8/8/2019 Work Choices

1/7

Topic: Assess the changed role of human resource practitioners as a consequence

of the introduction of the Work Choices legislation of December, 2005. Also

investigate the need for caution on the part of such practitioners in implementing

the provisions of this new legislation.

The purpose of preparing this essay is to assess the changed role of human resource

practitioners as a consequence of the introduction of the Work Choices legislation in

Australian Industrial Relations system. This essay also investigates the need for caution

on the part of such practitioners in implementing the provisions of this new legislation.

The essay starts with a brief introduction to the current Australian industrial relations

system. Then it analyses Work Choices legislation and compares it with the previous

legislation Workplace Relations Act 1996. It also examines the changes that will occur

in organisational human resource practices. When there are changes in the

organisations human resource strategy, it also brings changes to the organisations

overall strategic goal which at the same time requires changes in managing the entire

workforce. Considering these changes, gradually this essay comes to the conclusion and

evaluates why human resource professionals have to be careful about their activities and

how they will manage to practice Work Choices in a logical and fair way to build a

dynamic and collaborative culture in their organisations.

With the aim of transforming the industrial relations system from a centralised process

to a decentralised and enterprise level system, the present conservative Liberal

government has actually followed a radical step-by-step reformation process. As the

final outcome the Work Choices legislation has been introduced in December 2005 and

it came into effect March 2006. This legislation is an amendment of the previous

Page 1 of 7

8/8/2019 Work Choices

2/7

legislation Workplace Relations Act of 1996. The legislation has some basic features

like an AWA agreement must only meet the following five conditions, which are:

minimum wage $12.75 per hour, 38 hours per week ordinary working time which can

be averaged over 1 year period and overtime hours pay must be negotiated, 4 weeks

annual leave with 2 weeks cash out option, 10 days personal/sick leave and a 52 weeks

of unpaid paternal leave. (Work Choices, 2005). According to the government, the

Work Choices legislation emphasises on Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA)

replaces the traditional, rigid and outdated system that was designed over 100 years ago.

It represents a necessary next step in the modernisation of Australias employment

relations system which will also guide it towards a more flexible, simpler and fair

national system. The Federal government also claims that it will allow employees to

negotiate with their employer to ensure economic prosperity of both parties, since the

government thinks that the key to greater productivity in the workplace today comes

from individual bargaining. (Business Council of Australia, 2005).

In support of this view, Hamberger, (cited in Dessler et al, 2004, p.520) a government

spokesman and head of the office of Employment Advocate has recently commissioned

research and he found that the number of employees and employers using AWA is

increasing in the workforce because it provides more flexibility of hours, simplified

terms and conditions and the agreement reduced the scope for third party intervention

for dispute resolution. Based on the ABS data he also pointed out that average weekly

wage under AWA was $895, compared with $711 under certified union agreements.

Furthermore, Gollan and Wooden (cited in Dessler et al, 2004, p.520) in their research

have found a strong correlation between AWA and high organisational productivity.

Woodens research confirmed that use of Work Choices by high commitment

Page 2 of 7

8/8/2019 Work Choices

3/7

employers actually tends to increase the organisational development and employee

retention.

On the other hand, most of the employees and union members think Work Choices as

No Choices. For example, the Australian Council for Trade Unions (ACTU) president

Sharan Burrow (cited in Baird, 2005, p.19) said, On any measure Work Choices

legislation will be a bad law. With this new legislation, all new employees have no

choice but to accept an AWA with conditions determined by the employer or to go

elsewhere and it will affect the majority of workers within five years. Moreover, in

opposition to the above mentioned Gollan and Woodens research, Burrow added that

the claim of increase in productivity related to AWA is difficult to agree with because

productivity is in fact higher in highly unionised workplaces. (Teicher et al, 2006).

Similarly, Ellem (2006) agrees with Burrow and he mentioned that Work Choices has

actually enhanced managerial control and flexibility on managements terms and that

choice is therefore unlikely to be a genuine choice for employees. This new legislation

is a choice for employees between no job and an individual contract. Chapman (2005,

p.65) added that Work Choices is specifically designed to make it easier for employers

to drive down wages and conditions of employment. There is a significant power

difference between employers and employees which restricts employees to go for

meaningful negotiations. In addition, critics like Ruan, Bramble and Lafferty (2001,

p.387) in their research have found that woman, part time and casual employees are

more likely to be disadvantaged by this type of individual contract. For example, the

ACTU has recorded a couple of hundreds incident which happened in 2005 where the

employees had been dismissed unfairly under AWA contracts. (ACTU, 2006). One of

the most negative results on the use of AWA comes from the study of Robbins (cited in

Dessler et al, 2004, p.521) of 800 small businesses in the Albury-Wodonga area.

Page 3 of 7

8/8/2019 Work Choices

4/7

8/8/2019 Work Choices

5/7

Another possibility of the HR practitioners volatile role is to encourage a fair and

simple HR environment by determining the negative impacts of the Work Choices. In

this case, HR practitioners have to be fully aware of this legislation and understand its

span. Thus they need to add value in their role which can be done by understanding the

organisational policy and strategy to manage the workforce. Covering the whole HR

activities, HR practitioners have to be very careful about the legal issues of unfair

dismissal, comply with the Australian Fair Pay Conditions Standard on paid / unpaid

leave, working hours and individual bargaining. In order to increase organisational

prosperity, HR practitioners must understand how to implement a unique 'system' that

works for their particular companies. Equal and fair treatment is another important

concern. People are not greedy or unreasonable about any of these factors. They want

to be treated fairly and they know what fairness is says Sirota (cited in Martin, 2006).

A recent survey by Mercer HR consulting shows that 58% of respondents have lack of

confidence in their managers to engage employees in workplace change in Australia.

(Mercer Human Resource Consulting, 2006). The interesting issue is some HR

professionals are committed to the concepts of employee development and well-being,

but have no real impact on the executive. Some HR managers serve the organisation's

business goals by agreeing to whatever decisions the executive makes about the

workforce. But most importantly, the value that HR practitioners bear contributes a

great deal in the workforce damage or prosperity. (Australian Business Limited, 2006).

So, HR practitioners have to consider the available options to formulate the new

legislation without hampering the employee awards and benefits. They are also

expected to know the minimum obligations that employers and employees have under

this new legislation. Moreover, each HR practitioner has to consider what other

Page 5 of 7

8/8/2019 Work Choices

6/7

employers are doing so that they remain competitive. If other employers are changing or

lowering pay and conditions, there may be pressure on HR to copy those actions.

Finally, from the above discussion it can be forecasted that Work Choices will deliver

very little for workers and their careers but will be more beneficial for employers. It can

be unsuccessful in encouraging optimism and harmony between employers and

employees by maintaining a family friendly work environment. The legislation itself is

extensive and complex, so in many cases it is still unclear how it applies in a particular

context. However, the overall goal of the HR practitioners is to contribute to the

organisations mission and long term goals by maintaining a healthy, fair and peaceful

working environment. So, being committed to this ideology HR practitioners have to

take the lead in practicing Work Choices in a logical and fair way to build a dynamic

and collaborative culture in their organisations.

Page 6 of 7

8/8/2019 Work Choices

7/7

References

Australian Business Limited: Work Choices (2006). [Online, retrieved on 2nd October 2006], available at:

Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) [1], (2006) Unions@Work. [Online, retrieved on 24 th

September 2006], available at: .Baird, M., (2005), Government policy, women and the new workplace regime: A contradiction in

Terms and policies,IR Change Report Card, University of Sydney. [Online, retrieved on 26 thSeptember 2006], available at: .

Business Council of Australia, Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Workplace RelationsAmendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005. [Online, retrieved on 2nd October 2006], available at:

Chapman, A., (2005), Challenging the Constitution of the (White and Straight) Family in Work and

Family Scholarship, Work Family and the Law, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 65-87. [Online, retrieved on 1 stOctober 2006, from UWS / ProQuest global database].

Dessler, G., Griffiths, J. and Lloyd-Walker, B., (2004),Human Resource Management, 2nd edn, PearsonEducation Australia, Australia.

Ellem, B., (2006), Deregulation and other myths: Re- reading industrial relations policy,IR Change

Report Card, University of Sydney. [Online, retrieved on 26th

September 2006], available at:.

Martin, G., (2005), HR in the new IR landscape balancing the pressure, Workplace Info. [Online,retrieved on 30th October 2006], available at:

Mercer Human Resource Consulting, (2006), Work Choices: from IR to HR, are your choices clear.[Online, retrieved on 2nd October 2006], available at:

Teicher, J., Lambert, R. and ORourke, A., (ed), (2006), Work Choices: The New Industrial RelationsAgenda, Pearson Education, Australia.

Work Choices: Our Plan for a Modern Workplace, (2005). [online, retrieved on 2nd October 2006],available at:

Yen, M., (2006), Making the right Work Choices,Human Resources. [Online, retrieved on 2nd October2006], available at:

Bibliography:

Boxall, P. and Purcell, J., (2003), Strategy & Human Resource Management, Palgrave Macmillan,USA.

Barneveld, K., (2006), Australian Workplace Agreements under Work Choices, The Economics andLabour Relations Review 165. [Online, retrieved on 2nd October 2006], available at:

Moore, D., (2005), Work Choices: Less Flexible, More Complicated and Still Unfair? Conferenceproceedings of ALSF on 3rd December, Australia.

Pocock, B., 2003, The Work / Life Collision, The Federation Press, Australia.

Page 7 of 7