Ethical Implictions of WorkChoices

WorkChoices has not only had an effect on the workplace directly in terms of legislative changes, but also indirectly in terms of its social effects (Gray and Collins 2007). The new regulations have allowed for increased freedom and flexibility for employees in terms of decision making and this in turn has forced many decisions that are questionably unethical. WorkChoices has challenged the long held conservative values that arguably create the Australian Culture (Mateship and family amongst others) along with the ethical values that exist in the business world (honesty, trustworthiness, compassion, fairness and justice). The challenging of these values was demonstrated in the implementation of the WorkChoices amendments, whereas the changing of these values has been demonstrated in the actual implementation in the workplace by the employers.

Ethical Implications

Ethical implications on a government level are focused both on the allowance of employers to conduct certain practices and assumptions such as that it is ok to allow employees to negotiate for themselves (Phillips 2007). A feature of WorkChoices is that it encourages individual negotiations between employers and employees (Alexander and Lewer 2005). This therefore assumes that employees are equally informed and educated on skills to do with negotiation and employment relations as their employers. In many instances however, this is not the case. Union membership in Australia fell from 22 per cent in 2005 to just 20 per cent in 2006, which reflects the increase in employees who were left to negotiate for themselves (Employee Earnings 2006). The results of these negotiations can be demonstrated by Yen (2007) who explains a study has shown approximately 70 per cent of Workplace agreements have left employees with only the bare minimum requirements. That is 70 per cent of agreements have not gone beyond what is required of them by law (Yen 2007). The ethical values of business include fairness and Compassion; however it seems these have been challenged by forcing employees to negotiate for themselves. It appears unethical to shift decision making and negotiations onto employees who have not been provided with any training to do so.

The fierce competitiveness and drive for efficiency resulting from WorkChoices and enhanced by factors such as globalisation has had large effects at both the individual and organisational level. The allowance for removal of conditions such as shift, weekend and public holiday loadings is an example of this (Gray and Collins 2007). Ultimately, many employees across Australia have been pushed to work increased hours to make up for the income lost from their usual overtime. It is argued that an individual’s base hourly is raised to compensate for this, however it is still often necessary for employees to work extra hours to cover the loss of overtime. Examples of poor work life balance such as this bring up the notion as to whether the WorkChoices amendments are ethical. Stoddard and Maddson (2007) argue that a lack of work life balance will lead to conflict both in the home and workplace. This is interesting as Australia has fought long to maintain a high standard and quality of life. A good balance to family and work life has been a feature many Australian’s have enjoyed, however the implementation of one set of amendments could change all of this.

This conflict is only extended through both increases in working hours and the commonality of temporary contracts. The uncertainty caused by this has been found to contribute towards psychological and stress related disorders (Brown 2002). These disorders will affect peoples’ personal lives and also factors such as occupational health and safety at work. Increases in stress and working hours as a result of WorkChoices are likely to increase the risk of injury in the workplace. It has also been reported that workplace morale has dropped as a result of WorkChoices (Donaldson 2007). It is therefore questionable as to whether WorkChoices is indeed encouraging ethical behaviour. Many employees have no choice but to accept their new conditions and moving back in terms of finances and health as a result of employment hardly seems ethical.

However the other opinions argue that these changes are indeed ethical and are simply just following the already existing trends in Australian Society. Phillips (2007) explains that the current work environment already existed with employees having demands such as increased flexibility. WorkChoices simply supports this new environment and Phillips (2007) argues the previously held values associated with a stable and predictable way of life are now non existent. It is therefore argued that WorkChoices has either both challenged and changed the ethical values Australia has held dear or that it has simply supported the already changed values.

Previously, many aspects of employment relations were open to the public. That is awards and agreements were open to public scrutiny. After the implementation of WorkChoices however, this has changed and employment relations have become a much more private matter (Kelly 2007). The privatization of many agreements and their contents has also led to increased informalisation of processes. Ultimately, the reduced transparency of procedures and the increased informalisation as a result of WorkChoices has resulted in increased susceptibility of employees to problems such as bullying (Kelly 2007). Bullying is in itself an unethical behaviour, and the encouragement of it through changing policies simply furthers this. Kelly (2007) argues that increased competitive pressures, such as those resulting from WorkChoices are directly linked to workplace Bullying. The decrease in perceived fairness and justice is yet another force pushing bullying according to Kelly (2007). These Increases in Workplace bullying and have reflected the argument that the social effects of WorkChoices were not considered before its implementation. That is, the government perhaps did not do enough research into the effects of WorkChoices beyond its implementation and effects on the business world.

Since the implementation of WorkChoices it has also been common for Orgainsations to shift their culture from one of stability and trust to fear and uncertainty. Business ethics include trustworthiness and the uncertainty created from the rise in temporary and casual contracts has challenged this. Employees who have had conditions altered or who fear that they may are likely to have distrust for their employers and the agreements which are being presented to them. Elton (2007) also describes findings that have shown decreases in security and in income from employees as a result of WorkChoices. It has also been found that low income earners are the most likely to be affected by the changes such as the unfair dismissal amendments (Elton 2007).

Avenues available to those who have been dismissed such as with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission are often extremely expensive. This ultimately means that the low income earners who are mostly affected do not have a chance for remedy (Elton 2007). This type of circumstance hardly reflects compassionate values that should be reflected in the ethical business world.

The ethics of fairness and justice are included in the main ethics in business. It is these that have been challenged in the past and even more so since the introduction of WorkChoices. Women’s role in the Australian workplace has been increasing over recent decades, with problems still existing in terms of issues such as the glass ceiling. Women employees are more likely to be causal and the increasing casualisation as a result of WorkChoices is simply going to affect women more (Gray and Collins 2007). Women also have a high participation in industries such as aged care, hospitality and retail. Interestingly, it is these industries that have been hard hit by WorkChoices (Kelly 2007). Research has shown that the majority of women in the above industries hah had a reduction in conditions. This included reduced pay and occurred after the implementation of WorkChoices (WorkChoices hurts 2007). In 2005, female union members earned 23 per cent more than female non-unionists (Peetz 2007) and females in general earned nine per cent less than males. Therefore not only have women had to focus on their lesser earnings than their male counterparts, but now also on the declining union density. WorkChoices is aiming to decrease Union presence despite the historically large difference between female unionists and non-unionists. This activity seems not only unjust, but interestingly seems fitting with the past.

WorkChoices and Values of the Past

Many of the ethical implications discussed resulting from WorkChoices have been interestingly linked to policies and social trends of the past. There has been an increased susceptibility of the workplace to bullying, lower wages, reduced working conditions and hours and a lack of trust. These factors were all features that Australia had been moving away from.

WorkChoices and Business Ethics

Basing findings of ethical implications on the ethical business values, it seems that all of these have been challenged as a result of WorkChoices. Honesty, trustworthiness, compassion, fairness and justice have been contested either through the flexibility created through the WorkChoices amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 or through the actual changes made at the workplace level.

References