Australian Workplace Agreement - Opposing Views

Opposing Views

The view of the union movement is that AWAs are an attempt to undermine the collective bargaining power of trade unions in the negotiation of pay and conditions of their members. Unions argue that the ordinary working person has little to no bargaining power by themselves to effectively negotiate an agreement with an employer, hence there is inherently unequal bargaining power for the contract. For exceptional individuals in a workplace, or industries with a labor shortage, the union movement argues that common law contracts are sufficient. They also believe that while commercial law and common law provides for fairness and equality of bargaining power, AWAs are designed to entrench inequality between an employer and their workforce with regard to pay and conditions. The policy of the ACTU is that AWAs should be abolished and that the bargaining system should contain collective bargaining rights.

Most unions warn their members to be very cautious about signing AWAs, and if they do so, to appoint the union as their bargaining agent. For example, the Australian Services Union warns members:

"AWAs are about one thing: tipping the balance of power more firmly towards your employer and away from you."

In the Western Australian Parliament in May 2005, the Labor Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection stated his belief that Australian Workplace Agreements are to be used to reduce wages and conditions of employment in Western Australia.

The Howard Government and most business groups maintained that AWAs are mutually beneficial for employers and employees, often promoting the view that 'flexibility' is paramount:

"AWAs give employers and employees flexibility in setting wages and conditions, and enable them to agree on arrangements that suit their workplaces and individual preferences. AWAs offer an employer and employees the opportunity to make an agreement that best suits the specific needs of individual employees. An existing employee cannot be forced to sign an AWA."

In April 2007 The Sydney Morning Herald reported that it had received unpublished Government spreadsheets that showed 27.8% of the agreements had stripped away conditions that were intended to be protected by law. The spreadsheets were based on a sample of AWA agreements.

In response to ongoing criticisms of WorkChoices and Australian Workplace Agreements, the Prime Minister at the time John Howard indicated the introduction of a new "fairness test" with an advertising campaign in May 2007 targeting women and youth which did not mention specifically either WorkChoices or AWAs. However, the changes were not retrospective, leaving tens of thousands of workers on contracts that have removed conditions without the compensation that would be required under the current test. Former Prime Minister John Howard stated:

"Can I just say that it was never intentional that it should become the norm that penalty rates and overtime loadings should be traded off without proper compensation. The fairness test will guarantee in a very simple way that will not occur."

On 19 March 2008, a bill was passed in the Senate that prevented new AWAs from being made, and set up provisions for workers to be transferred from AWAs into intermediate agreements.