Pamela Bone in The Age, grudgingly accepts something good happens under the Howard government. But could this government have intended such an outcome? Nah, course not:
"If Natsem's analysis is correct - and I must suppose it is - then I will be uncharitable enough to say that declining inequality has been an accidental consequence of the Government's policies rather than the reason for them. For in most things it does, as in the recent budget and the proposed changes to industrial relations - giving top income earners a much higher tax cut than those on the bottom, giving more money to private schools than to public, reducing workers' protection from unfair dismissal - the Government shows it is not about creating a more equal society."
"More equal" obviously equals "good" in this analysis, which is being rather simplistic. The whole basis of capitalism involves some degree of "unequal"; but then again there has to be room for genuine argument on how much "unequal" remains acceptable to keep a modicum of social coherence, at least.
Amongst analysis of the Howard government's industrial relations reforms, I haven't seen much comment about the relevance of wage mobility (not sure if this is the correct term, but maybe you get the drift.) This was the subject of one of the regular economics commentators' columns some years ago. I recall it pointed out that although the wage disparity between workers as a whole in the USA was much greater than in Australia, there was also a strong tendency for the individual low income earners to be on that lowest rung for a relatively short time. Australian's wage mobility was not so favourable.
To the average Australian visitor, the US economy and the way its society as a whole runs feels too laisse faire. Europe is definitely too much into nanny state overregulation. The nice thing about Australia is that we seem, for the most part, to always be aiming for the happy medium, and by and large hitting it.
I am no economist or IR expert, and find I do not have the time to study it sufficiently to have a firm view. But it does seem that the Howard IR reforms are not likely to have as draconian an effect as Labor and the unions are naturally want to say. It does seem to me that the IR system is in need of simplification, as it has become an industry in and of itself.
For example, the whole IRC minimum wage fixing system seems rather pointlessly adversarial - creating many full time jobs in the constant to and fro of attempting to justify ambit claims and counterclaims. Why not free up this bunch of lawyers and "experts" on this and let them do other things while the new body pulls its own figures out of the air without so much wasted breathe?
And as for unfair dismissal: well, isn't one of the main problems with current state laws on this (not sure about federal) is that the onus of proof is turned against the employer? No wonder most employers can't be bothered defending them.
I suspect that the ease of instituting an unfair dismissal claim has the same unintended consequence of the (former) generosity of the courts in personal injury claims against Councils and such like. Namely, it only encourages the complainant/plaintiff to dwell on the matter and not get on with their life. This is really quantifiable in the medical side of personal injury case, where it has been long established that those who litigate always take longer to "get over" their back injury (to take a very common example.)
Some otherwise genuine cases of people unfairly dismissed will no doubt go unrecompensed because the risk and cost of having to prove a case in the other jurisdictions will be too expensive. But I suspect that this will be a very small proportion of the overall body of IR claimants under the current system. Time to look at both the greater good I think.
Let's suck the Howard reforms and see.
No comments:
Post a Comment