Regular readers of this column would know that I’m not afraid to go out on a limb from time to time, a quick glance to the right of this column will show you how easy it is to divide Australia’s HR profession over an issue if you dare to offer a view that diverges from the orthodox. However I have to admit that I may well have fallen prey to this very habit myself when it comes to the notion of industrial action.
Regular readers of this column would know that I’m not afraid to go out on a limb from time to time, a quick glance to the right of this column will show you how easy it is to divide Australia’s HR profession over an issue if you dare to offer a view that diverges from the orthodox. However I have to admit that I may well have fallen prey to this very habit myself when it comes to the notion of industrial action.
Perhaps it’s the treatment of the issue in the media, but the classic image that I can conjure up in my head when it comes to industrial unrest is a memory from a personal experience. While not really that long ago, but another world away in terms of my occupation at the time, my memory is of a rather large and colourful (not just because of his strong preference to wear red shirts with garish braces) union official. He and I were in a meeting with a few public servant bureaucrats and other ‘stakeholders’ (there’s always stakeholders) discussing what I can’t remember. However I can very clearly remember the moment when he leaned back in his chair, folded his arm behind his head, exposing his very sweaty underarms and explained how the street outside the building we were in was protected from the weather by the flyover freeway and that Foxtel cable was directly under the footpath and how easy, and comfortable, it would be to set up a picket line and camp out for some time. He was at least partially joking, but it still serves for me as a classic image of the quintessential union larrikin willingness to cause industrial unrest to champion the cause of Australian workers.
However a new study by Chris Briggs of ACIRRT – Sydney University's centre for industrial relations – has put paid to any such view I may have harboured.
His study, which looked at the frequency of lockouts and strikes over ten years, found employer lockouts in labour disputes rose dramatically in the past five years, while strikes fell to historic lows. No longer are unions the strike happy bodies we all thought they were, in fact the study found employer lockouts accounted for 57 per cent of all disputes between 1998 and 2003, compared with seven per cent between 1993 and 1997.
“More than half of all long disputes, which last for more than a month, are employer lockouts,” Dr Briggs said.
A lockout is when employers refuse workers entry to the workplace during a dispute. They can be used to force workers to sign individual workplace agreements, to lower wages, or as part of the bargaining process in response to union-initiated industrial action.
They are presented as the employers equivalent of the right to strike. However the study concludes that any such notions are ultimately misguided because they are inconsistent with the principles of freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining and strike. The study also questions the long-term utility of lockouts for the employers that use them.
With a newly mandated government with workplace reform high on its agenda, it’s going to be an interesting space to watch if we are to gain a measure of just how far on the side of employers the Howard Government is willing to come.
