This fella knows little of Australian's political economy.
Yes, the IR system is about 100 years old, but there's nothing wrong with that. It's not out of date and has historically been sufficiently flexible to allow change over time. Arbitration rulings have been characterised by evolving principals of wage determination.
The system came about as part of the historical compromise that forged Australia's economic institutions in the face of the depression and social strife of the 1890s. It constituted a bi/multipartisan recognition of the need for equitable systems that could managed the competing interests in a modern capitalist economy. It encouraged parties to form bodies (trade unions and employer associations) to represent those interests before quasi-judicial courts. When there was strife, these courts could intervene and, if need be, force an outcome that all parties had to abide by. It wasn't just the most powerful who won. These institutions create marginal inefficiencies. You get trade-offs for imposing a modicum of fairness into the system. The most important thing is that it has more or less eliminated the working poor in this country. Unlike most other Anglo-Saxon nations, which otherwise have similar institutions (as compared to other advanced western democracies), Australia's IR system has managed to stop the poor getting poorer. This is the very institution that has underpinned Australia’s notion of the 'fair go'. It's not just a cultural myth or a belief system that we've constructed over time. It has a tangible institutional basis. The US is a good comparison here. While there difference across that various states, on the whole Americans without marketable skills only have notions of god and country to supper. Theirs is not the American dream and never will be.
Unfortunately, the Howard government's revolution in industrial law is part of a continuum initiated by federal Labor. Hawke/Keating and Howard actually differ little in their economic management. Both sides of politics are full of neo-librarals/economic rationalists. This continues to be the case. It may take time for the impact of the law to be felt. However, most Australian employees are not union members, many have mortgages and most are imbued with the protestant work ethic and therefore think that if they work hard some good will come of it. This means that the working population, in the main, are easy targets if employers want and need to cut costs and are prepared to do it at employees’ expense. The new laws force most wage earners into the federal system and the new laws are designed to enhance management's capacity to tailor the terms and conditions of work to meet their needs. If you're not in a union the only thing you've got to rely on is the benevolent employer. Maybe the real test will come when we confront our next economic downturn. The economy always cycles. It's necessarily only a matter time when the current wave of prosperity falters.
The bruhaha over the passage of the legislation and the campaign by the ACTU (and the BCA) reflect the very issues that brought arbitration into existence in the first place. The systematic tensions that exist between employee and employer have not disappeared with the passage of time. They've just been ameliorated by the laws historically governing industrial relations and the labour market. Human beings can be really bad to each other, especially when there are marked power differentials between them. The industrial relations of past was a brutal and ugly business. As a nation, we made such social progress under arbitration. Yet, under Howard it may all be dashed.
Yes, time will indeed tell.
Cheers,
Matthew.