Contents

• Introduction 2
• “Work Choices” Vs “Forward with Fairness” 4
• ‘Wage Rage’ 5
• Ball in Union’s Court 6
• Fair Work Act, 2009 6
• National Employee Standards 7
• Right of entry 9
• Collective Bargaining and Enterprise Agreements 9
• Industrial Actions 10
• FWA 11
• Minimum Wage 11
• Termination of Employment 12
• Modernization of Awards and General Protection with illustrations. 12
• What does FWA mean to a worker? 18
• Conclusion 19
• References 21

Description

The natal outcome of Capt. James Cook’s (Central Intelligence Agency [CIA], 2009) first voyage, Australia; a country of 6 states and 2 territories is still reviving from the flu transmitted by the bad administrators in the past. Government tried reforms in order to scapegoat the prior problems, but did not realize that the administrators had superficial knowledge of the delegated work. The administrators who lacked the expertise in linking policy with practice added cronies and ‘yes men’ resulting in no motivation to even alert the government about the fundamentally weak team of administrators. The worst outcome was: changes done over past years were dysfunctional and there were continuous reforms with the advent of new power each time. (Craig, 2007).
Recent statistics (“Unions to flex muscle with Australia’s Labor Govt“, 2009) show that an average person does six hours unpaid work a week over the standard 38 hour week.
The statistics made another leader to deviate from his pledge to govern as economic conservative and the 4th amendment to the workplace regulations happened with the change of power in 2007.
The history of amendments dates back to late May 2005, when Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) faced a controversial amendment and from thereon known as “Work choices” .Later, in May 2007 , the high court’s decision to make “Work Choices” constitutionally valid is marked to be the most critical decisions in the history of industrial relations. The balance was shaken when federal government tried retrieving its political position by introducing “fairness test” for agreement making (Punch, 2009, p. 2). Rightly said by Professor Macmillan that even with the best will in the world, policy makers cannot predict and provide for all combinations of circumstances that might arise and despite good intentions, governments will sometimes develop legislation that results in unforeseen, unfair or even harsh consequences (Macmillan, 2009). The step caused even more confusion and uncertainty of the laws as well as the Howard government.
The Howard government lost the power in 2007 and passed the legacy to Kevin Rudd .The transition in the legacy brought an end to the “Work Choices” and gave birth to “fair Work Act 2009”. Despite of the fact that there were loads of debates, oppositions and drama throughout the whole saga, the FWA commenced from 1st July, 2009 (Punch, 2009, p. 2).
The paper analysis will cover the critical evaluation of the dual-role approach (Fesler, 1965, pp.537-565) of Rudd’s government to resolve the conflicts in the “Work choices”, by exploring the changes proposed in the new fair Work Act and critically contrasting the two systems. The analysis will also touch upon the all the aspects of the new act like the new approach to awards, bargaining, bargaining in good faith, dispute resolution , negotiating workplace agreements et al. The paper will cover illustrations on the modernization of awards and general protection in the later sections. The paper will also cover how the act should be viewed with respect to the Australian workplaces. Finally, the conclusion which would mirror the impact of the act on the future of Rudd’s government.