Centralism and Perceptions of Australian Industrial Relations

Abstract

This paper is concerned to examine whether the Australian attitude to industrial relations is concerned to optimise, in some way, the production of industrial relations outcomes, or whether we seek to provide optimal operating conditions for the mechanisms created to service industrial relations. This question is attacked by considering whether the three genuinely perceived major industrial relations issues in Australia would arise at all if there were some mechanism other than the centralised arbitration process. The three issues concerned are national industrial relations policy, the reportedly excessive number of strikes and the reportedly excessive number of unions. It is argued that national industrial relations policy has very little practical meaning: national policy as we have practised it is not far distant from a process of producing rules without much regard for the extent of observance they induce. The strike question is examined by contrasting its influence, in terms of production worker-hours wasted, with the less publicised area of industrial accidents. Strikes, even in the most industrially turbulent circumstances, have never approached the toll levied by accidents. This conclusion can be reached even though only an unknown, but possibly minor, proportion of accidents is recorded. The number of unions is considered first by contrasting the union populations of the two nations whose labour relations are often upheld to Australians as paragons to which we might aspire. In fact one has fewer than 20 unions and one has many thousands, suggesting that numbers are a less than critical factor. The large number of unions is often held to be the cause of demarcation disputes. With only one union there could be no inter-union disputes, but demarcation disputes are often not inter-union. Large numbers of unions are an inconvenience to bureaucrats and tribunals. There is less hard evidence that this worries unionists or employers.