Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 14
th, 2016 at 5:55pm:
The concept of workchoices, which was to have a more flexible work force on individual agreements agreed between the company and individual backed up by statutory safeguards - is, and remains, a good idea.
The statutory safeguards and their application seem to be the issue.... clearly when WC was put in play the intent was to have flexibility, but unfortunately some saw it as meaning that the former balance of power within the worker/employer relationship had altered to a kind of Fuhrerprinzip system... "Ich befehlen!", thus elevating the boss to some kind of feudal lord rather than a responsible part of the work/social contract.
Statutory guarantees included that no income level could fall below award.... so in a sense there was little to recommend WC other than the ability to shuffle hours around to suit, though in many cases that was irrelevant anyway. Then the 'right' minded began to complain that agreed remuneration, in return for shifting hours etc, somehow meant that workers were getting more than they were allowed... we see this daily with comments such as "Ford workers on $50 an hour!", "Wharfies on base $174k!", "building workers standing over management to be paid astronomical sums!"
All utter nonsense, and many of these agreements include incentive payments. A properly run and controlled WC is not such a bad thing.... unfortunately the skills to do so do not exist universally on the part of management, far too many of whom are ego-driven rather than intelligent.
I'm afraid such Med Peons as The Flying Grollo Brothers, or the wharfie bosses, do not help here, since their insistence on confrontation and controlling behaviour creates the environment in which work is not performed willingly and is considered a chore rather than a duty. A house divided against itself cannot function well by any stretch of the imagination.