Interesting article, giving the other side of the coin

"Howard's IR laws 'helping work-life balance' Font Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print Brad Norington | August 23, 2007
BUSINESSES are using John Howard's workplace laws to strike a better balance between work and family life, with a dramatic increase in time off allowed so employees can look after sick children or elderly relatives.

Almost 40 per cent of employers surveyed in the most detailed study since the Howard Government introduced Work Choices last year say they have increased the number of "personal carer days" available.

The number of sick days allowed to employees has also increased, with 27 per cent providing more paid leave to help their staff recover from personal illness.

A survey by Deakin University in Melbourne for the Australian Human Resources Institute is surprise good news for the Prime Minister, after the Coalition has suffered a public relations battering over union and Labor claims that its laws are unfair and bad for family life.

The Deakin University survey also provides an early indication of less union involvement in the workplace since the Government's laws took effect in March last year.

According to 1000 human resources managers who responded, more than 26 per cent reported an increase in "direct communication with employees", and more than 25 per cent reported a rise in negotiations on pay and conditions with "individual employees".

Over the same period, about 12 per cent confirmed notable decreases in union visits to work sites, union involvement in settling grievances and the number of industrial disputes.

Less union activity could reflect tough legal curbs contained in Work Choices on union access to worksites and on the right to strike.

The results appear in keeping with the Government's preference for excluding "third parties" from negotiations and favouring direct employer-employee relationships.

But the survey is not all positive for the Government: many managers complain that the new laws have created too much red tape and confusion.

More than 55 per cent reported an increased need to seek legal advice, and 40 per cent said Work Choices had made employment arrangements more complicated.

The survey results suggest many businesses are waiting for the outcome of this year's federal election before embracing Work Choices, unsure that the laws will stay if Labor wins and keeps its promise to scrap them.

Human resources managers reported "no change" in significant numbers on whether or not they had taken up Work Choices: as many as 80 per cent confirmed no change to penalty rates, overtime, hours worked, absenteeism and industrial disputes.

Only six respondents had used an authorised secret ballot provided under the Howard Government's laws as a precondition for legal strikes.

The Government's abolition of unfair dismissal laws in most workplaces -- by eliminating the right to claim unfair termination in businesses with fewer than 100employees -- also has not significantly affected employer behaviour.

More than 82 per cent of respondents confirmed no change on unfair dismissal claims, while 87per cent said the new 100-employee threshold on unfair dismissal laws had made no difference to decisions on hiring more staff.
Productivity improvements since the introduction of Work Choices also appear modest, with just 12 per cent reporting an increase.

And while 70 per cent reported no change in workplace morale, more than 17 per cent did report a decline in morale since Work Choices was introduced.

Despite measures introduced to improve personal carers' leave, HR managers are not optimistic that operating under Work Choices would improve the "work-family balance" within their organisation over the next three years.

Only 18.9 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that the work-family balance would improve.

The Government's decision to introduce a "fairness test" in May, reimposing guarantees on conditions such as penalty rates and overtime, attracted criticism.

HR managers were divided into two camps: those disappointed because the Government had made a "backward step" on its reforms; and those who believed the test was unfair because it was not retrospective.

Respondents were also critical of the Government's "rebranding" of its laws with the fairness test run by the renamed Workplace Authority.

A series of quotes from detailed written answers said the fairness test had added complexity and compliance costs.

The survey is significant not just because of its large sample and 65 detailed questions: the respondents were hands-on HR managers, three-quarters of whom deal with Work Choices every day.

AHRI national president Peter Wilson will release the survey today in Canberra. The Australian was among those who helped compile the questions."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22292090-5013404,00.html