The Government's new WorstChoices amendments introduced into Parliament late on Monday this week do not guarantee full financial compensation for award conditions lost under the Federal Government's industrial relations laws (WorstChoices).

The ACTU has identified major holes in the so-called 'Fairness Test' with around 2.5 million workers who will not be covered by the 'test' because they are on already-registered AWAs, earn more than $75,000 a year or are award-free.

The legislation also shows that workers with family responsibilities are particularly at risk. Employees whose availability to work is restricted due to family responsibilities or other personal circumstances may be deemed to have no entitlement to penalty rates or shift pay under the WorstChoices changes.

ACTU President Sharan Burrow said: "These changes do not restore the rights that working Australians have lost under the Howard Government's IR laws and they fail to guarantee that workers who lose conditions under the Federal Government's AWA individual contracts will receive full financial compensation for that loss.

There is a very simple principle here.   Where workers put in extra - by working overtime or at night, on weekends or on public holidays - they should be properly compensated.  No ifs and no buts about it.”

What any reasonable set of industrial relations laws must ensure is that where workers give up conditions like overtime, penalty rates, shift allowances or weekend rates, they should receive full financial compensation which ensures they are the same or better off than they would be under their award.

The Government's so called 'Fairness Test' fails to give this guarantee. These changes to the Government's WorstChoices IR laws are not about protecting workers.  They are a political stunt and do not address the fundamental unfairness of the WorstChoices legislation. 

These changes have not restored workers' rights to protection from unfair dismissal; they do not guarantee any negotiation over work conditions will result in employees being financially better off than they would have been under their award; they do not ensure workers have a right to collectively bargain where that is what the majority in a workplace want; and they do not address the fundamental power imbalance between large corporations and an individual employee when negotiating AWA individual contracts.

Treasurer Peter Costello has even refused to guarantee that the Government will not 'repeal or water down the Fairness Test' if it wins the upcoming federal election (6 May 2007, Ch9 Sunday program)

How will these changes assist 16 or 17 year old workers going for their first job who are told that to be employed they must sign an AWA individual contract that gets rid of their right to overtime, penalties and even a rest break? How will workers know if the alleged compensation for their loss is 'fair'?  They won’t.

Just like the Government's decision to stop using the name 'WorkChoices' for its IR laws this 'Fairness Test' is nothing more than a cover-up and working people will see right through it.

It is also farcical for the Government to suggest that it will individually scrutinize the 31,000 AWA individual contracts that are being lodged every month to check they are 'fair.'

This is the third time in just 18 months the Government has changed its WorkChoices IR laws but what is becoming increasingly clear is that these laws cannot be fixed by some election-time tinkering around the edges.  “The IR laws are fundamentally unfair and they need to be ripped up and replaced with a fair and balanced alternative that protects the basic rights of working families," said Ms Burrow.

We say again …

As we said in Stat 596 – employers should just pay staff when they work overtime, shift work, weekends and public holidays at the correct penalty rates. Easy, clear, transparent and has worked well for over 100 years. And no complex legislation required! It’s that simple. With modern, cheap payroll systems it is also very easy.

The Government spent $55 million of our money on ads telling us these conditions were ‘Protected by Law.’  Do we get our money back now they’ve demonstrated that they lied, and that penalty rates, overtime and shift allowances, were not protected at all? And still aren’t.

The federal government has debased the meaning of the words ‘choice’ and ‘fair’. However, we should not allow them to throw the notion of a ‘fair go’ out the back door, or to debase its meaning as well.