Damned if you do...
Today in the SMH there is a little article that piqued my interest. Why? Because it reported just how much choice workers will have under this new WorkChoices shemozzle that is being promoted to death everywhere you care to look.
Yesterday on Insiders on the ABC, it was put to Kevin Andrews that if the (in)famous but fictional Billy were to apply for a job and be offered it, he would have to accept the offer lest he lose his unemployment benefits.
This got me thinking…
What if people basically refused to apply for jobs unless sufficient information was given to them about the pay and conditions that they would be signed up to, and perhaps doubly importantly, unless the job was provided with the protection of a union negotiated certified collective agreement?
Could there be a shift in the labour market where all of a sudden bosses who don’t make clear what conditions their employment will be under have trouble finding applicants because people are scared of applying for jobs where the wage is only a few bucks a week more than their benefit and there are additional costs (especially where a long drive to work or childcare is involved)?
Sadly, I don’t think there will be. Why? Despite the focus-grouped and poll-tested name, under Workchoices and associated changes, they won’t have a choice.
I see the system basically providing a steady supply of essentially dependent labour who have not only no choice whether or not to sign an AWA but no choice whether or not to take a particular job.
When workers lose the choice to not work, employers lose the incentive to attract them. Wages could fall to the floor and they will still get labour, because otherwise the labour can’t eat.
Ross Gittins (an economics journalist whose work I largely enjoy reading) has argued that the minimum wage can’t fall far because of its proximity to the dole, but this development makes mush of that argument. The wage could be the same as the dole and the worker will have little choice but to accept it.
Then… stay tuned for the Government to follow through with welfare reform that drops the dole, or ties it to the Australian Fair Pay Commission’s minimum wage increases rather than inflation, thus allowing both the minimum wage AND the dole to fall without impacting on the supply of cheap labour. Probably won’t happen this term, but if the Coalition wins again then it certainly could happen next time.
A scary thought, and yet (to this little black duck at least) entirely plausible. All the more reason to work hard to kick the bastards out, I say.
adam wrote:
Gittens often makes good points on a range of issues, but this week I think he’s missed the mark a bit. Sure, the reaction to Workchoices may have been a tad alarmist from some circles, but the fact remains that workers should not have to rely on benevolent employers alone to safeguard their rights.
Further, I think he’s way off beam when he essentially suggests that people on the minimum wage don’t need to earn any more:
Surely people have the right to earn a decent wage in line with the work they do, regardless of their situation.
anonymous (not verified) wrote:
People on the dole currently have to accept a reasonable job offer or else face losing benefits. So why do you think John Howard personally wanted the Billy example included in the advertising campaign?
Post new comment