Shorten fraud continues...So Shorten’s next move is to claim that he can fix this through parliamentary means, either by amending the Fair Work Act or in some other way. This is where Labor is likely to strike encounter trouble, not least because it does not currently command the government benches.
But even if Labor were to win office at the next election, there are momentous problems in encroaching on the independence of the FWC. In any case, there are more or less insurmountable technical problems in instructing the FWC to do the government’s bidding on penalty rates.
It’s not as if Shorten doesn’t understand these issues. It is one reason why Labor was unwilling to side with the Greens, who naively think that this issue can be sorted out using some sort of statutory stick. There is the option of a federal government using the corporations power under the Constitution to simply dictate penalty rates to be paid by corporations. A law could use the matrix of penalty rates that existed before the FWC decision and impose this on corporations.
But the real problem is that many employing entities are not corporations and would not be covered by the law. So this option won’t work.The alternative is for the government simply to instruct the FWC to reimpose the old penalty rates. But again this has problems, not least how this would sit with the notion that the FWC is an independent body that has the autonomy to set the minimum pay and conditions of workers, including in relation to penalty rates.
Shorten may have thought that he had crimped the scope for the FWC to alter penalty rates when he inserted the amendment into section 134 of the Fair Work Act instructing the FWC to take into account the need to provide additional remuneration for employees working on weekends or public holidays. But any small penalty is consistent with this subsection and doesn’t rule out the type of decision handed down by the FWC this week.
The bottom line is this. While there are political dangers for the government in the FWC penalty rates decision — it has to be mindful of the power of stories of low-paid workers losing income — it is not a political windfall for Labor.
Not only is there a danger that further shady pro-union/anti-worker agreements come to light, but the means of reversing the FWC decision are essentially unworkable.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/judith-sloan/penalty-rates-tr... COMMENTS Robert 1 HOUR AGO
Looks like Labor does not have the workers' welfare at heart rather it is looking after the Unions. Makes sense really after all it is the political arm of the unions and ALP politicians, all ex-union officials, have the unions to thank for their positions.
BruceM 3 HOURS AGO
If Trent Hunter had his Sunday penalty rate cut by from 1.5% to 1.25% he claims he would lose $109 for the Sunday shift. Unfortunately for Trent Hunters credibility he works for Coles and Coles workers are covered by an enterprise agreement and are not affected by the FWC decision - 1st lie. Secondly - do the maths. If Trent Hunter were actually lose $109 he would have to be getting over $600 for that Sunday shift. $60 bucks an hour if he was working 10 hours on a Sunday.. I think we could consider this another lie and fully supported by Bill Shorten.. Surprising the number of Coles, Woolworth's and even hard done by nurses that have been interviewed by Our ABC claiming that their lives have been ruined by this unfair decision but of course none of then will actually be affected. Lastly look around any shopping center on a Sunday and see which shops are paying the highest penalty rates. They will be ones not open. Woolies and Coles will be open however.
Graeme 1 DAY AGO
This is not a criticism of an excellent article but Judith has somewhat understated the influence of management policy re union membership. it is not just the fact that union delegates are invited to induction meetings. If that was the case we would expect that union membership would sit at industry averages of say 5-10% of the workforce. But the reality is that Coles (Woolworths too) receive a huge collection fee for every union member and all Coles management are expected to support union membership. It would be closer to 100% of new employees join the SDA initially. Yes there are exceptions but they are just that exceptions. The deal is that if nearly all Coles workers (and Woolworths) are in the SDA so that the SDA does not offer the same EBA deal to Coles and Woolworths competitors.
Marie 1 DAY AGO
Well said Judith - it's about time that someone made a sane comment and highlighted Labor's hypocrisy. This decision is a disaster for Bill and a ticking time bomb for the ALP. They actually can't come up with a credible way to fix the political mess they made.
In the meantime Australia benefits.
Paul 1 DAY AGO
Once retail employees were successfully broken up into numerous categories each with their own award and different pay rates the system was effectively broken, except for small business which was expected to compete on an uneven field. Interestingly most of those getting higher rates of pay were non-unionised as the union only wanted their members from big employers. Lefty Crocodile tears again.
Forum
Pages: 1
Bill Shorten couldn't lie straight in bed (Read 1031 times)
