What to preach about workplace relations
7 December 2005

By Brian Edgar

Having suggested what not to preach on workplace relations, I should also suggest what I would preach. I would mention the issues raised in the previous Soundings, and relate them to the following.

The stated aim of the Australian workplace relations changes is enhanced economic development through the simplification of the award system, resulting in more jobs. Some commentators doubt the effectiveness of this approach. A business saving on employment costs through a simplified system will not necessarily employ another person.

For example, while research indicates that a 10% increase in average wages increases employment, changes to the minimum wage hardly affects the overall employment rate as ‘the effect on the average wage is small and, thus, the impact on total employment and unemployment is also small.’ (1)

In order to put the government’s proposal in the most positive light, let us initially say that Lewis is wrong and assume that there will be some reasonable benefit in terms of the number of jobs available. I would want to relate this to passages in Genesis, Proverbs and the New Testament which affirm that work is a good and healthy part of God’s plan for humanity. Government policies which maximize work opportunities are to be encouraged. But even if more jobs are created, the economic lever being pulled to assist business development puts in question a significant number of existing working conditions and employee benefits.

The government’s own example of ‘Billy’ is instructive. Under the new laws, to get a job as a retail worker Billy has to sign an individual contract that removes his rights to public holidays, rest breaks, bonuses, annual leave loadings, allowances, penalty rates, overtime and shift loadings – conditions which other retail workers in the same business retain. The defence of this is that Billy would prefer to have a job. The implied assumption is that he is probably a teenager beginning his working life. However, ‘Billy’ could be a 36 year old father of two who has worked in a hardware shop for 20 years which has now closed down and he is looking for a new job in a large chain store.

The proposed ‘simplification’ affects workers’ pay, their social stability (by potentially affecting job tenure) and their relationships and lifestyle (through changes to their ability to control working times). Most employers will assume that ‘simplified’ actually means ‘reduced’. Unless they are reduced there would be little advantage in proceeding. I would note that according to Jesus economic issues are not the only, or the most important, issues of life. And the effects of the industrial relations proposals on other dimensions of life must be carefully watched. Our relationship with God and our relationships with others come ahead of our relationships with possessions.

The terminology used in the proposals is significant. The stress is on the ‘simplification’ of the numerous awards and pieces of legislation which control wages and conditions. The present system is complex and there are serious problems for employers in some regards. It appears that there are situations where owners and employers of small businesses are significantly disadvantaged. But one could ‘simplify’ in other ways, such as by consolidating workers on a reduced number of awards with better conditions for all.

Even when it is argued that the ultimate aim of the present proposal is to enhance the lives of the worker, it is clear that the methodology used involves a reduction in benefits of those who are unskilled and low paid and who have the least bargaining power in their relationships with employers. The claimed benefit to some disadvantaged people is obtained through further disadvantage to other disadvantaged people and through potentially significant changes to social structures which have not been the focus of public discussion. In relating this to biblical principles I would note that the weakest and least advantaged members of a society are the ones which Jesus calls us to serve the most. His own life was an example of this.

I would preach that the proposals lack consistency with the best biblical and theological principles. But then I would ask what the implications are for our life together as a church as well as for our broader social life. By placing the matter in a broader context which includes the church and assumes that listeners are to test what is said, and by exposing my own reasoning to public scrutiny, the worst excesses of dogmatism and divisiveness can be avoided.

This approach is informed by two other convictions. First, it is wrong to assume that the only alternatives in this public debate are to accept or reject the proposals. Unfortunately, the present highly polarized political atmosphere is not conducive to the introduction of alternatives. But it would be wrong to assume there are no alternatives.

Second, it is wrong to assume that a job at any cost is better than no job. Indeed, it is wrong to assume that a job necessarily takes a person or a family out of poverty. In developed countries such as the USA there are millions of ‘working poor’. It would be a regressive social step to allow this to develop in Australia. Although the USA, the most powerful economy in the world, is sometimes held up as an exemplar of labour market reform it has developed many inequalities.

Having just lived for six months in Kentucky, one of America’s poorest states, I am aware of the huge disparity in that country. It is observably and statistically far less equitable than Australia. Under their ‘Fair Labor Standards Act’ the minimum adult wage of $5.15 per hour has not changed in eight years. Economist James Galbraith says the USA is actually an example ‘of full employment achieved by accepting poverty’, an approach which ought never be acceptable and which must be resisted in Australia. When considering the Australian proposals for our Fair Pay Commission we must not accept disadvantage to the least able as an appropriate price for economic growth.

(1) Philip Lewis, “Low pay or no pay: Economics of the minimum wage,” Policy 221 (3), Spring 2005.

Rev Dr Brian Edgar is Director of Public Theology for the Australian Evangelical Alliance. The first part of his article, titled ‘Five reasons not to preach on workplace relations,’ appeared in the previous issue of Soundings. The full text is available at http://www.evangelicalalliance.org.au/pdf/Politics%205%20Reasons.pdf.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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.

Five reasons not to preach on workplace relations

30 Nov 2005

by Brian Edgar

Here are five reasons preachers give for avoiding any significant reference to the current Australian workplace relations proposals in their preaching.

1. ‘It’s too political and controversial. We should allow individuals to make up their own minds.

Some say that Jesus stressed spiritual rather than political matters (e.g. “My kingdom is not of this world,” John 18:36). But what he said and did has implications for the whole of life and for society. He was political and at times controversial (e.g. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor,” Luke 4:18).

Controversy is not to be sought for its own sake. It is better for preachers to avoid the polarised thinking and confrontational debate that characterises most public dialogue today. One of the most important aspects of a preacher’s contribution could be the way they model how to engage in a mature, biblical consideration of the issues. Engagement without polarity is not the same as indecision or going soft on fundamental matters of injustice. But it does mean refusing to unthinkingly adopt existing divisions.

2. ‘It’s too impersonal an issue and doesn’t relate to people’s real lives.

The present industrial relations debate in Australia draws together many fundamental dimensions of contemporary life. It is about the kind of society we want. It deals with the way people are treated, the nature of social relationships and the significance of family life. Any preacher can easily read a summary of the government proposals. A Christian view of the proposed legislation will require reflection on the biblical and theological principles, which relate to at least five broad areas of life:

· Money and economics: These deal with wages and what is fair and appropriate reward for work done, especially concerning the establishment of minimum levels of remuneration.

· Time and the relationship of work to other activities: There is a potentially significant shift in the social philosophy of the way special times and days (such as public holidays, Sundays and annual holidays) are treated. There is also a potential shift in the proportion of time spent in work compared to other activities.

· Relationships between people, families and other social groups: The legislation affects families and the ability of individuals to provide for dependants. The net amount earned is important but it is not the only issue. Security and tenure are equally important.

· Individual freedom, choice and power: This lies at the heart of the philosophical debate about the proposed legislation. There are significant differences of opinion about where power lies and ought to lie. The draft legislation proposes a shift towards a more individualised approach to relationships between employees and employers. This calls into question the nature of power individuals have and whether they will benefit or be disempowered by circumstance or lack of ability.

· The treatment of the weak, the less able and the disadvantaged: The proposed legislation must be able to deliver appropriate economic support and care for those who are disadvantaged, and advantage those who are less able to look for work or negotiate conditions. Even if it were not possible or desirable to give a final judgment on the value of the legislation, it would be good to help Christians discern some of the issues involved and begin to apply theological and biblical principles to the issue.


3. ‘It’s too negative and doesn’t build up individuals or the congregation.

There is a perception that preaching on social issues is a form of ‘prophetic’ preaching that involves critiquing social situations and being negative about the world. Some preachers only criticise society’s repudiation of family values; a few engage broader matters of social justice. But for many, ‘prophetic preaching’ is not helpful to the positive development of congregational life. This arises from an overly privatised view of the gospel. It is important to preach on matters of social and public concern not merely to critique what society does but to emphasise the responsibilities of God’s covenant people to demonstrate in their corporate life the way a society should live. Preaching about public issues should be positive and enhance the life of the church as well as of society.

4. ‘It’s too difficult and I’m not trained in economics or labour relations.

The role of the preacher can be to point in a direction rather than to define the destination. One does not need to understand the mechanics of a bus engine in order to decide whether to get on. All one needs to know is its direction. Similarly, one does not need to understand the full detail to understand the direction in which the legislation is going, the values it espouses and the techniques it will use to get there. What a preacher should understand are the basic values of the gospel and be able to relate them to relationships, the exercise of power, the value of economic development and the protection of the weak. Don’t underestimate the interest of the congregation or their ability to continue working it through after the preacher has finished preaching.

5. ‘It’s not relevant to the gospel and doesn’t appear in the Bible.

The dichotomy between social action and evangelism is a false one. The evangelical proclamation has social consequences as we call people to love and repentance in all areas of life. And our social involvement has evangelistic consequences as we bear witness to the transforming grace of Jesus Christ. It is always wrong to preach on issues such as industrial relations without speaking about Jesus. Even in the public realm we must not allow anyone to think that we act on our own behalf or in our own strength. It would be wrong to artificially conceal the reason for our involvement: the call of Jesus and the empowering of the Holy Spirit. Whenever possible Christians should not speak about industrial relations without also speaking about Jesus.

Rev Dr Brian Edgar is Director of Public Theology for the Australian Evangelical Alliance. The second part of his article, titled ‘What to preach about workplace relations,’ will appear in the next issue of Soundings. The full text is available at http://www.evangelicalalliance.org.au/pdf/Politics%205%20Reasons.pdf. The Australian government promotes its legislative changes at http://www2.blogger.com/www.workchoices.gov.au

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

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.