iscover
Legislation that aims to provide equity of pay faces backlash as some believe it is a step backwards for businesses.
The Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021 was introduced to Parliament, which would ensure that all employers pay employees the same rate for a job, regardless of their employment type.
There seems to be a divide on whether the legislation will be beneficial or create issues. Some argue that these changes will protect labour hire and casual workers who are often taken advantage of and paid less for the same job.
The government said in a statement: “We believe in the fair go, and nothing says a fair go as simply as same job, same pay — a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.”
Others do not agree that these reforms are a good idea. The Recruitment, Consulting and Staffing Association (RCSA) are one such group, which believes these laws are “complete overkill”.
“This is nothing short of regulation obesity where the government are making law upon law and they don’t even know why,” said Charles Cameron, chief executive of RCSA.
“None of this makes sense, least of all the problem these laws are seeking to address — if the problem is protecting enterprise agreements, why impose cumbersome and costly laws on the 90 per cent of Australian workplaces that don’t have an enterprise agreement?”
Mr Cameron noted that while the reforms have the right intention, this is not the right way to resolve the issue.
“The government wrote to RCSA and explained that their justification for proposed ‘Same Job, Same Pay’ laws is to get wages moving and protect the enterprise bargaining system. We support the idea in principle, but the proposed Same Job – Same Pay laws won’t address this,” he said.
“It remains unclear why the federal government is seeking to introduce broad-brush regulation to solve a problem that exists only in small pockets of the market.”
One issue with the changes is that they would disadvantage employees who have gone through upskilling with their employer. Education and training would become irrelevant to pay.
“It would not be fair to direct-hire employees, who may have been working with their employer for an extended period of time, engaged in continuous upskilling, training, and professional development, for a labour-hire worker to walk on site, first day in the job, and receive the same pay,” explained Mr Cameron.
“We must retain a level of flexibility in the market that acknowledges an individual’s achievements in, and commitment to their employer.”
Compliance and privacy are also concerns of Mr Cameron’s, as staffing firms would be under pressure to comply.
“It would be asking staffing firms to access the private employment contracts between their clients and their direct-hire workers, analysing those contracts, and then trying to apply them to their own workforce,” he outlined.
“It’s simply not doable, let alone even legal, when privacy laws are considered.”
Mr Cameron believes that on-hire workers should be exempt from these changes, as it would lock them into agreements they haven’t agreed to.
“Forcing on-hire workers into the agreements of their direct-hire counterparts removes their right to negotiate their own employment terms and conditions,” Mr Cameron said.
“Locking the on-hire workforce into long-term employment agreements that they haven’t negotiated on, or even agreed to, is not the way to do it … This is a serious policy, with serious consequences, and it feels like the government is on a pathway to ignoring them.”
He added: “There is no clear mandate for what will happen to these enterprise agreements that have been endorsed by the workers, the unions, and the Fair Work Commission. If they are cast aside, that is hardly strengthening enterprise bargaining.”
RELATED TERMS
Compliance often refers to a company's and its workers' adherence to corporate rules, laws, and codes of conduct.
Jack Campbell
Jack is the editor at HR Leader.
