Senate to turn back Abetz on workplace trade-offs

    EWIN HANNAN
    The Australian
    February 24, 2014


THE government's next wave of workplace changes will be delayed by months after the Labor Party and the Greens declared yesterday they were highly unlikely to support passage of the changes through the Senate.

Employment Minister Eric Abetz will introduce a bill into parliament this week to make it easier for workers to trade off key entitlements, including penalty rates, for more flexible working hours. The bill will also impose fresh restrictions on unions entering workplaces and limit their ability to get pay deals on new resource projects.      

But both the ALP and the Greens said yesterday they were likely to oppose the bill, ensuring the changes will at least be delayed until the new Senate comes into operation from July 1.      

Opposition workplace relations spokesman Brendan O'Connor said the ALP was suspicious about the government's intentions and it was "highly likely" the opposition would not support the bill".      

The legislation would overhaul Labor's system of individual flexibility arrangements by abolishing the ability of unions to have enterprise agreements restrict their use. Senator Abetz said the changes would allow workers to trade off penalty rates for working more flexible hours to suit their personal situation.

Mr O'Connor said he wanted to ensure any individual flexibility arrangements were genuinely agreed, that there was proper oversight, that they were not conditions of employment and that workers could not be coerced into signing up to them.

He said the suggestion that the changes would only affect individual workers was "ludicrous". "It has an impact on the people who work around them on the same conditions, doing similar or the same work," he said. "It effectively has an impact on other competitors. That's the intention -- to place pressure all around.

Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt said his party was almost certain to oppose it. He said an employer "shouldn't be able to sign a binding collective agreement on Monday and then contract out of it on Tuesday". "People want more control over their working lives but the only 'flexibility' Tony Abbott has in mind is the flexibility for everyday workers to lose their entitlements."

ACTU secretary Dave Oliver said unions believed the government was "trying to appease the top end of town" and the ALP should oppose the bill. "This is just another move by the government to increase flexibility and have more individual bargaining in the workplace. The unions have always been opposed to that and we would seek the support of the Labor Party to oppose it."

According to an analysis by the Department of Employment the implementation of the bill would reduce negotiations on new projects by two months and generate $70 million in red tape and compliance savings.

It found the proposed changes to the rules governing greenfields agreements would significantly reduce the burden on employers by cutting the time taken for union negotiations by two months.

Senator Abetz said the analysis showed the benefits the policy would have for the economy, workers and employers.

So talk to the unions      

Opposition workplace relations spokesman Brendan O'Connor said the ALP was suspicious about the government's intentions.      

Quote:


I've dealt with the AMWU and I found them to be incredibly confrontational and not a business partner thinking bigger picture at all.
In fact they were quite obstructive to us.

So the more we can go around unions the better.

Quote:


How can Labor - funded by unions - be trusted to be impartial and govern with the interests of business in mind on workplace relations?

We know full well the coalition can not be trusted on industrial relations.  Remember they were the ones, that introduced work choices ( no choices ).   

cods wrote on Feb 24^th, 2014 at 6:57am:


Oh I get it, so the Liberals are just as bad as Labor, did I hear that right?

Stratos wrote on Feb 24^th, 2014 at 6:59am:





you could be.. although it depends on the lie and the aftermaths ....

if giving someone the right to decide his own destiny is wrong.. I do not recall the LIBS saying they would not do that during the election..


perhaps you can show me where it made headlines....

abbott always said Workchoices was too stringent..too harsh....so lets see what this is about.. not just wipe it away because some union claims its wrong...


whats to fear if the worker doesnt want to he doesnt have to...

I for one do not trust unions.. not after what we have b een seeing for years and yeas knowing nothing changes they are a law or force unto themselves...they are huge business...yet run roughshod over everything that they dont like... which can take POWER away from the few...

dont forget we do not vote for these union people yet when labors in they run the show.