Scoop Election 08: edited by Gordon Campbell

Gordon Campbell on National’s industrial relations policy

July 25th, 2008

Image – Lyndon Hood

*****

The surprising thing about the National Party’s industrial relations policy is not that it’s only a bare outline – these days, even a one page summary of anything that National plans to do in government counts as a revelation. Nor is it surprising that its critics in government and trade unions have treated the proposals as Genghis Khan pillaging his way through the nation’s work sites.

No, the more surprising thing is that the policy is so blandly moderate, and hedged with conditions. Behind closed doors, the group that will be most genuinely upset is bound to be the feisty division of the Employers and Manufacturers Association led by Alasdair Thompson. Yesterday, this Auckland-based organisation took the strange step of running in Wellington’s Dominion-Post newspaper a large, screaming attack ad on Trevor Mallard – “Its unfair, its wrong, its discriminatory, it must be stopped ! “ – that was targeted at some fairly mundane measures that Mallard is shepherding through Parliament. Mallard’s measures are meant to ensure that Kiwisaver contributions are retained for retirement purposes, and not cashed up. No big deal. Yet this OTT ad ran on the same day that National released their moderate industrial relations policy. Weird.

What National is proposing is a far cry from re-erecting the Employment Contracts Act. Yes, it does contain the 90 day probationary period without personal grievance safeguards, but this is hedged with conditions – only in firms with fewer than 20 people, and all the good faith, sick leave, holiday, health and safety provisions will still apply.

Mediation will be available in disputes, and the same employee will not be able to be fired and re-hired every 90 days. Conclusion : there’s a discernible difference with Labour here, but not excessively beyond the current probationary measures in the Employment Relations Act. This provision won’t satisfy the ideologues on the right. ‘Boldness” will be demanded !

What else? Under a National government unions will need the employer’s consent to have access to workplaces. Yet this barrier to union activity is hedged with the condition that the employer cannot ‘unreasonably’ – whatever that means – block that access. The other expected ideological rider, that workers being able to bargain collectively without joining a union is also included.

Oddly, there are also a set of quite legalistic measures proposed as well. The resources of the Mediation Service will be boosted, and an earlier role of the Employment Court is envisaged, with wider and more extensive natural justice procedures to be granted to the Employment Relations Authority. Currently this is more of an investigative body but it would be steered, under National, towards acting “ more judicially.”

Amusingly, the attack on this aspect of National’s policy has been led by the National Distribution Union – but n order to protect small employers, who form such an important part of National’s support base. The NDU have a point. More litigation ? A more costly legal framework ? Its hard to see how that squares with these measures, which seem likely to create a goldmine for lawyers, and would turn the Authority into a quasi-judicial body. Hard to see how all that really helps out small employers – or does much for the credibility of a National Party that has otherwise made a fetish out of its devotion to cutting the compliance costs for business.

Beyond that little sideshow, the main provisions that affect workers relate to the ability to cash out the fourth week of annual leave. This, the policy says, “Can be only at the employee’s request, and cannot be raised in negotiations for an agreement. “ Again, while in reality this could devolve into an employee being pressured, the option of a cash out is preferable to the outright abolition of this right, which a more obviously doctrinaire National government could have chosen to put out there. Even on the vexed issue – for employers – of the Holidays Act, the policy offers a working party, not an outright solution.

In private, trade unions will probably be thinking they can live with such an array of policies. As I say, the Auckland EMA branch will huff and puff – just as they did when they came out a few weeks ago and slagged National for not making the 90 day probationary period extend for six months. The signs are, they will be ignored. National’s policy after all, also advocates a closer working relationship between Business New Zealand and the CTU – and that in itself, underlines the fact that the moderate line coming out of Business NZ is more in tune with what a John Key-led government has in mind. There is a widening gulf now between Business NZ and the Auckland EMA.

What wider significance does all this have for the election campaign ? Well, industrial relations – like welfare – is usually a litmus policy area, and a realm where a party plays out its core identity. What it could signal – and obviously this is sheer speculation – is that a National government may not have a hidden extremist agenda in mind, so much as centre-right moderation, with a few ideological trimmings.

Like Labour has done, National could well disappoint its more radical supporters by doing less in government than it seems empowered to do. The value of being in power will be cumulative and spread over several terms, rather than revolutionary. Since MMP is a system that punishes extremism, revolutionary governments in New Zealand will now always run the serious risk under MMP of being one term affairs, or of quickly making themselves highly dependent on small party support

That’s not to say there isn’t a difference between Labour and National governments – but that their style of government may hold more similarities than differences, with only occasional concessions made to identity politics. John Key for Helen Clark, Bill English for Michael Cullen… they could prove more interchangeable than we think. The outcome will really hinge on whether Key – or more to the point, English – is of a mind to resist for tactical reasons, the ageing ideologues ( the Deanes, the Kerrs etc) waiting in the wings.

ENDS

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Scoopit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • NewsVine
  • Print this post Print this post
    1. 8 Responses to “Gordon Campbell on National’s industrial relations policy”

    2. By Ron on Jul 25, 2008 | Reply

      Well done Gordon, you’ve finally realised that John Key is the real hollow man. Standing for nothing and resembling the actress in When Harry met Sally – John will have what Helen’s having.
      If anyone on the right has a desire for radical action, the only choice becomes ACT. To be assured of getting rid of Labour requires that National plus ACT get more than 50% of the party vote. If a right winger wants Helen Lite then vote National. If they want more than just red with a blue tinge then they have to vote ACT.

    3. By jafapete on Jul 25, 2008 | Reply

      Gordon, Very balanced analysis. There are a few points in the Nats’ policy that need clarifying, but, as with so much of National’s policy this may be carelessness rather than a deliberate attempt to hide something. For example, “Continue to allow union access to workplaces with an employer’s consent, which cannot be unreasonably withheld” probably means for the same purposes as at present (including recruitment), but I’d like that in writing.

      [BTW Under the ERA union representatives may access workplaces "only at reasonable times... in a reasonable way... [and] must comply with any existing reasonable procedures and requirements applying in respect of the workplace that relate to— (i) safety or health; or (ii) security.” There’s some useful case law under the ECA that spells out what “reasonable” means in this context.]

      It would be good to have something that everybody could live with, and not have to change the bloody law every time the government changes. Short of a return of a Labour-led government we must hope that National has some coalition partners who can knock some of the sharp edges off their policy.

      Otherwise, the policy doesn’t do much, if anything, to “close the gap” with Australia. But, that’s another matter.

    4. By Clinton Smith on Jul 25, 2008 | Reply

      Gordon. good analysis but a couple of points.

      Be careful not to buy into the rightwing rhetoric -”Even on the vexed issue – for employers – of the Holidays Act, the policy offers a working party, not an outright solution.” what problem is ‘vexed’ that it needs a ‘solution’? four weeks annual leave? relevant daily pay?

      And my sense is that the unions’ (I’m not sure why you write ‘trade unions’, the Tories do that, I think they think it’s derogatory) opposition to the Nats’ policy is serious and deep. Yeah, they’ve dressed it up in moderate language and their changes are subtle but don’t mistake subtle for minor. These changes are potentially just as damaging as many of those in the ECA.

    5. By Relic on Jul 26, 2008 | Reply

      Currently organised workplaces might withstand this for a while, but the labour lite approach is really just to get the nats elected. Then it will be back to an ECA equivalent for many vulnerable workers.

      Ironically the real ‘labour lite’ is Labour itself in some respects. Why go easy on the nats however? they are representing their class ‘same as it ever was’ and this will negatively affect our communities as history details.

    6. By Margaret on Jul 26, 2008 | Reply

      sorry, National and Labour are still poles apart, John Key may try to make himself and national look empathetic, but the trouble is, the Privatised money machine National wants can only operate if empathy is squashed.

      What does New Zealand want to lead us into the future, a Benevolent Nanny State or a Authoritian Daddy State. Thats the choice.

    7. By Jon on Jul 27, 2008 | Reply

      Gordon, you’ve got it completely wrong. This policy is terrible, and is as the NDU described “a wolf in sheeps clothing”. Four things : 1. “union access with employers consent……..” that means meeting in cupboards with workers one by one, the employer putting out announcements saying “who wants to meet with the union” and ensuring everyone is terrified. 2. Non union collective bargaining – that means setting up phony collectives with groups of workers in a take it or leave it process, having several competing collectives to ensure that the union one is weakened, making sure multi employer collective agreements are all but impossible to achieve….. 3. 90 days means the 100,000 workers in small businesses who change jobs each year will have no rights 4. Cashing up the fourth weeks leave. … means building the fourth weeks leave into the salary, and over time, diminishing the amount so that it is only presumed to be included.

      This policy will take a massive rewrite of the ERA and will make most of the 2004 amendments completely irrelevant. And now that NZ has ratified the ILO convention on the right to organise and bargain collectively, the provision allowing non union collective bargaining will put us in breach.

      Have another read, look back to how this worked last time under the 1990s and you will see that this is just a rebadged ECA.

    8. By Vince Damphousse on Jul 31, 2008 | Reply

      I think the real interesting point is how National’s policy position really shows how Labour has done nothing for the union movement. The Employment Contracts did two major things: it did away with compulsory union membership and it opened up the personal grievance procedures to non-union employees. Result: union density in the basement.

      As long as union density remains low, employers will remain happy. So why would National do anything other than tweak?

      The fact is that the Employment Relations Act is just the Employment Contracts Act in drag.

    9. By Janine Rangimarie Bosma on Aug 4, 2008 | Reply

      Policies, Policies, and more policies. I reckon we are all policied out!! And how much paper is being wasted recording every detail, word for word, line for line, page for page, to the point we are in a policy paper rut. What a waste of trees for paper!! Cutting down all our trees for your policy efforts, I know which one I’d rather have!!
      Speaking of Industry. Here’s what I reckon we should do. Recycle all your paper efforts for toilet paper!! To put it to better use!! Ah yes, how’s that for relief sought??

    Post a Comment