Another view on workplace relations reform

15 December 2005

by Glen Balmer

Australia’s new workplace relations legislation has angered unions, the Labor Party and the churches. But should the churches side with the unions? Have not the trade unions diverged from their Christian heritage to uphold atheistic ideals? Should we not look at the big picture and support institutions and legislation that promote equity, justice and righteousness?

In Matthew 20:1-15 Jesus tells a parable about an employer and his employees. He uses first-century employer-employee relationships and practices to present a picture of the Kingdom of God. A number of concepts are apparent.

First, the employer and the employee agreed to the daily wage between themselves. Second, if an employee was not in the town square, he or she was not hired and did not earn wages. Third, the employer needed something done for his own benefit, and the employees did that particular job; in other words, the employer created the jobs for the employees. Fourth, when the employees grumbled about the pay they had agreed to receive, the employer stated that it was his prerogative, as the one who created the jobs, to pay the agreed amount.

If, as is arguably the case, our current workplace relations system is all about employee rights, would Jesus use it to portray the Kingdom of God? We live in a society where people declare their rights but diminish their responsibilities. Does the word of God tell us to fervently declare our rights? Or does it teach us to balance rights and responsibilities?

An employee is only an employee as long as he or she has an employer. For all the great things a union does for its members, it does not pay their wages; the union must rely on employers to pay the wages of their members. But the cost of employing a person is rising because of increasing employee rights and decreasing employee responsibilities. Why should an employer bother doing business when he or she gains nothing from it? Thus, employers move their business overseas in order to achieve the gains for which they went into business, and this movement is due to increasingly high employment costs. One might ask who to blame – government, employer or employee?

Consider a common everyday scenario: Bill and Rhonda are working class people with three young children, a mortgage and a car – they survive but sometimes “do it tough.” Bill works for a transport company and is a union member. They save up enough money to buy a new TV and go off to a bulk electrical goods retailer. They see two identical plasma TVs, one for $1750 and the other for $3000. They ask what the difference is and they are told that the $3000 TV is made in Australia and the other is made in China. Bill, a union member, is aware he should buy Australian products because that will be keeping someone in a job. But they are struggling themselves and cannot afford to spend $3000 just to keep someone else in a job, so they buy the cheaper TV made in China.

Some time later, the Australian TV manufacturing company moves to India and every employee loses their job. The unions kick up a stink and blame the government, and the government blames the high-cost of employment. But at the end of the day, the deciding factor influencing whether an Australian company stays in Australia or moves overseas is the purchases that everyday people like Bill and Rhonda make.

Now China, India, Latin America and Africa all want their citizens to have jobs, and are willing to give any employer from any country low overheads in order to get those jobs. And if ordinary citizens of Australia such as Bill and Rhonda cannot afford to buy Australian-made products because the price of labour in Australia amplifies the cost of Australian products, then at the end of the day employers will move overseas – unless we do something about it.

The federal government is aware of this economic and social problem, but it is damned if it does something about it (such as the new workplace relations laws) and damned if it does nothing (because companies will move offshore).

The new workplace relations laws, although not perfect, will help create an environment where people like Bill and Rhonda can pay for an Australian made TV that will keep an Australian company in Australia and keep Australians employed. This is a fair and just outcome for Australians.

We should seek to maintain a balance between rights and responsibilities. We must have workplace relations laws that maintain this balance. The new laws seek to redress the imbalance in our current workplace relations system, and the churches should support them because they head in the direction of equity, justice and righteousness.

Glen Balmer is Associate Pastor at Macquarie Fields Baptist Church, Sydney.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of 750 to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.