THE IMPACTS AND NON-IMPACTS ON UNIONS OF ENTERPRISE BARGAINING

Abstract

In analysing the impact of enterprise bargaining on unions, we need to distinguish the concepts of ‘enterprise’ and ‘bargaining’ and their separate implications for union power, and to distinguish and understand the relationship between individualisation and enterprise bargaining. Australian unions had several, interrelated motives for the shift to enterprise bargaining—their shift was the outcome of a willing but constrained choice in an environment where most other parties were pushing the logic of ‘flexibility’. Some union objectives were achieved but other consequences arose, the shift to enterprise bargaining closing off the more comfortable union techniques, such as effective advocacy and servicing, formerly used to maintain membership. Unions saw the shift as a way to revive membership; many employers saw it as the opposite, and were the more successful in that regard, because of structural union problems at the workplace. The move from awards to collective bargaining removed the long-standing dependence of unions on arbitration, and was probably inevitable one way or another. This had the potential to make unions more responsive and active at the workplace and opened the door to methods of union revitalisation based around principles of organising. However, the move from multi-employer to single-enterprise exposed weaknesses where unions did not have the infrastructure to be already active and clearly undermined the union power, even if the relative position of some improved. Employers also utilised individualisation strategies but these were not dependent on a shift to bargaining, though the legislative framework enabling ‘non-union’ agreements facilitated individualisation.