Margaret Wilson: Drop the rhetoric and we'll forge good law

COMMENT

Employment laws not only set the scene for people's working lives, but also New Zealand's ability to compete in a global labour market.

Much debate about the Employment Relations Act, and the Government's plans to fine-tune it, needlessly pits employers against unions as if this was the main issue. That adversarial mindset contributes little to the country.

Successful businesses benefit all New Zealanders. The goal of employers to make a profit and of employees to improve their working lives are not mutually exclusive, and our employment law must balance everyone's interests.

The Employment Relations Act encourages people to deal with each other in good faith, to co-operate and to participate. It is part of an overall package of workplace legislation that the Government has introduced to prevent New Zealand from deteriorating into a low-wage country.

That framework is almost complete: Paid parental leave, health and safety, a reasonable minimum wage and holiday entitlements are about making New Zealand a good place to work. The vision has been certainty, stability and equity in the labour market.

But this is not a feel-good, utopian exercise. It is essential, if New Zealand is to compete globally.

We must be able to attract and retain the skilled and talented employees necessary for economic growth. Our population is aging. A world skills shortage is looming - one prediction is the United States will be 27.9 million employees short by 2031. We have to compete.

Every employee is really going to count in coming decades. It's doubtful New Zealand will ever pay the highest wages in the world, but we can offer quality of life and workplaces that value employees through fairness, openness and the ability to give and take.

New Zealand also has international obligations. As a member of the International Labour Organisation and a signatory to core ILO Conventions, it must uphold employees' rights to freedom of association and to organise and bargain collectively.

Those rights are part of the fundamental international labour standards used as a benchmark for the provision of human rights.

While the Employment Relations Act and proposed amendments do promote collective bargaining, every employee remains totally free to choose whether they wish to join a union. Employees have a right to make a genuine choice, and protecting choice is a stated aim of the Act.

The changes promoted by the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill pose no problems for the majority of employers, employees and unions who already practise good faith behaviour and recognise the value of working co-operatively.

The amendments reflect the need to accommodate a diverse workforce. The vast majority of employees are covered by individual agreements. Collective bargaining applies only to the 20 per cent that choose union representation, perhaps as few as 1 per cent of collectives are multi-employer collective agreements and the transfer of undertaking provisions are targeted at the sectors where there are real problems.

These basic employee protections exist in most OECD countries. Australia has much stronger labour market regulation. It is too simplistic to say that regulation is automatically bad for business, and what amounts to Government "intervention" is in eyes of the beholder.

Productive employment relationships need commitment from, and sometimes compromise by, all parties. Likewise, a durable employment relations framework inevitably requires commitment from, and some compromise by, unions, business groups and the Government.

Some employers associations feel the already extended submission period is too short. In my experience, select committees are reasonable about trying to accommodate submitters with genuine time issues.

Engagement is at the heart of the ERA and is now required as the proposed amendments are considered by the select committee. The process always improves the understanding of a bill, and it allows for improvements to the bill itself.

As Minister of Labour, I am genuinely interested in the submissions. I have offered to meet groups and individuals that want further discussion. Reasonable debate, not rhetoric, will get the best outcome from the democratic process.