Effect of Centralised Wage Bargaining in New Zealand
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Effects of Centralised Wage Bargaining in New Zealand By Paul Mackay Introduction Productivity and sustainability are the current buzzwords of the New Zealand political conversation, and have been for some time. Despite all the talk, however, there is still no firm consensus on what is needed to create let alone enhance productivity and sustainability. The perpetual political contest between preferences for regulatory or deregulatory approaches continues as strongly as ever. Unsurprisingly, New Zealand’s centre left Labour opposition exhibits a preference for a regulated approach to the economy generally and, in particular, the labour market. It also has expressed interest in returning to a more centralised way of determining wages and conditions of employment. Other than continuing a tradition of adjusting the Minimum Wage on an annual basis, the present national government has tended to stay clear of direct intervention in the setting of wages and conditions at any level. This article examines the New Zealand labour market with specific reference to the effects of centralised versus enterprise level collective bargaining . The evidence presented here suggests that national or industry based approaches to collective bargaining are more likely to be economically damaging than deregulated or enterprise level approaches. Therefore, the conclusions support a minimalist approach to labour market regulation. A short history News Zealand legislative approach to labour relations dates from 1894, with the introduction of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1894. Since then, New Zealand has experienced several distinct phases of labour relations and related government intervention in the labour market. Between 1894 and 1987, employment conditions were established through a system of occupationally based awards bargained for at national level. Settlements in award negotiations were accompanied by the legislative implementation of national wage orders, cost of living increases and the like. Rising inflation in the late 1970s and early 80s led to the then National government imposing further regulatory controls, the most extreme of which were the Wage Freeze Regulations 1982 (established under the auspices of the Economic Stabilisation Act 1948). As their name suggests, the Wage Freeze Regulations capped wage growth, but not expectations. Upon their removal in 1984, wages increased by an average 20%. 2 Following New Zealand’s near economic collapse in 1983, a landslide victory brought the 3rd Labour government under David Lange to power in 1984. Under the leadership of finance minister Roger Douglas, the government removed the regulatory controls on wages, devalued then floated the New Zealand dollar, revoked controls on interest rates, abolished many indirect taxes, reformed the public and education services and privatised major state enterprises. In 1987, with the introduction of the Labour Relations Act (LRA), the government began to reform the labour market including permitting individual employers unions to engage in enterprise-based bargaining. Perhaps tired of constant and major reform, New Zealanders elected a National led government in 1990. However, far from slowing the pace of reform, the new government continued Roger Douglas’ economic reforms and introduced the most radical change ever to labour relations law. The Employment Contracts Act 1991 (ECA) did away with national awards and legislative recognition of unions in favour of enterprise level bargaining, with a clear preference for individual agreements. The National government’s tenure was marked by an almost complete absence of labour market regulation. However, after three parliamentary terms, the National party was voted out of power in 1999 to be replaced by the 4th (then 5th) Labour government, a coalition of the Labour, Green and other centre left minor parties. The ECA was promptly replaced by the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA), which reinstated collective bargaining as the preferred form of contractual employment relationship. Unions once again received legislative recognition with the unilateral right to represent employees in collective bargaining. Union powers to access workplaces and establish collective bargaining were enhanced. Since 1999, many aspects of the labour market have been regulated, with particular emphasis on low paid and vulnerable workers. Paid Parental Leave was introduced then enhanced. The minimum adult wage has increased several times. Youth wages were all but abolished in favour of the Adult Minimum Wage, regulation limiting the ability of organisations to contract out the work of vulnerable workers introduced, minimum holidays entitlements increased from 3 to 4 weeks per annum and so on. The Working for Families Package subsidised family incomes, taking into account numbers of children, while income-based rents for state housing and the government-subsidised KiwiSaver superannuation scheme were also introduced. Collective Bargaining Prior to 1987, collective bargaining in New Zealand was based exclusively on national occupational awards. These covered mainly lower paid occupations, with managerial and professional jobs subject to common law. 3 The introduction of the LRA in 1987 enabled collective bargaining to occur at enterprise level for the first time. At the same time the third Labour government initiated and implemented massive changes in the public sector. Part of these changes involved the dismantling of the public service system of national occupational determinations and their replacement by enterprise level collective agreements covering each department and organisation. The private sector followed suit 3 years later upon the enactment of the ECA. Most fundamentally, the ECA replaced the private sector national award system with a system based on free choice of form and contract coverage. Within 2 years all but a handful of nationally based collective agreements had disappeared in favour of enterprise level collective or individual contracts of employment. The few multi employer collective contracts that survived were concentrated mainly in the public sector (doctors, nurses, teachers etc). the main private sector exceptions were (and still are) the Metals agreement and the Plastics Agreement. Both however are much smaller than their award predecessors. Unions were affected too The changes wrought by the LRA and the ECA had a profound affect on unions. Overall union membership and the number of unions had been falling since the early 1980s. A key reason was the sweeping reforms of the global economy created by the phenomenon of globalisation. Unions historically thrived in protected domestic economies, but shrank in open economies. The removal or dilution of trade and tariff barriers and the opening of competition across international boundaries in the early to mid 1980s removed much of the union movement’s traditional domestic leverage. Inside the safety of tariff barriers, for instance, employers brought to their knees by strike action could always recover losses by increasing prices, since customers had no real choice but to buy local products. Globalisation, however, meant many customers could shop elsewhere, leaving employers in the cold with respect to recovering losses. Thus traditional strike tactics could easily mean a pyrrhic victory for unions by destroying the company their members were employed by. Unions globally began to decline as a result of their members seeing reduced value in membership. The LRA in 1987 accelerated the decline process begun by globalisation through the introduction of the “1000 member rule”. Unions had to have at least 1000 financial members before they could be registered. This forced many amalgamations and closures. The decline continued apace after 1991 under the ECA, the fall only being arrested upon the enactment of the ERA in 1999. This promptly boosted union recruitment as a result of the requirement that only union members could be covered by collective agreements. Employees previously covered by collective agreements outside of a union had to find a union to join. Many groups of employees formed their own union rather than join the more traditional mainstream unions affiliated to the Council of Trade Unions. 4 Unions and Union Membership 1900 - 2010 LRA ECA ERA 800000 600 700000 Union Membership 501 684825 No of Unions 500 600000 400 500000 400000 300 Number of Unions Number Union Membership 300000 200 200000 100 100000 0 0 4 2 5 09 12 27 30 45 60 63 78 81 97 00 915 948 966 003 1900 1903 1906 19 19 1 1918 1921 192 19 19 1933 1936 1939 194 19 1 1951 Year1954 1957 19 19 1 1969 1972 197 19 19 1985 1991 1994 19 20 2 2006 2009 As can be seen in the graph above, union membership increased steadily in numerical terms between 1999 and 2008, then began to decline again, largely as a result of job losses during the Global Financial Crisis. However, overall union density (membership as a percentage of the workforce) declined gradually over the period, mainly as a result of increases in the national workforce in the period prior to the crisis. National union density stands at around 17% in 2013. This figure on its own is misleading however. Union density in the public sector is currently around 50% while coverage of the private sector hovers just under 10%. This phenomenon of unions increasingly concentrated in the public service is not unique. Similar proportionate coverage is evident in many countries including Australia, UK, and the USA. Strikes Under the national