Archived Industrial News: July 2006

Pay and conditions more at risk than ever before

Over the past few months, through our journals and website, the ANF has been campaigning against the Howard Government’s industrial relations changes, warning nurses that existing employment conditions and career structures are at risk.

The validity of those claims and the direction of enterprise bargaining under the Howard Government’s industrial laws were evident at a hearing of the Senate in early May 2006.

At the hearing the Employment Advocate’s Office (now responsible for agreement making) informed the Senate that a survey of 250 enterprise agreements reached in 2006 revealed:

More than one in five new workplace agreements (22%) contained no pay increases over the life of the agreement.

While the federal government has argued against reading too much into this survey claiming it is still early days, the signs are ominous and predictable.

A cursory examination of the survey results shows employers are focusing on the removal of award entitlements relating to penalties, shiftwork, rest periods and days off.

For nurses primarily employed in a 24 hour, seven days a week environment this is a disturbing development and one that needs to be resisted.

Current conditions of employment for nurses recognise they often work unsociable hours and it is important any reduction in these conditions is resisted.

In nursing, and the health care sector generally, it has long been acknowledged there needs to be a financial disincentive for employers in order to guard against excessive hours and unfair roster arrangements. The obligation to pay allowances and loadings for working unsociable and excessive hours acts as a brake against the exploitation of nurses.

The Howard Government’s industrial laws are designed to remove this financial obligation claiming the changes will lead to more efficient and effective workplaces. It further argues that in many cases the removal of penalties and shiftwork loadings is offset against wage increases. The most recent and bleak example of this approach was the Spotlight agreement where employees lost all their award conditions for an increase of two cents per hour. Penalties and shiftwork payments make up between 25% and 30% of the take home pay of nurses and although these payments are notionally ‘protected’ award conditions, the Employment Advocate has conceded publicly that a single appropriately worded sentence in an agreement can remove them all.

The Employment Advocate has also acknowledged that the development, publication and circulation of proforma agreements by his office will hasten such outcomes.

Nurses with poor bargaining power will quickly be in the sights of employers and their representatives and – unless resisted strongly – over a relatively short period of time agreements without penalties, loadings and shift allowances will become standard in the nursing industry. The experiences in New Zealand in the early 1990’s demonstrated how quickly these changes can occur.

The question is what can be done to prevent these developments.

Firstly nurses should resist employment under individual contracts, AWAs. This is because it is more likely employers will seek to introduce these changes on a nurse by nurse basis rather than as a group. Therefore, it is extremely important that nurses demand a collective agreement negotiated on their behalf by the ANF.

Even under the Howard Government’s laws, ANF collective bargaining agreements are still the best way for nurses to ensure wages and conditions are protected and improved.

For example in the residential aged care sector, wages under collective agreements can be up to $300 per week higher for a full time registered nurse.

Resist AWAs! If you or your nursing colleagues are asked to sign an AWA by your employer – don’t sign. Ask for some time to consider the proposal and immediately contact your ANF Branch.

Nick Blake
ANF Federal Industrial Officer