The much debated new legislation is now with us.

As with the containment of terrorism, we have had to endure a lot of political rhetoric associated with this “revolution”. We even have a hotline where you can ring up with a “tip”. If you see an employer acting suspiciously, you should ring up. Our way of life may depend on it. Maybe if
the employer is wearing an unusual head covering, a phone call in the national interest is all the more important.

The usual suspects from the “dispute industry” have had their say. Life will apparently never be the same because union officials can come to a place of business on a minimum of 24 hours notice (and maximum of 14 days notice) and address the staff (or more exactly, those who want
to be addressed), in an assigned room, at lunch time. Nothing may be done to either encourage or discourage staff from attending during said lunch time. For most workplaces, though, this “change” is completely irrelevant.

For many years, the reality has been that the only workplaces that actually have “industrial relations” (either good or bad) with unions, are those where the employer positively chooses to have them. The Opposition tell us that the new legislation will cost thousands of jobs. The Government tell us that many wrongs have now been righted. Let’s look at some facts, and spot the differences.

Workchoices is gone

This is the main theme. Workchoices enabled collective agreements and registered individual agreements which undercut award conditions.
During the period of the operation of this function – March 2006 to May 2007, some did. Most did not. It was not readily seen by most employers, during the boom that was then going on, how cutting pay and conditions was a prudent way to attract and retain staff.

Then, Workchoices was killed. Not by the ACTU, not by Julia Gillard, but by John Howard. In May 2007, when panicked by the community reaction to legislation which was specifically intended to make his very constituency (“the Howard battlers”) poorer, he introduced the
“Fairness Test”. This “new” test was in all practical ways, exactly the same as the “NoDisadvantage Test”, which had been abolished just 14 months before, when Workchoices commenced. It prevented awards being undercut. John Howard, workers’ saviour.

The John Howard “Fairness test” is for all intents and purposes, identical to the Julia Gillard “Better Off Overall “ test. That is, you can’t use registered agreements to undercut awards. Except for that “14 month attack” by the Liberal party on the very people who kept electing them, you never could. The non-union agreement regime was first introduced by the Keating Government in 1994, with a “No Disadvantage” test, and it has been in place ever since, except for that period of folly.

So, the new Act continues the “post-Workchoices” system introduced (albeit in response to opinion polls ) by John Howard. Collective agreements are still going to be largely non-union. AWAs have gone, but personal “flexibility agreements” have replaced them. Really, not much has changed.