:

Because people have a right to be in a union.     ::)

They shore have so go down to the union office and join  ;) ;)

wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 9:02am:

Because people have a right to be in a union.     ::)

They also have a right not to as well crook.

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 8:58am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 8th, 2013 at 8:57am: Unions representing a group should have reasonable access to that site and its members. Why?

A lot of the best work done by Unions when thay had reasonable access was in terms of safety, keeping them out left workplaces considerably less safe. Also having site access makes them more effective in supporting their members.

unions win easier access to recruit under a government that is top heavy with ex union leaders ;D ;D

who'd have thunk ;)

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 10:20am:

wrote on Mar 8th, 2013 at 9:02am: Because people have a right to be in a union.     They also have a right not to as well crook.

Funny how the employees who refuse to join a Union are happy enough to take all the conditions and pay rates the Union achieve while they undermine any future increases and improvments in conditions.

Not that it matters... Abbott will be PM in only a few months now and such laws will be struck down immediately and a few others besides. might as well get used to it!

Never been in a union. Never will be in a union. Had no need for a union.

Always looked after myself.

As a sideline, my father caused a strike at one place he worked................his crime, working to hard!!!

He left.

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 11:02am:

Never been in a union. Never will be in a union. Had no need for a union. Always looked after myself. As a sideline, my father caused a strike at one place he worked................his crime, working to hard!!! He left.

Did you work a 6 day 60 hr week with 1 week of ARL per year. Or did you take advantage of the hours and conditions that Unions got for you?

Did you refuse to accept union negotiated increases?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 10:53am:

Not that it matters... Abbott will be PM in only a few months now and such laws will be struck down immediately and a few others besides. might as well get used to it!

Great companies will be able to go back to stonewalling for 8 years with no agreement in place - wonderfull.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 8th, 2013 at 10:53am: Not that it matters... Abbott will be PM in only a few months now and such laws will be struck down immediately and a few others besides. might as well get used to it! Great companies will be able to go back to stonewalling for 8 years with no agreement in place - wonderfull.

thats hardly the state of affairs as it is now or was. Plus, why does a union demand require arbitration? What gives them the intrinsic right to be heard when they represent less than 15% of workers? Im not anti-union. I am anti bullying and the kind of actions unions are infamous for.

how about unions behave in a fair responsible and decent manner? too much to ask? apparently so.

My dad was accused of being one of those "bullies" by Hawke and his underlings.

Seems they can't see bullying when it's blue collar but can actually magically see it when it isn't....

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 8:35am:

As I recall back in the day when my union recruited me; first I was threatened, then my family, my personal property damaged and $600 was demanded of me. Good to see that this is being extended to more and more people.

And that happens with every union does it?

You do realise that there is more than one union in this country and that the majority of them do not operate like that? Hmmm?  Or are you happy to just live in your little bubble of ignorance?

::)

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 11:02am:

Never been in a union. Never will be in a union. Had no need for a union.

Hmmm.

Never had annual leave either?

Sick leave?

Meal and rest breaks?

They've all come about through the hard work of unions assisted by the fees paid to them by their members.  I certainly hope you haven't been taking advantage of those entitlements.  You wouldn't do that, would you?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 8th, 2013 at 12:10pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 8th, 2013 at 10:53am: Not that it matters... Abbott will be PM in only a few months now and such laws will be struck down immediately and a few others besides. might as well get used to it! Great companies will be able to go back to stonewalling for 8 years with no agreement in place - wonderfull. thats hardly the state of affairs as it is now or was. Plus, why does a union demand require arbitration? What gives them the intrinsic right to be heard when they represent less than 15% of workers? Im not anti-union. I am anti bullying and the kind of actions unions are infamous for. how about unions behave in a fair responsible and decent manner? too much to ask? apparently so.

What a load of Bull - Working accross about 7 industries I have never been bullied by a Union and never come across anyone else who had either. Wish I could say the same about employers.

the kind of actions unions are infamous for

Mostly fairy tales from the 1950's.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 8th, 2013 at 12:10pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 8th, 2013 at 10:53am: Not that it matters... Abbott will be PM in only a few months now and such laws will be struck down immediately and a few others besides. might as well get used to it! Great companies will be able to go back to stonewalling for 6 years with no agreement in place - wonderfull. thats hardly the state of affairs as it is now or was. Plus, why does a union demand require arbitration? What gives them the intrinsic right to be heard when they represent less than 15% of workers? Im not anti-union. I am anti bullying and the kind of actions unions are infamous for. how about unions behave in a fair responsible and decent manner? too much to ask? apparently so.

stonewalling for 6 years

thats hardly the state of affairs as it is now or was.

Yes it is this is from the current Cochlear dispute, it is how one disgracefull business is currently acting towards its staff.

The Union movement needs greater integrity oversight...workers deserve this...speaking of lack of integrity...one name...Lou Di Gregorio...

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 11:02am:

Never been in a union. Never will be in a union. Had no need for a union. Always looked after myself. As a sideline, my father caused a strike at one place he worked................his crime, working to hard!!! He left.

I didn't think freeloading wonky numberplates had a union.