Our complex world is much easier to comprehend when we stick to simple concepts, framing problems as simple choices. Day and night, big and small, good and evil.
We all know, of course, that the world doesn’t work that way. The challenges that humans deal with generally involve other humans. People create complexity, and the more people affected, the more complexity we create.
Business advocates have been trying to explain their concerns with the Government’s Secure Jobs, Better Pay Bill. At face value, it all seems clear: people, and especially our lowest paid workers, need wages to keep pace with inflation. Employers have power, employees are vulnerable, and so employees need protection that the legislation will provide.
Simple at face value. Good versus bad. Workers vs bosses. If employers are doing the right thing, they don’t have anything to worry about.
Beyond face value, things aren’t so straightforward. Secure Jobs, Better Pay is a big, complex Omnibus Bill. It includes some sensible legislative changes that would deliver good outcomes, but also many other elements that are a real cause for concern.
Without getting too technical, the major contested change is that the legislation widens the rights of unions to create agreements through bargaining, with multiple employers on the basis of a “single interest”. The scope of what a single interest might be is vague. It might be the staff of every shop in a mall, or every employee in a sector spread across Australia, capturing employees in businesses that are very different in size, type, operations and location.
The legislation is far from simple. It is complex, with vague definitions and many points that still need clarification. The fundamental economic premise that it will drive wages growth and productivity is questionable, as it is likely to drive inflation and put continued pressure on interest rates.
The time that has been allowed to consider such a complex and important change seems absurdly short. I sat down with a diverse group of local employers to discuss the new bill, and the most striking thing was how little information these people, who will be directly impacted, had about the proposed changes.
Canberra is a town of small businesses; 97 per cent employ fewer than 20 people, and only 40 businesses in the ACT have more than 200 employees. Many small businesses have very close relationships with their employees. They’re run by families, the work culture is like a family, and for the most part employees and employer work together. Employees don’t necessarily want to be captured in new agreements they didn’t ask for, and their employers can’t afford to get captured in agreements that don’t fit their business, staff or circumstances.
Many small businesses don’t have access to the resources to help them avoid being caught up in – or to at least understand – complex changing requirements. In an interesting twist, the debate over the bill has been described by commentators as a “David vs Goliath battle” in which small businesses are David and unions are Goliath.
Business groups do have range of concerns, but what they’re asking for right now is simple. Time. The bill is being pushed through the parliament with haste, to the point where the findings of a senate report into the Bill are handed down well after the Bill was passed in the Lower House of Parliament.
Time is needed to allow the legislation to be properly considered, the consequences understood, and the many questions it currently raises clarified and answered.
-Graham Catt, Canberra Business Chamber CEO
Canberra Daily would love to hear from you about a story idea in the Canberra and surrounding region. Click here to submit a news tip.
