What's Labor To Do Post "Workplace Reform?"
I was too busy to blog last week, not getting to finish this post started last weekend. It's still pertinate now that the Work Changes bill looks like passing passed with minimum ammendment.
I'm a little surprised that the anti 'Workchoices' motion passed by the Queensland parliament last week hasn't caused more comment. With Barnaby Joyce's cohorts coming out so strongly against the IR changes, I'm surprised that there wasn't more speculation that he'd apply the brakes, albeit temporarily.
Not so. The event passed with little comment. Oh well, time will tell. [Overtaken by events. Barnaby's not going to didn't save us!]
Assuming that the whole smelly mess will be passed next week, Labor strategists should be thinking how to approach the subject over the next two years. Many pundits argue that this issue makes easy for Labor to win the next election. I'm not so sure. Beasely has already come out with words to the effect that they'll repeal the whole thing. The 'broad brush announcement' strategy is very dangerous, as recent history has shown.
Cast your minds back to the introduction of the GST. Labor made the mistake of thinking that the unpopularity of the issue and the promise of repealing the law would get them over the line. It didn't. Then there was last year's ill fated promise by Mark Lathem to 'bring the troops home by Christmas;' one that caused the party grief during the election campaign. Going back (much) further, Labor's policy of 'bringing the troops home' during the Vietnam years was stance effectively used against them for a decade.
Blanket opposition to the issue is not going to work. It's unlikely that any future Labor government will control the Senate. The left has to realise that the system will never go back to what it was.
Labor strategists need to appreciate just how unpopular the union movement is with a majority of the electorate. Any sweeping promises to repeal the act will allow the government to accuse the opposition of 'handing the system back to the unions,' and will hurt them badly.
Labor will need to be more subtle if they want to regain government.
They have two years to chronicle the inevitable abuses of employees at the hands of unrestrained employers. That should be furtile ground.
At the same time, Labor should promise to expand the list of the five mandatory employee entitlements that remain in the new IR act. They should be careful that any additions only restore those that were previously mandated. Two examples are the provision of Long Service Leave and 10 public holidays per year. Perhaps some broadbrush application of penalty rates, but nothing should be suggested that will allow the government to paint the opposition as economically irresponsible.
Labor should propose expanding unfair dismissal provisions while excluding very small businesses.
As for union involvement in workplaces, Labor should propose that unions will be allowed to be involved if requested by employees. Any suggestion that union involvement will be mandated should be avoided.
Labor should promise that the "Fair Pay" (or whatever) commission meets at least once per year and it's makeup is more evenly represented between worker and employee representatives.
The new IR act gives Labor a good issue to fight the next election. It will alienate many of the "Howard Battlers" that are relied on by the government to win marginal seats. However, the new IR landscape is dangerous for Labor if not handled properly. Proposed changes need to carefully crafted for a conservative electorate that is wary of Labor's economic credentials.
Banner Designed By:
