iscover
On the eve of the federal election, tensions around workplace issues continue to rise, with IR, wages, and business practices becoming a focal point of both Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton’s campaigns, sparking debates between business and union representatives.
A recent debate between Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) president Michele O’Neil and Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) chief executive Andrew McKellar saw verbal sparring pertaining to various workplace issues affecting both employers and employees.
At the top of the agenda during the debate held at the National Press Club on 19 March was the intertwinement of wage growth and productivity. According to McKellar, productivity is at the heart of better outcomes for both employees and employers throughout Australia.
“Our vision for Australian workplaces is built on a simple but powerful principle. Flexibility and a focus on productivity leads to better outcomes for both employers and for employees,” McKellar said.
“Productivity gains come from negotiations at the enterprise level, where businesses and employees understand their own needs best.
“If you don’t have a strategy for productivity, then you don’t have a strategy for real wages. It can only be through productivity that sustainable real wages growth is going to be achieved.”
In retort, O’Neil expressed that ACCI’s passion for productivity growth is not mirrored in their desire for increased wages for workers.
“Wages have lagged behind productivity growth for the best part of 12 years in this country. Where was ACCI calling for workers to see more of their share of [productivity growth]? Deathly silence.
“If we got rid of these non-compete clauses ... it would add nearly $5.4 billion in improved labour productivity to our GDP. But Andrew’s organisation is opposed to getting rid of non-compete clauses,” he said.
“We support improvements in productivity. But the things that matter are some of the things Andrew’s opposed to ... like investment in skills and training, capital investment from business, and removing non-compete clauses.”
Small business ‘being strangled’
McKellar mentioned small businesses constantly throughout the debate, sprinkling it into nearly the entirety of his discussions regardless of the issue at hand. In particular, when the issue of “red tape” and compliance was discussed, McKellar labelled it as a “big issue” for SMBs.
“The bigger issue here is the impact of compliance and regulation. The burden that’s imposing across the spectrum for business, and in particular for small businesses,” McKellar said.
“So, there are 2.5 million small businesses operating in Australia, around 97, 98 per cent of all businesses in the country are small businesses. They are the lifeblood of our economy. Yet, at the moment, they are being strangled.”
O’Neil, however, argued that McKellar and the ACCI use small businesses as a “shield” to disclose their “big business” partners’ gripes with various workplace regulations.
“I notice a bit of a trend that happens when employer organisations talk about what needs to be done, and they talk about red tape, and they talk about over-regulation, they always use small business as a shield,” O’Neil said.
“They never talk about their big business members who are actually on the phone and in their ear constantly, about why big business needs to see these things change.”
DEI rollback
Touching on workplace diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), both distanced Australia from a comparison with the US approach to completely eradicating diversity and inclusion policies. However, McKellar warned against implementing targets and quotas that could introduce “counter reactions”.
“What you’re describing … is something that’s particular to America. I don’t think it’s something that necessarily is applicable to the same extent in Australia. Because, frankly, we haven’t seen those sorts of arrangements anywhere near the same level,” McKellar said.
“I think there are important issues in terms of diversity, in terms of opportunity, flexibility within our workforce. And most Australian companies are perfectly capable of determining how they address those issues internally.”
“I think we’ve got to be very careful about getting into a regime where you are regulating for particular outcomes, setting particular thresholds or targets or quotas. I think that would be an adverse thing, and I think that would bring a counter-reaction.”
O’Neil, on the other hand, was staunch on the fact that flexibility as part of DEI initiatives is going nowhere, also arguing that diversity in decision making can benefit numerous business outcomes.
“We don’t want an American healthcare system. We don’t want American wages for workers. And we definitely don’t want to see some of the worst of Donald Trump’s policies imported into this country ... For workers whose work can be done at home, it has made a significant difference in terms of women’s workforce participation, which is a productivity issue, by the way, improving productivity for them to be able to do more work from home as well as in the office, and balance care and life responsibilities,” O’Neil said.
“I’ve sat on a lot of organisations, committees, boards, management committees, and I know the difference it makes when you have more equal representation. I know the difference it makes in terms of the quality of the debate and the decision making, and how people treat each other.”
“When I think about things like access for people with disability to be able to get into the workforce ... there’s been policies and programs in place that give them a chance. Like people who want to work, who’ve wanted to work all their life and have been locked out of it ... We need to make sure that our workplaces reflect who we are, and every part of who lives here and who wants to work.”
Working together
When asked if employer and employee groups can form some kind of cohesion on certain issues to find a result that benefits both parties, both agreed that, in principle, it was possible. However, it quickly divulged into “finger-pointing” accusations of exclusion.
“I think we have a different system. One of the disadvantages we have in this country is, as we’ve seen in the past couple of years, when we start talking about tripartite engagement in Australia, unfortunately, it seems to degenerate into a situation where you’ve got government and unions working together to impose an agenda, as we have seen, with the successive trenches of industrial relations upon business,” McKellar said.
“That’s not true tripartism. I think we do have to think about whether or not it can work in the Australian context.”
The divide on this topic highlighted the importance of the upcoming federal election, with O’Neil noting that during the previous government’s reign, the ACTU was rarely afforded a seat at the table.
“We do also think it’s important that we find areas that we can work together on. And the issue of skills and training is a critical one ... We will work with Andrew, [and] all these organisations, to make sure that that happens in a way that’s good. That’s good for workers as well as business,” O’Neil said.
“Under the nine years of the Coalition government, every single – except for one that they have to do because of the ILO – every single body that included government requirements to, in the past, have both union, worker representatives and employers on it, we suddenly stopped being invited ... I’m really happy to see that we’re now talking to both workers and their representatives when we’re making changes that affect working people.”
“I’m happy to have Andrew as part of that. It doesn’t mean we’re going to agree, but the more we talk, the better.”
Kace O'Neill
Kace O'Neill is a Graduate Journalist for HR Leader. Kace studied Media Communications and Maori studies at the University of Otago, he has a passion for sports and storytelling.
