ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET
STUDENT LAST NAME
STUDENT FIRST NAME
STUDENT NUMBER
UNIT NAME/UNIT NUMBER:
200300/Managing People at Work
TUTORIAL TIME
CAMPUS OF ENROLMENT
UNIT CO-ORDINATOR
LECTURE NAME
TUTOR NAME
TITLE OF ASSIGNMENT
Annotated Bibliography, Matrix and Essay
DUE DATE
1/2/2008
DATE SUBMITTED
DECLARATION:
I hold a copy of this assignment that I can produce if the original is lost or damaged. I hereby certify that no part of this assignment or product has been copied from any other student’s work or from any other source except where due acknowledgement is made in the assignment. No part of this assignment/product has been written/produced for me by any other person except where such collaboration has been authorised by the subject lecturer/tutor concerned.
Signature: __________________________________
Note: An examiner or lecturer/tutor has the right not to mark this assignment if the above declaration has not been signed.
Academic misconduct will not be tolerated and will be dealt in accordance with the UWS Academic Misconduct Policy.
PART A – References
Students are required to locate and accurately document the bibliographic details of ten (10) sources NOT listed in Part B via WebCT and which are relevant to the question – How has the decentralisation of the Australian industrial relations system impacted on the various stakeholders? Your references need to be a representative sample of resources (i.e. not just newspaper articles or books, but from all areas – newspapers, academic journals, books, scholarly websites, etc.) The reference details must use the School of Management’s Harvard style format found in the Essay Writing Guide.
Books
Bamber, G., Park, F., Lee, C. Ross, P., Broadbent, K. (2000) Employment Relations in the Asia Pacific: Changing Approaches. New South Wales: Allen & Unwin.
Greig, A. Lewins, F., and White, K. (2003) Inequality in Australia. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Articles and Journals
Bessant, J. (2000) “Regulating the Unemployed: Australia’s Work-for-the-Dole Scheme.” Journal of Australian Studies. p76.
Lyons, M., and Smith, M. (2007) “Children’s Services, Wages and WorkChoices: A ‘Fairer’ Workplace Relations System?” Australian Journal of Early Childhood. 32(3), 26.
Mitchell, W. and Juniper, J., Myers, J. (2006) “The Dynamics of Job Creation and Job Destruction in Australia.” Australian Journal of Social Issues. 41(2), 247.
Mitropoulos, A. (1999) “Discipline and Labour: Sociology, Class Formation and Money in Australia at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century.” Journal of Sociology. 35(1), 77.
Morehead, A. (2001) “Synchronizing Time for Work and Family: Preliminary Insights from Qualitative Research with Mothers.” Journal of Sociology. 37(4), 355.
Sims, M. (2002) “Junior Pay, Senior Responsibilities: The Experiences of Junior Child Care Workers.” Australian Journal of Early Childhood. 27(3), 7.
Wever, K. (1997) “Unions Adding Value: Addressing Market and Social Failures in the Advanced Industrialized Countries.” International Labour Review. 136(4), 499.
Internet Articles
Shim, D. (2001) “Recent Human Resources Developments in OECD Member Countries.” Public Personnel Management. 30(3), 323. Available in: http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/79524626.html [Accessed 15 January 2008]
Part A – Reference List – 5 Marks
U*
F
P
C
D
H
Representative Sample
School of Management’s Harvard Style
Includes all relevant information including website details
Alphabetical Order
Indented Properly
*U = Unattempted; F = Fail; P = Pass; C =Credit; D = Distinction; H = High Distinction
PART B – Annotation 1
Each annotation should be 500 words (maximum) not including the reference and is worth 5 marks each.
Full reference details of the source using the Harvard style of referencing:
Bray, M., and Waring, P. (2006) “The Rise of Managerial Prerogative under the Howard Government.” Australian Bulletin of Labour. 32(1) 45
Main Theme/Purpose and Main Arguments/Idea – What does the author/s aim to do? How does the author/s go about achieving its purpose?
The article of Bray and Waring examines the industrial policies of the Howard administration. More specifically, the terms covered in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)(WRA) which was the main legislative initiative of the Howard administration since it started its leadership in Australia. The study maintained that this set of labour regulations have influenced the non-wage aspects in the workplace level. More specifically, the decision-making processes has been significantly augmented the context of managerial prerogative in the workplace setting. In the same regard, the study maintained that these changes in the power have e substantive outcomes.
Significance – Why is the piece important/how does it help us address the question?
The piece is important to answering the question because it provides an account of the implications of the decentralisation of the industrial relations system with reference to the employer-employee relationship. Unlike the Pocock and Masterman-Smith (2006) paper below who looked at a specific demographic, this article covers the general workforce. This thus provides a more generalised standpoint on the implications of the labour reforms and the power play between the employers, employees, and unions as stakeholders. In addition, the paper was able to help in pinpointing the specific areas which affected the work settings in Australia. For instance, the awards required to give by the common organisation has significantly declined; enterprise agreements have lost its power; union membership has declined; and a shift towards individual bargaining is observed.
Critique & Personal Reflection – What was good and bad about the piece? What did you find most interesting/what questions do you have?
At some point, the discussions of these observations given by Bray and Waring tends to display the development of the workplace setting with the reforms, especially the changes in the “non-wage” elements of employment. However, upon a deeper perusal of the article, it appears that it is a direct assault on the reforms of the Howard administration on the labour laws. More particularly, the study was an eye opener on how the administration has systematically chopped the ascendancy of labour unions in the Australian setting. Are these reforms a deliberate way of slowly ridding of the employee representation in Australia? Personally, I think the intent of the state to encourage economic development has severely compromised the welfare of the stakeholders of the labour sector; there is some imbalance in power and representation has been taken for granted.
Another issue that I have seen in the work of Bray and Waring is that it openly claims that the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)(WRA) is a blatant attempt of the state to trigger a shift in the labour processes from collective bargaining to individual bargaining. They failed to realise that the said legislation essentially provides the individual employee an opportunity to address his/her work concerns without the pressure and influence coming from the sometimes skewed perspective of labour unions.
Needless to say that the article have established a sound argument indicating that the “developments” made by the Howard administration has not only given ascendancy on managerial prerogative but also obliquely limited, if not taken away, the strength of unions in Australia. The problem in this regard is that unions and employers should work hand-in-hand to provide a great outlook on the welfare of Australia’s workforce; the latter by ensuring that they have opportunity for employment and the former by ensuring that they have everything they need to carry out the job expected of them. In the end, the beneficiary of the legislation is the individual employee as they are given the freedom to take their welfare at their own pace and at the manner in which they prefer.
Part B Annotation One – 5 Marks
U*
F
P
C
D
H
Reference in Harvard Style (1 Mark)
Main Theme/Purpose and Main Argument/Idea(1 Mark)
Significance (1 Mark)
Critique & Personal Reflection (2 Marks)
*U = Unattempted; F = Fail; P = Pass; C =Credit; D = Distinction; H = High Distinction
PART B – Annotation 2
Each annotation should be 500 words (maximum) not including the reference and is worth 5 marks each.
Full reference details of the source using the Harvard style of referencing:
Forsyth, A. (2006) “Arbitration extinguished: the impact of the Work Choices legislation on the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.” Australian Bulletin of Labour. 32(1), 18.
Main Theme/Purpose and Main Arguments/Idea – What does the author/s aim to do? How does the author/s go about achieving its purpose?
The study of Forsyth focused on the implications of the 2005 amendments on the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) on the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC). Specifically, the article built its arguments on the premise that the AIRC has been “sidelined” with the emergence of the 2005 amendments on the legal framework of the labour sector of Australia. They expounded this argument by pointing out certain aspects and implications on the work settings in Australia. First, the AIRC’s powers have been curtailed and the roles limited. Another objective that the paper indicated is the new scheme for voluntary dispute resolution. The third objective of the study was to indicate the implication of the amendments on the 2005 Act in roles of the AIRC as a government entity. Essentially, Forsyth described the AIRC as an entity that finds ways to bend rules to effectively implement their mandate despite of the “roadblocks” provided by the 1996 Act and its consequent amendments.
Significance – Why is the piece important/how does it help us address the question?
The study of Forsyth is significant in answering the question of the implications of decentralisation because it highlights its effects on the state itself. This shows that the reforms made by the Howard administration not only made alterations on the work setting level as indicated in the paper of Bray and Waring (2006), state institutions who deal directly with issues on labour. In the case of the AIRC, it was implied that the commission was deliberately being made obsolete as the reforms on the labour laws have significantly reduced its power without truncating its mandate, which may well went over the line. If ever this may be the case, the reforms of the Howard administration might want the commission to fail in its mandate so as to have a reason to dissolve it completely. Forsyth even pushed it further by indicating that it might be the intent of the state to set up a new alternative dispute resolution industry among private entities in Australia.
Critique & Personal Reflection – What was good and bad about the piece? What did you find most interesting/what questions do you have?
All in all, the study was again well-researched and did a fair job by focusing on a particular role of the AIRC, which is to conduct ADR practices. Before reading the article, one must first be acquainted with the fact that conflict in the labour sector is a universal constant. Thus, institutions like the AIRC are indispensable for the labour sector. In the discussions of Forsyth, it appears that the commission still has a significant role in the Australian setting. However, the claims of Forsyth displayed quite a paranoid view of the developments made by the state. The AIRC is without a doubt an important part of the labour sector, the government is aware of that and there is a huge possibility that they will not eliminate the commission ultimately. Based on the discussions on the said work, the amendments made in the WorkChoices programme took away some of the powers of the commission. However, in a much closer examination of the initiative, the state has merely streamlined and placed specific parameters for the operations of the AIRC and in the same time provided the labour sector the chance to exercise prudence in their conflict resolution endeavours. Along these lines, the state has also given those parties in conflict with an alternative in the form of private ADR entities. It must be emphasised that the beneficiaries of the WorkChoices programmes are the workers and not the entities like AIRC. To a certain extent, the WorkChoices programme even helped the said commission as it has finally specified its actual mandate and protocol in implementing that mandate. In the same, the legislation basically reduced the possibility of backlog in the AIRC as private entities are now given the chance to play at the same field with the commission.
Part B Annotation One – 5 Marks
U*
F
P
C
D
H
Reference in Harvard Style (1 Mark)
Main Theme/Purpose and Main Argument/Idea(1 Mark)
Significance (1 Mark)
Critique & Personal Reflection (2 Marks)
*U = Unattempted; F = Fail; P = Pass; C =Credit; D = Distinction; H = High Distinction
PART B – Annotation 3
Each annotation should be 500 words (maximum) not including the reference and is worth 5 marks each.
Full reference details of the source using the Harvard style of referencing:
Pocock, B. and Masterman-Smith, H. (2006) “WorkChoices and Women Workers.” Journal of Australian Political Economy. 56(1) 126-144
Main Theme/Purpose and Main Arguments/Idea – What does the author/s aim to do? How does the author/s go about achieving its purpose?
The work of Pocock and Masterman-Smith tackles the social implications of the Work Choices packages provided by the Howard administration. More specifically, the discussions are focused on the implications of the said legal framework on equality and quality of life of women workers in Australia. The arguments in the paper are based on the premise that the Work Choices package gives no possibility of “ameliorating the impacts of low pay and the work/life collision on women workers.” In this regard, one could already see the leanings of the paper. Feminist arguments are thus anticipated along with discussions centring on the effects of the legislation on the family. The discussions then went on to provide a summary and interpretation of the statistics of women workers from Australia with particular focus on the employment conditions. In addition, the said statistics are further equated to their household and family conditions. In this section, the gist of the discussion indicated that women’s pay is not commensurate the needs of a particular household, especially in conditions where single parenthood is involved.
Significance – Why is the piece important/how does it help us address the question?
Moreover, the observations of the authors on the implications of the Work Choices package of the Howard administration emulates what Barry and Waring (2006) has observed in their paper. More specifically, the decrease of awards and the limits in the enterprise agreements have similarly been noted in the study. However, Pocock and Masterman-Smith has provided a more comprehensive look at the topic as they used statistics to relate the said observations on the implications of the law on women worker. More specifically, the statistics that they have used includes those relating to the benefits of the female workers like leave credits and specific loadings.
Critique & Personal Reflection – What was good and bad about the piece? What did you find most interesting/what questions do you have?
The discussions of the paper have provided a detailed account of the implications of the legislation on the conditions of women workers. It held true on its premise with the implementation of statistics, literature, and a clear examination of the legal structures in its discussions. This means that it was a great piece. All the arguments are backed up by statistical facts and accounts on the conditions of women in the Australian setting. One of the problems seen in the paper is that the secondary statistical data, though it was at least three or four years before the article was made, was rather not sufficient to provide some conclusive arguments on the claims of the author. Essentially, the discussions have established that the Howard administration failed to a certain extent in considering the social implications of the reforms that they have implemented in the labour sector. However, the author may similarly have been overly romanticising the plight of women as the sole bearer of the inequalities bestowed by the reform. All employees do experience this type of inequality as mentioned in the study of Bray and Waring (2006). However, by focusing more on the economic implications of the changes in policy, the Howard administration has given a boost in gender inequality within the working sectors in Australia.
Part B Annotation One – 5 Marks
U*
F
P
C
D
H
Reference in Harvard Style (1 Mark)
Main Theme/Purpose and Main Argument/Idea(1 Mark)
Significance (1 Mark)
Critique & Personal Reflection (2 Marks)
*U = Unattempted; F = Fail; P = Pass; C =Credit; D = Distinction; H = High Distinction
PART C – Comparative Matrix
Students must compare and contrast the ideas/arguments of the authors using the three sources annotated in Part B. In doing so, students must develop 5 comparative arguments to analyse the material and record findings in the following matrix within 500 words (maximum). The arguments highlighted should form the basis of your essay which addresses the question: How has the decentralisation of the Australian industrial relations system impacted on the various stakeholders?
Bray, M., and Waring, P. (2006)
Forsyth, A. (2006)
Pocock, B. and Masterman-Smith, H. (2006)
Legal framework Used
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)(WRA) have made significant implications on the workplace setting
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) have made curtailed the role of Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC)
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) or (WorkChoices)
Stakeholders Discussed
Employees, Unions, and Employers have experienced shifts in the power and influence with the amendments in the Act.
The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) has been having trouble accomplishing its mandate because of the outlined role in the Australian setting.
Women workers experience heightened inequality in the ratification of the 2005 amendments.
Areas Centred
Managerial Prerogative has given a considerable boost with the 2005 amendments
Dispute resolution processes in Australia has become rather pressing for the AIRC
The preference on the economic implications of the law has made adverse implications on the social conditions in Australia.
Effects of Decentralisation
Employees and unions are less empowered with the ratifications of the 2005 amendments
The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) have lost and retained powers as caused by the 2005 amendments
Gender inequality and Household income are directly influenced by the 2005 amendments
Judgement on the Howard Administration
Howard administration fall short on its ambitious objectives in labour reform
Howard administration made the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in constant danger of obsolesce
Howard administration made life worse for the women workers in Australia.
Part C – Comparative Matrix
U*
F
P
C
D
H
Areas of Comparison
Comparative Findings Reference 1
Comparative Findings Reference 2
Comparative Findings Reference 3
Evidence of Essay Structure/Argument
*U = Unattempted; F = Fail; P = Pass; C =Credit; D = Distinction; H = High Distinction
PART D – Essay (1200 words maximum)
Based on the comparative matrix of the three articles annotated and the 10 references listed in Part A, write an essay to address the following question: How has the decentralisation of the Australian industrial relations system impacted on the various stakeholders?
The decentralisation processes in the industrial relations system in Australia has been considerably influential in the different areas related to the labour sector. The study of Shim (2001, 323) maintained that the decentralisation and devolution policies in the labour sector “efficient and effective management and organizations; improve the overall quality of services provided to the public; improve motivation and performance; and inculcate a greater performance orientation in the public service workforce.” For this study, the implications of decentralisation on the stakeholders in the labour sector will be taken into consideration. These include the employees, unions, employers, and arbitration entities like the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC). The common denominator between these stakeholders, aside from the decentralisation efforts in the industrial industry system, is the implications of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). At the same time, these have been augmented further as amendments in the said legislation are imposed in 2005.
In the context of employees, they have been among the primary end of the decentralisation. For instance, there have been studies that indicated that changes in the workplace setting have been observable as the decentralisation initiatives have taken place. (Bray and Waring 2006, 45) In the study of Mitchell, Juniper, and Myers (2006, 247) the decentralisation efforts in the labour sector has instituted an “unprecedented expansion of managerial prerogative.” This means that a considerable ascendancy has been given to employers in the organisation. In the economic aspect of such endeavour, companies have “has promoted cost-cutting, race-to-the-bottom strategies” which have been both detrimental and beneficial to the Australian workforce. (p247) One apparent implication is the supposed increased inequality in the employees. Lyons and Smith (2007, 26) noted in their study that the case of the Australian labour sector indicate undue superiority on the part of the managers as the WorkChoices programme has given them increased power through the concept of managerial prerogative. In this scenario, the unequal standing between the two stakeholders which is already apparent, has now become separated by a gaping chasm supported by legal backing. Following this line of thinking, the decentralisation process in the labour sector may have well been in favour of the employer. Following the claim of Greig, Lewins, and White (2003, 189) “the worker’s need for employment is greater than the employer’s need for any individual worker” which means that even before the relationship between employer and employee begin; there has already been an apparent inequality. This claim is supported by the study of Mitropoulos (1999, 77) indicating that the ratification of the decentralisation initiatives along with the amendments in the 1996 Act has reinforced the power of the manager to “hire and fire” employees. In a sense, the security of the individual worker in his/her job has significantly encountered some level of uncertainty. Looking at this issue on the perspective of the Howard administration, it appears that the intent was to provide the individual worker or those that could be employed in the future to “increased labour market discipline; increasing the imperative to hold a job in order to survive; and provide employers to control the labour contract.” (Bessant 2000, 76)
Recent studies have indicated that employees could not afford to have this type of uncertainty. In the study of Pocock and Masterman-Smith (2006), they have maintained that the individual employee may not be able to handle the financial demands based on the living conditions in Australia, especially when compounded by the inequality in the workplace. Again, this inequality is a result of the labour initiatives of the Harold administration. Women workers, especially those considered as heads of the family or single parents have been rather suffering with the effects of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). (Pocock and Masterman-Smith 2006) To some degree, women workers in Australia, as Morehead (2001, 355) indicated in his study, are finding it difficult to synchronise their time between work and family. Though the said study have not substantiated the actual existence of inequality as the reason for this inability of female workers to find a balance between their professional and personal lives, it was successful in presenting the current conditions on which the ordinary female worker encounters.
Another clear indication of this adverse effect of the decentralisation is seen in the altered power of the labour unions. Labour unions basically represent the common employee on their struggle to acquire fair and equitable remuneration on their jobs. (Wever 1997, 499) However, this description of unions is incomplete. The study of Bamber, Park, Lee, Ross, and Broadbent (2000, 45) maintained that their duties and responsibilities which are also related with industry and enterprise performance. Basically, this claim is rather reasonable as unions will have to ensure that unemployment is essentially inexistent so as their continued existence is ensured. In the case of Australia, as Wever (1997) puts it, the ratification of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) basically “highlights the importance of matching legislative change to the organizational resources, structures and strategies of the major actors involved.” (p501) Basically, this is done by legally by encouraging local and individual employment contracts as maintained in the said legislation. Regardless of this phenomenon, labour unions are still doing their jobs in campaigning for the welfare of the common worker. In the study of Bray and Waring (2006, 45) they cited the case of the coal miner union’s unwavering effort to keep their awards despite the significant decreases implicated by the 1996 Act and the 2005 Amendments.
Moreover, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) has also become the main alternative dispute resolution entity in Australia. Along with the mandate provided by the legal precedent in the Electrolux case, the ratification of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and the amendments in 2005 have established the AIRC as an arbitration entity in Australia. (Forsyth 2006) The problem in this regard is that the amendments in 2005 have significantly outlined the powers of the AIRS. Specifically, powers like summoning witnesses and documents were taken from their mandate.
To date, there have been accounts on the part of the AIRC that they have been bending the rules, so as not to break them, to keep their operations just and equitable. (Forsyth 2006) Given this authority, the AIRC has become one of the foremost authorities in the ADR sector as well as the most reliable. Though the said organisation does have some competition with the private sector, its reputation to do what is needed of them to resolve conflict, aside from the precedent made by the Electrolux case, is seen as the primary element that attracts complainants. In the same regard, the inclusion of the private sector as another player in the ADR scene provides another alternative for conflicting parties aside from the AIRC. This then eliminates the possible backlogs in the AIRC and provides the conflicting parties the opportunity to evade possibilities of delay.
The points above have provided a clear indication on those who are directly affected by the decentralisation efforts of the government in the area of industrial relations. At some point, one must recognise that the Howard administration only seeks to improve the economy of Australia with the sole purpose of improving the standard of living of the public. However, the efforts of the government have proven to be rather wanting as it failed to achieve its ends when the reforms were implemented. However, the state failed to recognise the adverse effects of the legislation on the labour sector. In the end, despite the best intentions, the state has failed to provide what the public requires and what they need to deal with their already complicated lives.
Reference List
You should only include the references using the School of Management’s Harvard style format found in the Essay Writing Guide which you cited throughout your essay.
Books
Bamber, G., Park, F., Lee, C. Ross, P., Broadbent, K. (2000) Employment Relations in the Asia Pacific: Changing Approaches. New South Wales: Allen & Unwin.
Greig, A. Lewins, F., and White, K. (2003) Inequality in Australia. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Articles and Journals
Bessant, J. (2000) “Regulating the Unemployed: Australia’s Work-for-the-Dole Scheme.” Journal of Australian Studies. p76.
Bray, M., and Waring, P. (2006) “The Rise of Managerial Prerogative under the Howard Government.” Australian Bulletin of Labour. 32(1) 45
Forsyth, A 2006, ‘Arbitration extinguished: the impact of the WorkChoices legislation on the Australian Industrial Relations Commission’, Australian Bulletin of Labour, 32(1)
Lyons, M., and Smith, M. (2007) “Children’s Services, Wages and WorkChoices: A ‘Fairer’ Workplace Relations System?” Australian Journal of Early Childhood. 32(3), 26.
Mitchell, W. and Juniper, J., Myers, J. (2006) “The Dynamics of Job Creation and Job Destruction in Australia.” Australian Journal of Social Issues. 41(2), 247.
Mitropoulos, A. (1999) “Discipline and Labour: Sociology, Class Formation and Money in Australia at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century.” Journal of Sociology. 35(1), 77.
Morehead, A. (2001) “Synchronizing Time for Work and Family: Preliminary Insights from Qualitative Research with Mothers.” Journal of Sociology. 37(4), 355.
Pocock, B. and Masterman-Smith, H. (2006) “WorkChoices and Women Workers.” Journal of Australian Political Economy. 56(1) 126-144
Sims, M. (2002) “Junior Pay, Senior Responsibilities: The Experiences of Junior Child Care Workers.” Australian Journal of Early Childhood. 27(3), 7.
Wever, K. (1997) “Unions Adding Value: Addressing Market and Social Failures in the Advanced Industrialized Countries.” International Labour Review. 136(4), 499.
Internet Articles
Shim, D. (2001) “Recent Human Resources Developments in OECD Member Countries.” Public Personnel Management. 30(3), 323. Available in: http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/79524626.html [Accessed 15 January 2008]
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment