Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPeetz, Daviden_US
dc.contributor.editorAbbott, K., Hearn Mackinnon, B., Morris, L., Saville, K. and Waddell, D.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T13:24:18Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T13:24:18Z
dc.date.issued2007en_US
dc.date.modified2009-10-23T05:23:40Z
dc.identifier.isbn9781920889227en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/19687
dc.description.abstractAs a result of WorkChoices, more employees were moved onto AWAs than before, and fewer onto union collective agreements. Award coverage declined. However, the coverage of AWAs was greatly exaggerated by the former government, with no more than 5 per cent of employees on AWAs at the end of September 2007. The effects of WorkChoices were reduced for several reasons. Few employees have been covered by WorkChoices agreements and many firms did not take advantage of the opportunities WorkChoices presented. Because such a small proportion of workers were on AWAs, their impact on aggregate wages was relatively small. The full effects were unlikely to be felt for some time because some of the provisions of WorkChoices could only affect parties' behaviour several years after WorkChoices came into force, and because employer strategy would take some time to adjust, especially amongst firms wary of the effects of cutting pay and conditions. The full effects of WorkChoices would probably only be seen when the boom slows and economic conditions deteriorate, leading a larger number of employers to make use of WorkChoices provisions while the alternative available to employees narrow. In that sense, any evaluation of WorkChoices at the moment is, if anything, likely to provide a rosier picture than would later have become apparent if voters had allowed it to stay in place. Yet WorkChoices had a major political impact. This was partly because of the impact of some of its broader provisions, such as unfair dismissal changes which immediately reduced protections for several million workers and their families and increased insecurity. In addition, while many people were not directly affected, they often heard stories from friends or relatives of adverse effects. The impact that WorkChoices had on a minority of people was sufficient to engender feelings of insecurity amongst a significantly larger group, and to offend voters' sense of justice.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherHeidelberg Pressen_US
dc.publisher.placeMelbourneen_US
dc.publisher.urihttp://www.hardiegrant.com.au/Books.aspxen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofbooktitleWork Choices: Evolution or Revolutionen_US
dc.relation.ispartofchapter2en_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom23en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto42en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_AU
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode350203en_US
dc.titleHow wide is the impact of Work Choices?en_US
dc.typeBook chapteren_US
dc.type.descriptionB1 - Book Chapters (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeB - Book Chaptersen_US
gro.facultyGriffith Business School, Dept of Employment Relations and Human Resourcesen_US
gro.date.issued2007
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Book chapters
    Contains book chapters authored by Griffith authors.

Show simple item record