Workplace Flexibility: Realigning 20th-Century Jobs for a 21st-Century Workforce

14. Renewed Energy for Change: Government Policies Supporting Workplace Flexibility in Australia

276 14 RENEWED ENERGY FOR CHANGE Government Policies Supporting Workplace Flexibility in Australia Juliet Bourke Workplace flexibility is receiving a great deal of attention in Australia, particularly from Labor federal government elected in late 2007, but also from members of the previous conservative federal government, business representatives, and nongovernmental organizations. At first glance, such attention may seem positive, but this assumes that the term “workplace flexibility” has a uniform meaning for each of those stakeholder groups, and that the balance between employer and employee rights is evenly weighted.Although the previous conservative government espoused a commitment to work and family, it was perceived by some commentators (Group of 151 Australian Industrial Relations, Labour Market and Legal Academics 2005) as undermining work-family balance1 by providing employers with greater industrial control over employees. Hence, the underlying meaning of the term“workplace flexibility” needs to be deconstructed, since it is freely used by both main political parties, as well as the broader community, but it may well mean different things to different sectors and therefore drive different policy approaches and legislative outcomes. An Australian Snapshot This chapter analyzes the previous government’s approach to workplace flexibility , and in particular the introduction of sweeping industrial reforms known as “WorkChoices,” the effects of which are still present in the labor market; the newly elected Labor government’s approach through its election commitment to amend WorkChoices, which is currently under way (see the epilogue to this chapter for an RENEWED ENERGY FOR CHANGE IN AUSTRALIA 277 update as of July 1, 2009); and state discrimination laws for workers with caring responsibilities . It will also consider whether current legal workplace frameworks and policy initiatives are sufficiently supportive of the work-family agenda. In terms of flexibility and the work-family agenda, is Australia moving forward, standing still,or going backward? Taken as a whole,Australia’s progress on the workfamily agenda for the past ten years can be characterized as “two steps forward and one step back.” However commitments by the Labor federal government elected in 2007 to improve outcomes for“working families”have the capacity to now drive the workplace flexibility agenda forward with speed. Framing the Discussion To help frame the discussion of workplace flexibility, it is important to identify whether the objective of flexibility is to (a) enable employers to have greater control over employees’ working conditions; (b) enable employees to have greater control over their working conditions; or (c) provide a framework for employers and employees to balance their mutual work and family responsibilities. Hence, while the same phrase“workplace flexibility”may be used by a range of key stakeholders (e.g., government/Opposition, businesses, and employees), the ultimate objective plays a vital role in defining the policy framework and legal implementation processes. These objectives may not be transparent in an environment of political correctness and political savvy; moreover, they may be blurred for each stakeholder group. Does workplace flexibility enable, or indeed encourage, employers and workers to balance their mutual work and family responsibilities? The assumption behind this framework is that supporting a work-family agenda is both good for business and good for employees, and correspondingly, that excessive control by either employers or employees is detrimental to the sustainability of employees and/or the workplace. Where should the policy and legislative lines be drawn to achieve this dual agenda, and how does Australia rate? Accepting this definition of (mutual) “work-family flexibility” as a starting point, what might be the indicators of flexibility policies that are supportive of the work-family agenda? Within the Australian context, four key indicators of work-family flexibility can be assigned: access to flexible work practices without disadvantage; reasonable and predictable hours; legal redress for practices that do not honor the work-family balance; and sufficient structural support to provide real choice. ACCESS TO FLEXIBLE WORK PRACTICES WITHOUT DISADVANTAGE “Without disadvantage” means that employees should not be harassed or treated detrimentally because they wish to, or in fact do, use a flexible work practice (e.g., job-share arrangements, leave arrangements, part-time work, working from home, changing the start and finish time of the workday, or taking leave). If this first 278 JULIET BOURKE indicator were fulfilled, one would expect to see flexibility (e.g., part-time work) considered normative, and not productive of workplace disadvantage or stratification , even if it is not mainstream. ENSURE REASONABLE AND PREDICTABLE HOURS There have been...